Re: What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:42:34 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the typical iOS
> poster on this newsgroup?

UPDATE:
o Seven Basic Habits of the Apple Apologists when responding to fact:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

... *HABIT 1:*
. They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary app functionality
. They then exclaim that it's been told to us many times how to do it
... *HABIT 2:*
. They almost never back up statements with actual referenced facts
. They incessantly play childish semantic games when faced with those facts
... *HABIT 3:*
. They deny facts a priori - without even reading the referenced facts
. Then they complain about quote snipping of their silly semantic games
... *HABIT 4:*
. They're never purposefully helpful by helping the OP answer the question
. They post worthless retorts, all of which lack any added technical value
... *HABIT 5:*
. *They consistently blame Android for Apple's app & hardware faults*
. They consistently find the absolute worst price:performance comparisons
... *HABIT 6:*
. They actually believe that a well-documented process is too complex!
. They literally believe elapsed time is proof of actual resolution time.
... *HABIT 7:*
. They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened
. They then wittily respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 22:19:35 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> UPDATE:
> o Seven Basic Habits of the Apple Apologists when responding to fact:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

UPDATE:
This thread below, over the past 24 hours, is a PERFECT APOLOGIST example!

o It proves Apologists are far to the left in Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias
o Apologists _blame_ everyone but Apple for Apple's faults
o Apologists deny even that which Apple, themselves, admits

REFERENCE:
o facetime privacy bug
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/NFW7nz6FELw>

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 04:38:27 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> o Apologists deny even that which Apple, themselves, admits

The apologists like nospam & Jolly Roger & Lewis, et al., suffer from two
ignominious faults:
o They constantly make up bullshit to excuse Apple's behavior, and, worse
o They constantly send innocent people on hopeless wild goose chases

The pointless wild-goose chases is what irked me most about Apologists.

They, seemingly maliciously, constantly sent people on unproductive wild
goose chases when asked even the simplest of questions on how to do things
in Mac & iOS that turn out to be impossible but that are obvious on all
other platforms.

Why are they so purposefully cruel?
o At first I thought they were simply ignorant of what iOS could do
o I have realized they sent people on futile wild-goose chases _on purpose_

These malicious wild-goose chases can only be purposefully malicious on
their part.

It was horrible what they do to innocent clueless people who ask questions.
o Ever since then, I decided to expose them for exactly what they are.

In addition, a lessor offense the apologists all own is the simple fact
o Their belief system is completely imaginary.

I can easily understand _why_ their belief system is purely imaginary
o Marketing is in the business of creating imaginary belief systems
o And Apple Marketing is one of the finest on this planet at that endeavor

For example, we've easily proven that no mobile device is private, where I
can list facts where iOS isn't at all private and where Android is, and
vice versa, and I can just as easily list facts where both are private and
both are not private.

Any adult who is logical and sentient can do that
o But not the Apologists

They actually _believe_ that their imaginary belief system, which is handed
to them by Apple, is, in actuality, real.

This is why it takes only about ten seconds to DESTROY anything nospam says
o Their imaginary belief system doesn't hold up well to actual facts

BTW, I'm perfectly fine with the Apologists owning a personal belief system
which is entirely imaginary, as that is _why_ they own Apple products in
the first place; what I'm against are the constant bullshit arguments they
propose (e.g., remember when Snit "proved" that iOS could do something as
simple as graph wifi all visible wifi access points over time?)
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo> (Snit video)

The apologists (and even Frank Slootweg) ate that idiocy up for weeks!
o And yet, not a single one of them ever even looked at the Y axis!

In short, I don't mind their imaginary belief system as long as they keep
it to themselves, but what I mind greatly is that they constantly send poor
unsuspecting users on pointless wild goose chases out of sheer malicious
intent.
o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users
on wild goose chases?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I/QOiGP4_SFQAJ>

> While he brings occasionally valid points,
> his general attitude is rather unlucky.

I've studied all the apologists and can even list the most egregious ones.

What's important are their traits, which are common to all of them:
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple
Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

Fundamentally, they bullshit like there is no tomorrow:
o Since their entire belief system is imaginary, facts destroy their
beliefs
o Hence, they can't stand actual _facts_ about the Apple product line!
o So they incessantly bullshit, creating imaginary functionality where none
exists.

o The real question is Why do Apple Apologists _hate_ facts about Apple
products?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/boEv7_ePPQ0/ck2VBgaaCgAJ>

Again, I wish to be clear; I don't mind at all that they own imaginary
belief systems; what I mind is that they argue incessantly with people who
don't own their imaginary belief system, where they just make everything
up.

They waste our time with their constant childish bullshit
o I think it's because facts literally _threaten_ their belief system

> In my understanding, Apple and Microsoft have one common thing:
> "They know better than their customers, what they really need and want.".

I think _all_ marketing is in the business of creating imaginary belief
systems.

Since you have a chemistry degree (and since I have plenty of college-level
chem classes), I'll use an example out of basic organic chemistry.

For example, Exxon promotes "high-test fuel", which, as you know, is no
better than regular octane fuel for most cars (where paying more for
high-test is what a lot of people do, and where they waste their money on
their imaginary belief system that high-octane rated fuel is somehow
(magically?) better).

