Steve claims Arlen is only 60% correct where Arlen is 100% correct on material facts

[Arlen G. Holder]

Steve just now claimed Arlen is only 60% correct on material facts,
o Where Arlen is 100% correct on material facts(1)

If Steve's claim has even a _single_ fact to back it up
o Let's hear it.

Name just _once_ where my facts were materially wrong.
o Name just once.

Steve: Adults own a belief system which is _based_ on facts.
o Name just one fact which supports _your_ (imaginary) belief system.

Name your cite.
o Name just one

--
(1) Since I'm human and since Usenet is a casual medicum, out of thousands
of posts over the decades, I must have made a factual material mistake at
least once, but since I don't easily form imaginary belief systems, I'm
never threatened by facts like those who form imaginary belief systems are.
The fact is that nobody can find any material fact I've ever stated on
Usenet that was wrong (trust me, they've tried), which you have to admit is
pretty incredible to earn such stellar credibility on Usenet.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 16 May 2019 18:44:56 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> If Steve's claim has even a _single_ fact to back it up
> o Let's hear it.

Since I care about facts, I should reference exactly what Steve said:
o Apple App Store Security Bypassed By Government iOS Surveillance Malware
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/bC1CDU1pGNM/ucRt17beAwAJ>

By being correct on material facts, I don't mean typos, or even transient
thinkos (e.g., forgetting a negative in a sentence where it's clear from
the context that it's a casual thinko) where I'll instantly apologize if I
make a thinko in a casual response (which does happen from time to time
since Usenet is a casual ad hoc discussion medium).

Nor do I mean a case where there was a momentary lapse in recollection, or
in a minor issue of calling someone an idiot when they make a stupid
statement - where you might not thing they're as much an idiot as I might.

Nor do I mean a disagreement on "philosophy" or "opinion", such as...
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>

I mean material facts, such as the on-topic point of any particular thread.

Most importantly, since Apologists tend to claim imaginary functionality
o If I claim the functionality currently exists or not - that's a fact.

Ask Snit about that.
o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0>

You. Steve may not like 40%% of my facts; but they're still 100% facts.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Thu, 16 May 2019 19:09:04 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> You. Steve may not like 40%% of my facts; but they're still 100% facts.

FACTS:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZTmmGoAndyM>

Adults aren't afraid of facts.
o Because facts form the basis of an adult belief system.

Yet again, just now, Steve claimed I was "only 60%" correct on material facts
o And yet, it was trivial to prove that Steve was dead wrong on that.

o Do any Android phone manufacturers throttle (CPUs, PD Charging, Modems) like Apple consistently does?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZTmmGoAndyM/UxvB5AMeCAAJ>

Yet more proof that I'm 100% correct on material fact, is here:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZTmmGoAndyM/zD6jp0gjCAAJ>

Adults should be able to comprehend facts.
o Where, my strategy, clearly, is to bring TRUTH to this newsgoup

My tactic is to bring that TRUTH, one fact at a time.

--
Finally - Someone who brings TRUTH to this newsgroup - one fact at a time.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

I'm not afraid of facts.
o Because facts form the belief system of an adult.

Steve has yet again made a statement, which he cannot back up with facts.
o The reason is clear ... Steve ... like a child ... just made it up.

I'm not afraid of facts, Steve Scharf.

You have _never_ found even a _single_ material fact I've posted
o That was not 100% correct (in my many thousands of posts on Usenet!)

Nobody has.
o We already proved that you, Steve Scharf, just made it up.

The permanent Usenet record will show Steve does this time & again.

Just now, Steve Scharf "just made it up" again.
"Arlen Holder ignores facts when it doesn't suit his agenda,
and cites facts when it does. He is often correct but also
often incorrect."

REFERENCE:
o PSA - wall warts using power when they're not being used (still plugged in)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/09X2t81cDNU/v4ExdSG9AAAJ>

Steve,
All you need to do, to back up your claims, is name just one fact.
o Name just one

The fact your belief system is comprised of exactly zero facts
o Tells me all I need to know about you Steve Scharf.