The octane rating is merely a scale based on the percentage of 2,2,4
tri-methyl pentane and hexane, where, in effect, the higher-octane fuel
performs _worse_ (although not measurably so in the real world) in cars
that are designed for the lower octane-rated fuels (for normally
functioning engines).

As another example out of organic chemistry, polyetheramines are sort of a
soap for gasoline, where "Techron" sells an imaginary belief system to
Chevron users in the United States. The "Techron" brand is actually
completely meaningless, since it's just a trademark, but the moment Chevron
puts that name on a gasoline product, people pay MORE for what is simply
polyetheramines which EVERYONE puts in their gasoline already.

My point is that _all_ marketing organizations create imaginary belief
systems in fools, which is fine by me becuase I can't fix those fools.

But when those fools do two things on this newsgroup, then I resort to
facts to combat their malicious posts.
1. If they send people on purposefully malicious wild-goose chases
2. If they spew purposefully deceitful unhelpful product bullshit

[Arlen G. Holder]

Consistently, the score of Apple Apologists blame everyone but Apple for
Apple's serious design flaws!

Just today, a serious MacBook design flaw was reported.
o Apple recalls older 15-inch MacBook Pros because the batteries could catch fire
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/-Gglzpp7ddk>

What do the Apologists instantly do?
o *They instantly blame Lenovo (of all companies) for Apple's serious design flaws!*

Happens every time!

It just proves that apologists are not like normal people.
o They're more like children.

Blaming everyone but Apple is one of the half dozen common traits of all
Apple Apologists.
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o Elfin <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka Lloyd, aka Lloyd Parsons)
o *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o Lloyd <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Liar!

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 04 Jul 2019 16:54:24 -0500, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Liar!

Maybe I know much more about Apple & Apple apologists than you think!

A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
B. Yet, Apple brilliantly advertises that they're _different_ on privacy.
C. Worse, Apologists _believe_ this highly advertised (but false) claim
D. Then, when mere facts come out saying Apple is the same as everyone else
E. Amazingly, Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple being the same!

A classic case of the imaginary privacy advertised by Apple ensued today...
o Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZN_5IjhNFSM/1x6tTFmxEgAJ>

Based on reliable facts showing Apple is no more private than anyone else:
o Workers hear drug deals, medical details and people having sex
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>

This situation is absolutely canonically CLASSIC for how the dynamic works!
1. Apple spends millions advertising (what is, in fact imaginary) privacy
2. Apple Apologists _believe_ (hook line & sinker) in that imaginary belief
3. Facts show privacy on Apple products is no different than anywhere else
4. Not only do the Apologists instantly (brazenly in fact) deny these facts
5. The Apologists always blame everyone but Apple for Apple's flaws!

This situation has been repeated for decades, and, as such, is classic!
First - Apple woos susceptible people with admittedly brilliant MARKETING!
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>

Then, the truth comes out that Apple is no more private than anyone else
o Apple is paying contractors to personally listen to millions of private
recorded Siri conversations every day which is NOT explicitly disclosed in
Apple's privacy pollicy
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ia3wMAwiD74>

*Facts instantly _DESTROY_ the apologists' imaginary belief system!*

Such that the Apologists react using the _same_ half-dozen traits

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple
Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

Where the canonical response by apologists is to blame everyone but Apple!
o Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
<https://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com/xqZp1CKP/apple-addresses-privacy-questions-about-hey-siri>

Notice the pattern?

Essentially, Apple sold privacy to the apologists, but the fact is that
Apple is no more private than anyone else is - and when the apologists find
that out - they BLAME EVERYONE BUT APPLE for Apple being just like
everyone!
o As expected, Apple beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones
(since they can't compete on performance)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EfMlrgxWkvQ/d6lR8F-kBAAJ>

Mere facts instantly destroy Apologists's imaginary belief systems:
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities
between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs/ATC1S3s4FQAJ>

In summary, it's elucidating to realize this is a classic documentation of
A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
B. Yet, Apple brilliantly advertises that they're _different_ on privacy.
C. Worse, Apologists _believe_ this highly advertised (but false) claim
D. Then, when mere facts come out saying Apple is the same as everyone else
E. Amazingly, Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple being the same!

Do you see how hilariously comic this canonical interaction proves to be?

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:23:54 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Given Jolly Roger is the canonical Apple Apologist, those of us who are
> wise should take this post from Jolly Roger as a perfect example of what an
> Apple Apologist truly is.

Why do the Apple Apologists always try to bullshit us?
o Apple apologists' brains are tuned to be utterly immune to factual logic.

Why?
I don't know why.
o Maybe they actually believe their own imaginary functionality?
o Or, maybe they just can't stand the fact that iOS is primitive.

I don't know why Jolly Roger tried to bullshit us just now.
o All I know is that he did (and that he always does).

It doesn't seem the apologists are used to working with _adults_ who
actually read the cites and check the facts that are claimed.

It seems apologists are always immune to facts, in fact, in that they spout
that which even they can't support with facts.

Since the apologists only have 7 responses to fact (none of them adult),
it's a dead giveaway whenever they pull the stunt of posting an
unidentified image off the net sans cites.

Almost always (if not always), when they pull that stunt, it's because it's
a feature that used to exist, or momentarily existed, and no longer does.

Case in post, I checked another of my iPads today in addition to my iOS
11.2.6, which is an iOS 12.4.4 iPad (the grandkids have my third iPad), and
it also says exactly what the iOS 11.2.6 iPad says:
"Enable Dictation? Dictation sends information like your voice input,
contacts, and location to Apple to process your requests."
<https://i.postimg.cc/pXrh2gyP/dictation01.jpg>
o How do you run speech to text transcription offline on iOS?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/V-piSLZ_I3w>

Hence, there are only two possible conclusions about the apologists:
a. Either apologists have absolutely no comprehension of iOS features, or,
b. Apologists are just bullshitting us all the time, all day, every day.
(Pick one.)

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect Apologists simply _hate_ facts such that they deny them just
because they don't like them.

Maybe apologists are tuned to bullshit, such that they themselves don't
even know how to distinguish between utter bullshit and adult facts?

*Whatever the reason, the apologists, yet again, tried to bullshit us!*

The Apologists brazenly deny facts without even _comprehending_ those
facts, where, even if the offline dictation actually existed in the listed
iOS releases, that feature still does _not_ save the dictation to an audio
file along with the text transcription of that audio file.

To his credit, surprisingly, Alan Baker immediately admonished Jolly Roger
in this post that Jolly Roger's argument was worthless for that purpose:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZfT4EkYIidE/Sbz0W4PJDgAJ>
"To be fair to Liar, the clueless dipshit troll (LTCDT?), he has been
talking about the transcription of previously recorded audio, and
while I've no doubt that the offline capabilities that work while
doing direct dictation could be used with audio files, I don't think
there's actually an interface that would allow you to do it."

Notice that even Alan Baker, of all people, knew Jolly Roger's bullshit.

And yet, Jolly Roger persisted in repeatedly claiming utter bullshit
imaginary functionality which he "claims" exists on iOS, but which I can
instantly prove, as is always the case since I own plenty of iOS devices,
that the apologists are merely bullshitting us, again (and again).

There is good news to this bullshit though... since apologists only have 7
basic responses to facts that they simply hate.

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

I think this event is instructive to help us UNDERSTAND the apologists'
behavior, which is that their brains appear to gravitate to wholly
imaginary completely unproven non existing imaginary functionality.
--
Apple Marketing is brilliant at advertising wholly imaginary functionality!
Apple apologists' brains are tuned to be utterly immune to factual logic.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:10:01 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> The apologists (instead of debating the facts)...
> a. *Reacted with _instant_ fifth-grade vitriol to these mere facts*.
> b. *Reacted with _instant_ blame of everyone but Apple for these flaws*.

As we saw in this thread:
o Famous iOS apps are snooping on the Pasteboard - Learn Worthy, by Ant
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/XXaeEvEB79Y>

*The apologists _instantly_ blame everyone but Apple for Apple's flaws*
o Why?

Is _anyone_ on this newsgroup intelligent enough to realize exactly _why_
the apologists always _instantly_ blame everyone but Apple for Apple flaws?

I am.

We see this all the time
o You saw it with Siri
o You see it with CPU throttling (even Apple does it!)
o You saw it here

It's everywhere!
o But only when Apple flaws are discussed.

I completely understand, after much thought, exactly why.
o But I doubt many of you comprehend why.

I don't say that glibly, since the answer to that question is what had
befuddled me for years, until I figured it out, where the answer is akin to
the ultimate understanding of the apologists' true thought process.

Until you accept these two basic facts, you'll never understand apologists.

FACT 1:
o Apologists instantly blame everyone but Apple for Apple flaws.

FACT 2:
o Windows/Linux/Android users never blame Apple for their OS flaws.
--
To understand why is to realize how powerful Apple MARKETING truly is.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:08:17 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

>>> google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
>>> also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
>>> score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
>>> highest ever'. money talks.
>>
>>Good to know. One more reason to despise DXO.
>
> Do you really believe nospam?
>
> He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
> support it.

Regarding this astute comment moments ago from Eric Stevens:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.photo.digital/C9L8UzRuPjE/5FfN2qiDAQAJ>

I've studied the strange brains of these Apple apologists for years.
o People like nospam have no adult defense to facts.

It's easy to figure out how nospam will react to _any_ fact about Apple
o Years before the fact even occurs.

Essentially, assume nospam works for Apple MARKETING...
o And assume nospam doesn't believe a single word he says himself.

Then, assume Apple MARKETING wouldn't like whatever "fact" it is.
o Now, you can guess what nospam will say, well ahead of time.

1. First, nospam will flatly deny the fact is a fact
(e.g., he denies that the DXOMark reviews are valid)
2. If he can't flatly deny it, he will blame everyone but Apple
(e.g., when he blames Google for "bribing" DXO Mark)
3. If he can't deny it or blame someone else, he will deflect it
(e.g., he'll go down some path that has nothing to do with the fact)

This technique works perfectly for nospam on all the Apple newsgroups
o I assess that's simply because those are particularly immune to facts.

However, on _adult_ ngs, like the Linux or Android ngs,
o This technique fails more often than not for nospam

Worse, when he runs into intelligent people who can comprehend facts
o Then nospam has absolutely no defense other than to change the facts

Literally, nospam will _edit_ someone else's quoted text
o Just so that he can THEN _respond_ to that (now edited) quoted text!