And, better yet, the Usenet record will preserve this for you, me, and
yours and my grandkids to read, years into the future.

If you can't back up your statements with even a _single_ fact, Steve:
o You should STOP just making them up.
--
The problem with people like Steve Scharf is that they just make it up.
They can't prove even a _single_ statement, they make, using facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 10:29:18 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Perhaps you're not as well educated as you think?

*I HAVE NEVER ONCE STATED A MATERIAL FACT ON USENET THAT WAS WRONG*!(1)
o That fact alone, proves I own adult cognitive skills, Alan Baker.

I claim to be highly educated, Alan Baker.
o I also claim to have worked, for decades, in Silicon Valley startups.

If my claim is not correct... would I have survived for more than a month
in either of those two environments if I had the cognitive skills of the
average poster to this newsgroup?

Think about that Alan Baker.
o Almost none of you posters own the cognitive skills of a normal adult.

Let alone the cream of the crop of intelligent adults
o Bearing in mind, I've studied & worked with truly intelligent people.

You Apple apologists wouldn't last a month in competitive environments.
o You prove that _every_ single time you post.

One way to tell, Alan Baker, that we're not at the same level is that I
claimed my facts have _never_ been materially wrong(1) in my decades (how
many thousands of posts? I can't count them!) on Usenet, which is a
credibility standard unheard of on the Apple-based newsgroups.

For example, nospam's credibility (admittedly, the best of the apologists)
barely approaches the results of a simple coin toss.

The only poster I can think of who is even better than I am, is David
Empson, but there may be other Apple posters who own adult cognitive
skills.

But not you. Nor Barry Margolin.

I know you so well Alan Baker, that I can predict your response, which is
you claim I was "materially wrong" by stating the published facts regarding
the exact dates and times that Apple was informed of the FacePalm bug,
which you carried out to the nth degree, much like a child does because
that's the _best_ you could come up with (where I proved my facts were as
published, just as you took your facts from a mere youtube post).

Or, you'll claim that the published musings on the Internet about the
refurbished iPhone X were wrong, which, again, I posted EXACTLY what the
articles said, where those are facts that I published. Whether or not those
rumors came to fruition is a completely different issue than the fact I
published and referenced the exact stated facts, and by whom.

Similarly, nospam plays his silly child-like games around the fact that iOS
can't do the simplest of things (like graph wifi over time) where the game
he plays is to say it can be done if you want to become a developer, which
isn't what I said - I said there are no apps on the app store.

Likewise, nospam plays his silly childish game around the fact that I said
the iPhone 8 and iPhone X got throttling _software_, where nospam plays the
silly semantic game saying he knows of no phone that was actually
_throttled_, etc.

The material facts I stated are NEVER wrong!(1)

You apologists constantly prove to not own adult cognitive skills.
o And, you always prove to play fifth-grade silly games around facts.

My point is, Alan Baker, that I've NEVER been materially wrong.
o You apologists can't even remotely fathom a credibility that stellar.

For you child-like Apple posters, that's an incredible thing to tout,
where, just as I said with Apple's imaginary claims of holier-than-thou
privacy, credibility is a CHAIN OF LINKS, any one of which if weak, will
break the chain of incredibility.

I claim holier-than-thou factual accuracy, Alan Baker.
o Prove me wrong!

The huge difference between me and you is that I'm not afraid of facts.
o Facts not only form the basis of my belief system - they bolster it.

If the facts change, my belief system changes to fit the facts.
o That's how intelligent adults cognitively process facts, Alan Baker.

Hence, I challenge YOU, Alan Baker, and the child-like Barry Margolin, and
EVERYONE on these Apple newsgroups (yes, even Steve Scharf, who claims I'm
only 60% right and yet, has NEVER once listed a fact that I stated that is
materially wrong in my entire life on Usenet).
o Steve claims Arlen is only 60% correct where Arlen is 100% correct on material facts
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/u7yQ959XPRU/a9jvGbXfAwAJ>

*I HAVE NEVER ONCE STATED A MATERIAL FACT ON USENET THAT WAS WRONG*!(1)
o I challenge you and all you childish apologists - to prove me wrong.