Don't believe me?
o Here are _multiple_ threads showing proof of exactly that!

o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children
in the face of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ>

Every time nospam runs across facts where the technique above fails him
o He then resorts to _changing_ the facts, so that he can respond!

See also:

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the
Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/O7CQGvc6AgAJ>

Notice the weakness of all apologists... is simple.
o Apologists like nospam have no adult response to facts.
--
Appologists have no adult defense to facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-18 2:39 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:08:17 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>>> google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
>>>> also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
>>>> score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
>>>> highest ever'. money talks.
>>>
>>> Good to know. One more reason to despise DXO.
>>
>> Do you really believe nospam?
>>
>> He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
>> support it.
>
> Regarding this astute comment moments ago from Eric Stevens:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.photo.digital/C9L8UzRuPjE/5FfN2qiDAQAJ>
>
> I've studied the strange brains of these Apple apologists for years.
> o People like nospam have no adult defense to facts.
>
> It's easy to figure out how nospam will react to _any_ fact about Apple
> o Years before the fact even occurs.
>
> Essentially, assume nospam works for Apple MARKETING...
> o And assume nospam doesn't believe a single word he says himself.
>
> Then, assume Apple MARKETING wouldn't like whatever "fact" it is.
> o Now, you can guess what nospam will say, well ahead of time.
>
> 1. First, nospam will flatly deny the fact is a fact
> (e.g., he denies that the DXOMark reviews are valid)

That implies a fact (that DXOMark reviews are valid) that you haven't
actually proved.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 19 May 2020 10:46:30 -0700, sms wrote:

> Once in a great while "Arlen" or "nospam" posts something useful and
> factual and the filters mean that I won't see that post. Oh well.

Notice the permanent record will show Steve _prefers_ to remain ignorant.

Unfortunately for Steve, filtering out facts simply means he (and most
apologists) will continue to remain shockingly ignorant of those facts.

I know exactly what's wrong with this newsgroup, for example:
1. The problem with this ng is that about a score of apologists exist
2. And there are only a small handful of adults who provide actual facts

If you _remove_ the apologists; harmony instantly re-appears.
o Or, if you remove the adults, the apologists will certainly be ecstatic.

Your choice, Wilf.
o Your choice, badgolferman.
o Your choice, JF Mezei.
o Your choice, Ant.
o Your choice, David Empson,
et al.

There are, it turns out, extremely few actual adults on this newsgroup.

In reality, this is the dynamic that adults deplore...
a. Apologist sends innocent user on fruitless wild-goose chase
b. Adult responds with facts that the claimed functionality is imaginary
c. Apologists forever respond calling all facts "lies by liars".

Apologists have only 7 responses to facts - none of them adult:

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the
Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>
--
The real problem with Apple newsgroups is simply that apologists exist.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 18 May 2020 15:13:41 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> The point is that the mere frequency of release isn't what's important.
>
> nobody said it was.

Hi nospam,

I'm going to treat you in this missive as if you are an adult, OK?

What matters is that the release is "sufficiently tested", nospam.
o Not that bugs other people "might" tell you about, are quickly fixed.

Bear in mind, there will always be tension between you and me simply
because I speak only facts rational logic while you simply always take the
position only of Apple MARKETING.

Hence, it's good you agree with the adult reasonable concept that the mere
"frequency" of release, isn't, in and of itself, _any_ determinant of the
quality of that release.

*The only thing that determines quality of release, is quality of release*.
o FACTS: "New Apple Security Blow: If You Have An iPhone, Look Away Now"
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/exp1iYDs3j0>

> what *is* important is the immediacy.

Again, I applaud you nospam, for exhibiting a rational reasoned opinion.
o Immediacy is important; but testing comes well before immediacy.

The reasonable take is that you should expect all _known_ security
vulnerabilities to be quickly fixed; but you should also expect a modicum
of testing that rational adults would term "sufficient".

And no, MARKETING doesn't get to be the determinant of "sufficient".
o You must be aware that Craig Federighi recently shook up engineering?

*The only thing that determines quality of release, is quality of release*.

>> o And that neither Android nor iOS push updates out to older devices
>
> false. android updates support devices 2-3 years back whereas apple
> typically supports 5 year old devices, occasionally longer.

What's _different_ about you, nospam, from the other apologists, is you
know the facts which is proved by the fact you dance around the facts using
"clever" qualifying words such as are used when others are dancing...
o I didn't "inhale"...
o I didn't have sexual "relations"...
o Throttling of the iPhone X isn't "as" necessary...
etc.

Where your 'dancing' word this time is:
o Apple "typically" supports...

What is disappointing about you, nospam, is you attempt to sway adults who
are not aware of those keywords (e.g., when Apple told Congress throttling
wasn't "as" necessary, in the iPhone X - and yet - it was!).

Here, you use the word "typically", which indicates you're aware of facts:
" there is *currently no commitment to patch previous versions of iOS*
to protect older iPhones.
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2020/05/10/apple-iphone-exploit-vulnerability-ios-13-mail-problem-update-iphone-11-pro-max-u-iphone-xs-max-xr-upgrade/>

In summary, you're a _different_ kind of apologist, nospam.

o *Type I apologist*: You are in a class of your own, nospam.
Essentially, you _always_ take Apple MARKETING's position.
And yet, you use clever qualifying words which indicate you
clearly _know_ the actual facts.
Like when you claimed that the wifi software 'can' be written, even
as it didn't exist, or like when you claimed that throttling was
different from 'throttling software' existing. And yet, at
other times, you flatly refute the facts, e.g., when you claimed
that the iPhone X didn't have throttling software (yet it did).

o *Type II apologist*: These don't always take Apple MARKETING's position,
but they're are simply ignorant of facts, e.g., Steve Scharf
who famously claimed that the Qualcomm royalties went down simply
because that's what he wanted to think (the facts showed otherwise),
or when he repeatedly makes claims about overall costs, without ever
including the actual costs (e.g., CA sales taxes, which you never
get back), or when he incessantly claims iPhone CPUs are 'faster' and
yet, he completely ignores they're soon to be throttled to half speed.

o *Type III apologist*: These are odd & strange Dunning-Kruger'esque
people who literally own absolutely no adult cognition whatsoever,
e.g., Alan Baker, Jolly Roger, Lewis, Savageduck, BK, Chris,
Joerg Lorenz, Your Name, et al.
No adult conversation is ever going to be possible with these
apologists so their only value is they prove the points for me.

As for you, nospam, this post of yours shows you _can_ think like an adult,
and that you are able to insert the clever qualifying words that most
people gloss over (a la, "I didn't have sexual _relations_ with that
woman").

I've pretty much figured you out nospam, as you're quite consistent.
o As am I.

If I simply assume you work for Apple MARKETING (figuratively speaking),
you _always_ take on that role to flatly refute any and all facts that are
detrimental to Apple Marketing's message.

With that understanding, I can predict almost everything you will ever
claim, since you never seem to own an independent thought process that
strays from Apple MARKETING dogma.

You can also easily predict that I will provide facts whenever you make
claims that are not based on the facts (which is most of the time).

And that I will clearly understand that it isn't the frequency of release
that matters, nor, as you seem to claim, the "immediacy" of the repair,
but, in the "sufficiency" of the actual testing.

What matters is that the release is "sufficiently tested", nospam.
o Not that bugs other people "might" tell you about, are quickly fixed.
--
There will always be tension between you and me simply because I speak only
facts rational logic while you simply always take the position only of
Apple MARKETING.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-19 12:43 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 10:46:30 -0700, sms wrote:
>
>> Once in a great while "Arlen" or "nospam" posts something useful and
>> factual and the filters mean that I won't see that post. Oh well.
>
> Notice the permanent record will show Steve _prefers_ to remain ignorant.

Notice for the permanent record that you lie as easily as you breathe.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 19 May 2020 18:46:51 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> People complain about Arlen. And I assume about me.
>
> Why are people not complaining against the group of posters whose
> participation is focused on discrediting and insulting people personally
> to ensure that any technical discussion devolves into a personal insult
> throwing session?
>
> It is also interestihg to see people come out of the woodwork in his
> thread but never participate in technical discussions and tolerate all
> the insult throwing posts from certain people.

For the permanent record to preserve...
o *The apologists call anyone who posts facts they don't like - a troll.*

JF Mezei is not an apologist, so an adult conversation is actually possible
with JF Mezei, and other non-apologists on this ng (although very few).

His argument is reasonable and logical which is that the "problem" is a
combination of two things, where the _number_ of people involved is skewed:
a. Some people post questions about facts on this newsgroup (but very few);
b. Scores of others purely focus on discrediting & insulting them.

Everyone knows Hemidactylus is no friend of mine, so suffice to use an
example of his recent thread, as shown below, where almost none of the
apologists who attacked him bothered to answer the question posed!

FACT:

An example of someone who tried to ask about a known fact recently was
o *Hemidactylus*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/9b5oQL8wX-Q>

FACT:

An example of apologists who instantly (tried to) discredit him was
o *Joerg Lorenz*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/9b5oQL8wX-Q/HHrDHw1pAAAJ>
"You are a primitive Troll."
o *roctb*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/9b5oQL8wX-Q/8N8lVUJpAAAJ>
"Shut the fuck up, moron."
o *Alan Browne*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/9b5oQL8wX-Q/utuKiqWnAAAJ>
"Try an enema."

Other than me, the _only_ other person in that entire thread who tried to
answer the question, was, surprisingly, Lewis, who attempted to minimize
the facts (which is a classic trait of all the Apple apologists), but even
so, Lewis immediately resorted to insults simply for someone asking the
question, which, as we all know, impugned the "honor" of the apologists
simply because it questioned Apple:
o *Lewis*

Here is Lewis' post, in full, which was the _only_ post (other than mine)
which even attempted to answer the factual question posed by the OP:

"It's nothing more than an annoyance, if someone sends you one
of these messages, so there is not pressing need.

Uh huh. That's right, were all rolling in Apple stock options.

I have an idea for you, Grow up."

Note: Lewis was dead wrong, but that's because he's immune to facts; but
the point is simply that Lewis and I were the only people who even tried to
answer the question posed.

The rest simply hurled insults, which is what has ruined this ng (IMHO).

As another example, of multiple posts, _none_ are on topic in this:
o New vulnerabilities (described as numerous) have been detected in Apple┬
Image I/O
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/RrXonVt7_y0>

Notice every post is apologists trying to discredit the bearer of facts.