--
(1) I'm human and Usenet is casual, and worse, filled with babies who will
ignore that we may have mentioned details in the beginning of the thread
and then not repeat them in every post, so they claim that the facts were
wrong because of a detail left out that any adult KNOWS would have been
assumed, a priori (this is nospam's specialty). It's inevitable, after
decades of thousands of posts to Usenet, that I might have accidentally
gotten a fact wrong, but since my belief system is BASED on facts, and
since I generally quote the cite's exact words before paraphrasing them,
it's going to be rare to non-existent for my facts to be materially wrong.

Another game the apologists play (particularly Alan Baker) is that they
don't read the article or cite simply brazenly disputing the facts, merely
because they don't like them.

Sometimes the apologists dispute the facts because they didn't cognitively
comprehend the documentation (as with the case of Steve Scharf who claimed
Apple royalties per phone went down - and with the case of Alan Baker who
claimed that the three way convoluted payments only had Apple's one-way
component - which - of course - was Apple's devilishly clever marketing
spin which fed Alan Baker to believe exactly what Apple wanted him to
believe).

Other than minor typos and obvious thinkos, I have NEVER even once made a
materially wrong statement of fact (we're not counting obvious IMHOs, and
AFAICT, and AFAICR, etc.). We're talking material facts here.

This claim sounds astounding to child-like Apple posters; but, they seem to
not own basic adult cognitive skills, so it's only incredible to them
because they themselves can't fathom such a high standard of credibility.

I dare child-like apologists to cite a _single_ materially wrong fact.
o Name just one

[Arlen Holder]

I'm not afraid of facts, because I'm an adult
o My belief system is based on facts & bolstered by new facts that arise.

Steve Scharf, yet again, made the brazen claim that my facts are only 60%
correct in this post just now on iOS app functionality compared to Android:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/poG62SEefqk/EN3f0mDGBAAJ>

Every time Steve makes that brazen unfounded claim, I ask him to support
his brazen lie with at least a _single_ fact, as I did in my immediate
response:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/poG62SEefqk/y1t9KYjmBAAJ>

Notice Steve has _never_ once supported his claim.

Steve Scharf makes a bold claim - which I assert is based on exactly 0
facts.

Steve doesn't like that I call him out on his brazen lies
o But Steve is the one making the claim that he can't support

I ask again for Steve to support his brazen lie with at least 1 fact.

--
The problem with people who own childish imaginary belief systems is that
they actually belief in them, even though they can't name a _single_ fact
that underlies their belief system. (That's kind of sad.)

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 08:11:23 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Steve doesn't like that I call him out on his brazen lies
> o But Steve is the one making the claim that he can't support

I am not afraid of facts.
o It's a trait of adults.

Steve Scharf incessantly claims I'm 40% wrong on facts, which he did, just
now, yet again, despite the fact that he has yet to provide even a _single_
instance (in my thousands of posts) where I have gotten facts materially
wrong.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/poG62SEefqk/yLx3rnH6BQAJ>

In my response to Steve, I proved he was wrong on facts, which may be where
Steve Scharf gets his 40% number (i.e., perhaps he doesn't like that he may
be wrong so he calls me wrong - but I proved he was wrong in the Qualcomm
case and in the iPhone total-cost-of-ownership case).
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/poG62SEefqk/Ky8er0j7BAAJ>

No human can consider themselves an adult being wrong 40% on facts (IMHO).
o That approaches the level of the child-like apologists who simply lie.

What's said is that Steve actually said he's being "gracious" by affording
me as being almost half the time wrong on material facts, which shows how
_his_ mind works, since that level is so atrociously child-like as to be at
the basic level of the Apple Apologists who have been proven to own
completely imaginary belief systems.