The dynamic that ruined this newsgroup is pretty obvious to all adults.
o It's just not obvious to those who ruined this ng by their actions.

1. Someone posts a fact (or a question about a fact)
that apologists simply don't like.
2. The apologists, instead of discussing the fact, or answering the
question about that fact ... simply attack the poster of the facts.

It happens every time.
o The apologists call anyone who posts facts they don't like - a troll.
--
Bringing TRUTH to the Apple newsgroups by consistent application of fact.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-19 5:02 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 18:46:51 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:
>
>> People complain about Arlen. And I assume about me.
>>
>> Why are people not complaining against the group of posters whose
>> participation is focused on discrediting and insulting people personally
>> to ensure that any technical discussion devolves into a personal insult
>> throwing session?
>>
>> It is also interestihg to see people come out of the woodwork in his
>> thread but never participate in technical discussions and tolerate all
>> the insult throwing posts from certain people.
>
> For the permanent record to preserve...

That Arlen is for some strange reason presenting a post as being in
reply to someone else, when he in fact hit "Reply" to a post of mine:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/messageid$3Ara1d1q$24hqi$2...@dont-email.me>

Check the headers.

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:24:11 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> I won't deny that, but nospam also provides helpful guidance when
> someone other than you asks a question.

Hi badgolferman,

We don't disagree on nospam...

Serious question, badgolferman: how many people do you think on this
newsgroup own the facultative acuity to realize nospam's games when even
Congress was bamboozled by Apple's claims that throttling wasn't "as"
necessary (and yet, they added throttling in iOS 10, iOS 11, iOS 12, and
iOS 13!).

As I said, and have said, and I repeat... there are three types of
apologists, where nospam is "Type I" in a class of his own.

It's not that nospam doesn't know the answer...
o It's simply that his credibility is worthless.

And while you may "think" he only plays his silly games with me, you'd be
dead wrong since he plays his silly games with lots of people (he gets his
head handed to him routinely, for example, on the adult OS newsgroups).

The point about nospam that _you_, badgolferman, need to comprehend, is
that he _knows_ the answer - but he, like Apple MARKETING, isn't gonna tell
you that answer if he feels it's detrimental to the Apple MARKETING mantra.

In fact, he will tell you whatever Apple MARKETING would have told you if
you had a voice with them, which is why I can predict nospam's responses
_years_ in advance, simply if I assume what Apple MARKETING would say.

For example, nospam famously claimed there was no "throttling software" on
the iPhone X, but then later we found out he cleverly danced with the
words.

The point is that nospam leads innocent people astray all the time, where
his credibility is no better than the result of a coin toss.

If your question is on the one side of the coin toss, you're lucky.
o But if it's not, he leads you on a fruitless sadistic wild goose chase.

You know I don't make this shit up, so if you doubt me, just ask for
references, since I am an adult, and I can always produce references for my
belief system.

> One time in particular was
> when I couldn't backup/restore one of my phones. It turns out the
> cable I was using didn't have a data line and he provided the necessary
> clue for that. He often provides links to Apple support documents when
> an issue arises. There are other examples as well.

As I said, I think nospam is in a class of his own (which is why I call him
a TYPE I apologist). He knows the answer to most questions but he will ONLY
impart an answer which parrots the Apple party line.

For example, he knows there's no WiFi graphical debugging utility on iOS
but he dances around that fact where it's only after the umpteenth post
where he claims it exist that you find out he's claiming you could write
all your own apps if you wanted to.

> Regardless of your issues with nospam I have found him to be helpful in
> many cases and was disputing the previous poster's assertion that
> nospam is a useless troll.

As I said, nospam knows the answer but he will always toe the party line.

An example, is that he knows you can remove the iCloud account but that
basically renders the iOS device useless for an average user, while on
Android he knows you can remove the Google account and yet you still get
full functionality.

Yet he will take umpteen posts for you to get to that point that you
realize he's just sadistically toying with the words, just as Apple did in
February with Congress placating them by saying the throttling software
wasn't "as" necessary on the iPhone 8 and iPhone X, and yet, just 9 months
later, there it was on the iPhone 8 and iPhone X (which nospam denied).

Notice nospam denied that fact, but when you already know that nospam is
just playing silly word games (always in favor of Apple MARKETING mantra),
then you dig into what he says and you find that he was toying with the
facts.

Serious question, badgolferman, how many people do you think on this
newsgroup own the facultative acuity to realize nospam's games when even
Congress was bamboozled by Apple's claims that throttling wasn't "as"
necessary (and yet, they added throttling in iOS 10, iOS 11, iOS 12, and
iOS 13!).
--
Usenet is a wonderful polite public potluck of useful adult discussions.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 21 May 2020 09:48:08 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> How about when you insisted on calling a notice in the Location Services
> settings for iOS "Apple's Privacy Policy"...
>
> ...when that note itself provided a link to Apple's ACTUAL Privacy Policy?

Jesus Christ, Alan Baker...

At the risk of attempting this completely off topic conversation with an
utter moron, Alan, rest assured I'm aware of your various & sundry spurious
claims just as I'm well aware of your idiotic (and oft-repeated) claims
that I don't know what my headers are, when the fact is I can set them at
will (particularly the User-Agent string you recently made such a _huge_
deal about to the tune of a Snit-like hundred or more posts, Alan Baker).
o Every one of those hundred or so posts, proved you an idiot, Alan.

Did it ever occur to you Alan Baker that you are an utter moron?
a. You claim Apple didn't say what I posted verbatim the BBC (and others)
said Apple said (in French, which Apple was clever about to be clear).
b. You claim that the FaceTime bugs weren't reported to Apple when they
were where you base your entire argument on an anonymous YouTuber's claims.
c. You claim that I use NewsTap as my user agent even as I clearly
explained very patiently to you that the User-Agent line is merely a random
string in my use model.
d. Hell, you claim it isn't random, even as nobody else on the planet would
make such an easily shown to be wrong claim as you did.
e. You claim that a privacy policy blurb isn't a privacy policy blurb
simply because you disagree with _verbatim_ quotes in the press, etc.

Alan,
Rest assured I realize you are squarely in Quadrant 1 Dunning Kruger...
o And, based on your recent tirades, I suspect you own some kind of
disorder.

The facts are that those psychopathic tirades were kicked off simply
because you made your idiotic apologists' claims about the User Agent
string which, shockingly to you, it was trivial for me to prove you wrong.
o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to
basic skills an adult should have on the Internet?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo/c2tGdJZjBgAJ>

That simple fact of you being dead wrong unleashed a psychopathic tirade
of, oh, how many thread topic changes Alan?
o A handful, a dozen, a score?

How many articles did you post about your utter & complete misunderstading
of something as _trivially simple_ as a "user agent" string, Alan Baker?

How many?
o Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred?

I didn't count.
o All I know Alan, is that you are welcome to point to a FACT where you
"think" I quoted someone incorrectly in the literature, where you have
_never_ in your zillions of idiotic psychopathic posts, ever shown that to
be the case.

All you claim is your interpretation of what Apple said is _different_ from
what the BBC interpreted ... which is fine ... as that's an opinion... but
I did not incorrectly quote what the BBC said.
o Apple agrees to pay 25 million euros fine as Apple admits
"Apple committed the crime of deceptive commercial practice by omission"
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ/7leR4SkDAgAJ>
--
The problem with Apple apologists is that they're utterly immune to facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-21 10:18 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 09:48:08 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> How about when you insisted on calling a notice in the Location Services
>> settings for iOS "Apple's Privacy Policy"...
>>
>> ...when that note itself provided a link to Apple's ACTUAL Privacy Policy?
>
> Jesus Christ, Alan Baker...

Jesus Christ, Arlen.

Why can't you just admit you got it wrong and move on?

>
> At the risk of attempting this completely off topic conversation with an
> utter moron, Alan, rest assured I'm aware of your various & sundry spurious
> claims just as I'm well aware of your idiotic (and oft-repeated) claims
> that I don't know what my headers are, when the fact is I can set them at
> will (particularly the User-Agent string you recently made such a _huge_
> deal about to the tune of a Snit-like hundred or more posts, Alan Baker).
> o Every one of those hundred or so posts, proved you an idiot, Alan.

Let's put back what you snipped, shall we?

"Find _one_ time where I got the material facts wrong in my thousands
upon thousands upon thousands of posts on Usenet over the decades.
o Name just once."

So, with your agreement that you did say that in the post to which I was
replying...

...how is it "off topic" to actually point out a time when you got your
material facts wrong?

>
> Did it ever occur to you Alan Baker that you are an utter moron?
> a. You claim Apple didn't say what I posted verbatim the BBC (and others)
> said Apple said (in French, which Apple was clever about to be clear).

I have no idea what you're talking about.

What I know is that you took someone else's word that a note seen when
activating certain services in iOS was actually Apple's privacy policy.

And you stuck with it even after it was pointed out to you that it
wasn't Apple's privacy policy.

> b. You claim that the FaceTime bugs weren't reported to Apple when they
> were where you base your entire argument on an anonymous YouTuber's claims.

How is that relevant to you rebutting that you once claimed that a note
seen when activating certain services in iOS was actually Apple's
privacy policy when it wasn't in material fact Apple's privacy policy at
all?

> c. You claim that I use NewsTap as my user agent even as I clearly
> explained very patiently to you that the User-Agent line is merely a random
> string in my use model.

How is that relevant to you rebutting that you once claimed that a note
seen when activating certain services in iOS was actually Apple's
privacy policy when it wasn't in material fact Apple's privacy policy at
all?

> d. Hell, you claim it isn't random, even as nobody else on the planet would
> make such an easily shown to be wrong claim as you did.
> e. You claim that a privacy policy blurb isn't a privacy policy blurb
> simply because you disagree with _verbatim_ quotes in the press, etc.

I claim that you called it "Apple's Privacy Policy" when it was in fact
a note about security that explicitly referenced the actual official
Privacy Policy document within it.