I suspect, assuming Steve Scharf is an adult, that this is what he really
means, but he hasn't confirmed so we can only await an adult response from
Steve Scharf, which has not yet been forthcoming:

... this is an excerpt attempting to UNDERSTAND Steve Scharf's claims ....
am an adult Steve.
o 40% wrong is approaching the child-like levels of the apologists

You can't get through graduate school in demanding subjects or through
decades of Silicon Valley startups not being nearly 100% correct on facts.

You just can't.
o Being 40% wrong is the child-like level of the Apple Apologists, Steve.

These apologists don't care about their credibility as their entire belief
system is imaginary in the first place (which we've proven so many times, I
hope you don't need me to provide a cite for that!). :)

Just as badgolferman likely miscommunicated when he required a "native" app
where he most likely meant "default" app, if I assume you are an adult,
Steve, then your utterly preposterous 40% wrong statement is more than
likely that you disagree with 40% of my ASSESSMENTS of fact, Steve.

You don't appear to say that, but if I give you the benefit of the doubt on
why you make such a ridiculous claim that you haven't supported with even a
_single_ fact, then this may be what you're "attempting" to say:

1. An adult owns two very important skills
a. The ability to comprehend basic facts
b. The ability to make rational, logical, sensible & reasonable assessments

Notice that all adults should agree on (a), the basic facts.
Notice that all adults can reasonably disagree on the weight and value of
the assessments of those facts.

I suspect, if I assume you're an adult Steve Scharf, that you can't
possibly disagree with 40% of the facts, since that would drop you to the
level of the child-like Apple apologists who prove to be immune to facts.

I suspect, if I assume you're an adult, Steve Scharf, that you simply
disagree with the weighting of 40% of my assessments of those facts - which
is perfectly fine.

In summary, you are welcome to disagree with 40% of my ASSESSMENTS of
facts; but you have zero basis in fact to make the claim that I'm 40% wrong
on material facts.

--
In short, adults would never be 40% wrong - only children are that wrong
(and apologists), where I think what Steve Scharf may be trying to say is
that he disagrees with 40% of my assessments of facts (which is fine); but
no adults should ever disagree on the facts since without facts, they're
just owning completely imaginary belief systems (like children own).

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote :

> Well this is one rare instance where "Arlen Holder" is correct.

Hi Steve,

Stop incessantly proving you own the mind of a small child, Steve.
o Just stop it.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/P5b1Ujau6iU/5RZigzAKAwAJ>

I get it that apologists _hate_ facts about Apple products.
o They _hate_ that the product isn't what MARKETING claimed it was.

Leave that childishness to the child-like Apple apologists, Steve.
o I _expect_ people like you (& badgolferman), to act like an adult.

I assume you graduated from at least an undergraduate curriculum...
o Which, if true, means you _can_ comprehend slight bits of detail.

What you clearly disagree with are my "assessments" of fact, IMHO.
o But yet you repeatedly "claim" that my "facts" are wrong.

If you are intelligent, Steve, you'll comprehend the difference.
o If you're an apologists, you'll _never_ comprehend the difference.

FACT:
In decades of posting to Usenet, my facts have _neve_ once been wrong!
o Once in a while the facts change - so the assessments change.

But the facts have _never_ even once in decades of posting, been wrong.

Clearly that's a fact - so why do you state that they're wrong?
o Clearly, you confuse the difference between a fact & an assessment.

They are quite different things, Steve:
o A fact is a fact (all adults agree on facts - it's what adults do).
o An assessment of that fact is where adults can disagree.

Example of a fact:
o The number of CPU cores in my Moto G7 is 8.
Example of an assessment:
o This matters or this doesn't matter, for performance.

Steve,
There are almost zero adults on this newsgroup (that's an asssessment based
on facts); please stop proving you are in the apologists group.

Please use your college education, even if it's only an undergrad
education, and begin to comprehend these are two different things:
1. Fact (all adults agree on facts because, well, because they're facts)
2. Assessments (adults often disagree on assessments).

Here's another example where you got your facts wrong, Steve:
a. You claimed Apple Qualcomm royalties went down per phone.
b. I proved they went up (simply by comprehending the cites).

Now here's an assessment of those facts:
a. Apple "surrendered" to Qualcomm.

Steve, the reason this is important is you repeatedly claim that my facts
are wrong in many cases (you said almost half the time, in fact), where my
facts are never wrong (unless the facts change over time, which sometimes
happens when new information is published).

My facts are almost never wrong, Steve.
o That's because they're facts.

What you confuse is the difference between fact & assessment.
o Steve claims Arlen is only 60% correct where Arlen is 100% correct on material facts
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/u7yQ959XPRU/a9jvGbXfAwAJ>
--
Apple owners prove they can't tell the difference between fact & fiction.

[Arlen Holder]

We find out, only now, Steve disagrees with 60% of my _assessments_ of fact.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/RrXonVt7_y0/NIoktIY2AQAJ>
VERBATIM:
"I think what's sad is that he really could provide useful information on
some occasions, probably about 40% of what he posts is factual. If he
took the snarkiness out of that 40% of factual informntion [sic], and
dropped the other 60%, he could rehabilitate himself."

Notice that an adult comprehends these are two different things:
a. A fact
b. An assessment of that fact

Facts are facts, which is something that all adults agree upon.
o Facts are what makes science science and engineering engineering.

What adults can easily disagree upon are _assessments_ of those facts.

An example of a fact is, for example:
o The SARS-CoV-2 virus has a spike protein activated by furin & ACE2.

An example of an assessment of that fact could be, for example:
o That's one of the key traits that makes this virus attach so well.

Notice, the fact is that the furin enzyme cleaves the glycoprotein spike
studding the coronavirus envelope (it's why it's called a "corona" virus).

That cleaved spike now has an affinity for your ciliated lung cells which
is orders of magnitude better than SARS-CoV-1 had, where classical SARS
doesn't have the furin-activated receptor activity.

Here is another fact & assessment example:
A. The fact is that ACE2 & furin enzymes are in lung, liver, & intestines.

Here is an assessment of that fact:
B. That's why this SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung, liver, & intestines well.

Here's yet another fact & assessment example:
A. The fact is SARS-CoV-2 virus is of zoonotic origin (bats most likely).

Here's an assessment of that fact:
B. Hence our humoral immune system is ineffective at first, which leaves us
ot the innate immune system, which has problems (e.g., cytokine storms).

Notice that I said a _lot_ in those ad hoc examples, all of which are
scientifically based, where my main point is that adults need to comprehend
the difference between a FACT and an ASSESSMENT of that fact
(often called an "opinion").

My facts are never wrong(1).
o It's the assessment of those facts which you apologists disagree with.
--
Note that apologists actually try to refute facts, which is why I assess
apologists as owning the mind of a small child, since adults never disagree
with facts (facts are funny that way).

[John Gardner]

God himself wishes he was as perfect as Arlen.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote :

> Clearly he doesn't understand how User Agent strings work. He's
> incorrect, but he probably just doesn't understand the technology.

WTF?

A user agent string is a string.
o There's nothing more or less to it.

It's just a string for God's sake.
o Apologists like Alan Baker & Steve Scharf have no concept of "strings".

> If "Arlen" is really concerned about tracking he should use a VPN to
> change his IP address

That again _proves_ Steve is a moron.

Clueless apologists like Steve Scharf are _immune_ to the simplest of fact,
where I must have stated scores of times on this newsgroup I'm on one of
over six thousand VPN servers at any given time for Christs' sake.

I have entire threads and tutorials on using VPN full time for Gods sake.
o And yet, apologists like Steve Scharf are utterly _immune_ to facts.

My own NNTP posting host clearly shows changing servers for heaven's sake!

> and a utility like TMAC to change his MAC address
> <https://technitium.com/tmac/>.

WTF?
o Who on this planet is as stupid as that suggestion just proved him to be?

Does Steve Sharf have _any_ idea how MAC addresses work?
o None whatsoever?

Really?

People as stupid as Steve's comments just proved, shouldn't even exist.
o And yet, they do.

> I no longer see his posts, but when I did, his posts were correct about
> 40% of the time and incorrect about 60% of the time.

We have an entire thread on that subject, where Steve Scharf can't tell the
difference between a fact and an opinion.
o *Steve claims Arlen is only 60% correct where Arlen is 100% correct on
material facts*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/u7yQ959XPRU/a9jvGbXfAwAJ>

> The real problem with his
> posts is the snarky and obnoxious tone of them.

I don't blame Steve Scharf for being upset that it's trivial to prove that
what he posted, in this thread alone, is proof he's an utter moron.

See also:
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basic*
*skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>
--
The problem isn't that apologists are morons; it's that they don't know it.

[xArlxen Hoxldxer]

In response to what "Arlen G. Holder" <arling...@nospam.net> wrote :
Steve's baseless claim is easily shown to be the act of an ignorant coward.

Facts:
o My credibility on facts is nearly 100% in decades of posting to Usenet.

Assessments:
o Anyone is welcome to logically & reasonably disagree with my assessments.

But if you claim, as Steve does, that I'm almost half wrong on facts...
o Then you can expect me to ask you to back up your assessment
... with at least one fact ...

It's what _adults_ would be expected to do.

Regarding this recent set of uncalled-for related posts from Steve Scharf:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/lry_-LUtso0/4hjPFHuvAAAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/lry_-LUtso0/0mjiAeLaAAAJ>

And my direct _adult_ response to Steve's childishness:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/lry_-LUtso0/fVFth6rAAAAJ>

Re: FACTS & ASSESSMENT of those facts...
o Adults should never disagree on facts (facts are funny that way);
o Adults can logically disagree on assessments (adults are funny that way).

For the permanent Usenet record...
o Steve Scharf has made his spurious unsupported claims multiple times.

And yet, he has _never_ backed his claim up with even a _single_ fact.
o *Steve claims Arlen is only 60% correct where Arlen is 100% correct*
*on material facts*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/misc.phone.mobile.iphone>

What Steve doesn't seem to comprehend is the basic difference between:
o Fact
o Opinion

What Steve's really saying is that he disagrees with my "opinion" 40% of
the time, which is fine, as adults can reasonably assess facts differently.

But Steve is apparently not intelligent enough to know the difference
between a fact and an assessment of that fact - since he says the "facts"
are wrong almost half the time - and yet - any adult can see Steve has
_never_ pointed to even a _single_ fact which was wrong.

Not even one.
o And that's a fact.

In fact, Steve when silent when I showed him (with facts) that Qualcomm's
royalties per iPhone went _up_, rather than down - simply because Steve was
incapable of reading facts in a simple news article.

Given Steve's current job, I find it a bit scary that Steve is _that_
incapable of processing basic facts about a relatively complex transaction.

The scary thing is that Steve _should_ be smarter than he proves to be...
o Given his Cupertino roots...

In fact, I'm glad I don't live in Steve's town, as I'd vote him out of
office if I could since he _proved_ to be incapable of comprehending
something that I would expect any _adult_ to be able to process.
o *Apple may have paid something like two and a half to three*
*and a half billion USD to Qualcomm (which is going to be paid*
*by the poor Apple consumer)*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/lJ4CkRhfCwAJ>

The fact is that _all_ the apologists, Steve Scharf & Alan Baker included
o Failed to comprehend the simply royalty calculation was on iPhones

And that, in and of itself, is what scares me about you apologists.
o You're so easily proved to be incapable of adult facultative cognition.
--
ID changed temporarily so that it ensures Steve is aware I will defend
myself since my credibility is important to me, and since Steve repeatedly
makes his baseless claims, like all the cowardly apologists seem to do.

Steve's baseless claim is the act of an ignorant coward.

[Your Name]

On 2020-05-10 02:49:18 +0000, xArlxen Hoxldxer said:

> In response to what "Arlen G. Holder" <arling...@nospam.net> wrote :
> Steve's baseless claim is easily shown to be the act of an ignorant coward.
>
> Facts:
> o My credibility on facts is nearly 100% in decades of posting to Usenet.

You're so-called "facts" are in reality half-assed mistruths that
you've cherry-picked and plain lied about to suit your own anti-Apple
trolling,.

> Assessments:
> o Anyone is welcome to logically & reasonably disagree with my assessments.
>
> But if you claim, as Steve does, that I'm almost half wrong on facts...
> o Then you can expect me to ask you to back up your assessment
> ... with at least one fact ...
>
> It's what _adults_ would be expected to do.

<snip>

Then you better go find an adult ... you're simply a moroinc 8 year old
name-changing know-nothing anti-Apple troll. Yet another name for the
imbecile is added to the killfile. :-\

[Arlen Holder]

Update:

Steve bullshits so much, that he _hates_ when people call him out on it.

In this thread, he bull'shat like there was no tomorrow on Verizon shills:
o Is there any disadvantage to roaming in the USA?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/t65fMFrPCVw>

Out of about a dozen supposed cites, _none_ were even close to recent (the
most recent was 2014) and two were from 2011, and worse, all of them were
either marketing shills or wholly unsubstantiated forum posts from
nobodies.

Steve actually tried to bullshit us by claiming _those_ were his facts!

Two of his cites, shockingly, actually concluded with the _opposite_ that
Steve claimed they supported.

That means Steve didn't even _read_ his own cites, for God's sake.
o Who on earth bullshits us expecting us not to read the cites?

Not a single cite from Steve backed up his bullshit claims on Verizon.
o Not even one.

What Steve hates, I suspect, is that I click on & read his cites.
o And I call him out on his bullshit.

It works on Apple newsgroups because the clientele is stupid
o But Steve's never ending bullshit doesn't work on intelligent people.
--
People like Steve Scharf bullshit so much they think we believe them.

[Arlen Holder]

Update.

The fact is Steve has _never_ found even a single fact from me to be wrong.
o Not even one.

And yet, he claimed, just this week, that I'm only 20% correct on facts.
o Fancy that.

Steve _hates_ that I call him out on his bullshit - by citing facts.
o And yet, Steve can't find even a _single_ fact backing up his statements.

Not even one.
o Steve's entire belief system, is, in a word, "bullshit".

Want proof?
o Look here...where I spent hours compiling detailed information...

Which, sans a _single_ fact, Steve says is 20% correct.
o What free, ad free, account free, free unlimited bandwidth VPN
(aka proxy) browsers do you know of?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/Ptd7f_C4MbM/>

Specifically this post is where Steve makes his bullshit claim:
o <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/Ptd7f_C4MbM/m/7aqt6MYxCgAJ>

"What is rather sad is that "Arlen" does occasionally post useful
and accurate information, probably about 20% of what he posts is
useful and true. If he could just stop being so Trump-like, and try to
be accurate and truthful all the time. He could start his rehabilitation
by following the example that many of us have set and use references to
support his contentions."

WTF?
o Very few people support their contentions more than I do, for God's sake.

Yet, that's literally what Steve said, when, in fact, neither Steve, nor
anyone, has ever found a fact I posted as a fact to be materially wrong on
Usenet

My credibility is 100% on facts, in fact.
o If you believe otherwise, expect me to ask where you get your facts from.

Note: Morons like Steve don't know the difference between a fact and an
assessment of that fact, e.g., for example (tongue in cheek).

FACT:
o Apple sells a red phone.
ASSESSMENT:
o It's a marketing gimmick.

Steve is a consummate bullshitter.
o The fact supporting that is he claims I'm 80% wrong.

And yet, he can't find even a _single_ fact that he claims is wrong.
o Not even one.
--
Steve's bullshits like there is no tomorrow - expecting us to believe it.