>
> Alan,
> Rest assured I realize you are squarely in Quadrant 1 Dunning Kruger...
> o And, based on your recent tirades, I suspect you own some kind of disorder.
>
> The facts are that those psychopathic tirades were kicked off simply
> because you made your idiotic apologists' claims about the User Agent
> string which, shockingly to you, it was trivial for me to prove you wrong.
> o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to
> basic skills an adult should have on the Internet?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo/c2tGdJZjBgAJ>
>
> That simple fact of you being dead wrong unleashed a psychopathic tirade
> of, oh, how many thread topic changes Alan?
> o A handful, a dozen, a score?
>
> How many articles did you post about your utter & complete misunderstading
> of something as _trivially simple_ as a "user agent" string, Alan Baker?
>
> How many?
> o Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred?

Zero.

>
> I didn't count.
> o All I know Alan, is that you are welcome to point to a FACT where you
> "think" I quoted someone incorrectly in the literature, where you have
> _never_ in your zillions of idiotic psychopathic posts, ever shown that to
> be the case.

You asked for a time you got a material fact wrong.

I provided it.

>
> All you claim is your interpretation of what Apple said is _different_ from
> what the BBC interpreted ... which is fine ... as that's an opinion... but
> I did not incorrectly quote what the BBC said.

You didn't quote them at all.

You restated as fact that which was not fact.

And it wasn't the BBC: it was Krebs Security.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 21 May 2020 17:47:47 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

>>plus it is also significantly more secure.
>
> Only based on Apple's theoretical numbers which are incorrect. We've been
> over this and there's no point doing it again.

Hi Chris,

*Can anyone recall nospam ever _not_ taking the Apple MARKETING position?*

The most reliable way to predict _everything_ nospam will ever claim...
o Is to figuratively assume nospam gets paid by the post by Apple MARKETING

I was shocked that you acted like an adult on the adult OS newsgroups,
where I literally had to check that it was the "same" Chris there as here:
o Tutorial for setting up Ubuntu as a Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL in Windows 10
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/PV4Shdb67iM>

The good news is your posts on the adult OS newsgroups is evidence you
_can_ discuss facts like an adult - which puts you into the Tier II
apologist group, of people who "can" act like adults if they want to.
o Tier I: quintessential character === nospam
o Tier II: quintessential characters === Alan Browne, Andreas Rutishauser
o Tier III: quintessential characters === Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker

Type I === always take the position of Apple MARKETING (no matter what)
Type II === these are strongly swayed by MARKETING; but are not malicious
Type III === these are arguably quadrant 1 Dunning Kruger; and therefore
they react with vitriolic hatred to any fact they simply don't happen
to like, calling all facts "lies" and all bearers of facts "liars")

The most reliable way to predict _everything_ nospam will ever claim...
o Is to figuratively assume nospam gets paid by the post by Apple MARKETING

*Can anyone recall nospam ever _not_ taking the Apple MARKETING position?*
--
One can predict the response to facts from all 3 types of apologists...

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-21 2:21 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 17:47:47 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>>> plus it is also significantly more secure.
>>
>> Only based on Apple's theoretical numbers which are incorrect. We've been
>> over this and there's no point doing it again.
>
> Hi Chris,

Hi Arlen,

Why do you keep replying to my posts to address other people?

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 22 May 2020 08:01:48 +0200, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

>>> It is a fact of the englispeaking usenet that people tend to post
>>> anonymously and are much more often very rude and impolite to each other.
>>>
>>> That is an oberservation I made over 20 years in the englishspeaking
>>> usenet. It is quite different in french- or germanspeaking groups.
>>>
>>
>> Anonymity is similar to drinking. It allows people to do things they
>> normally don't have the balls to do in person. Anonymity takes it a step
>> higher. Most are internet badasses and heroes.
>
> Very much so!

For the permanent Usenet record to preserve...
o This post contains _adult_ concepts of great topical import...
(Wilf... if you're reading... you'll _learn_ something about this ng.)

The apologists prevent an adult discussion on this ng in three key ways:
o Type I apologists brazenly deny any and all facts they don't like;
o Type II apologists prefer to remain ignorant of facts they won't like;
o Type III apologists react with hateful vitriol to the bearer of facts.

I think it's interesting that the apologists actually _believe_ the problem
is that adults can post whatever they really think when they're anonymous.

And yet, these same apologists easily are shown to act like small children.
o Anonymous (nospam) or otherwise (Joerg Lorenz)

Factually, it's easy to show evidence the problem is apologists themselves.
o Look at, for example, nospam's incessant flat denials of known facts
o Or, for example, Alan Baker's claims that all facts are lies by liars
o Or, as another example, at _anything_ Lewis or Jolly Roger spew forth
etc.

These apologists incessantly act like children on this newsgroup
o Whether or not they're anonymous (e.g., Your Name & Alan Baker)

And yet, on the adult OS newsgroups, _some_ apologists act like adults:
o As an example, "Chris", shockingly, posted as an adult recently
to the Linux and Windows and Freeware newsgroups (as noted prior).

*Why is it that Chris can post as an adult, to the adult OS newsgroups*
o *But Chris can't seem to post as an adult to the Apple newsgroups*

This can have _nothing_ to do with the fact he's anonymous
o Which, of course, is a fact completely lost on the apologists.

HINT: I know why (or at least I think I do), but it's beyond most people
here why the apologists are so extremely sensitive to facts about Apple.
HINT: The clue is how much Apple MARKETING choose its customers by aiming
its messages at those most gullible to purely imaginary belief systems.
HINT: Those purely imaginary belief system are instantly DESTROYED by
something as innocent as a mere simple obvious published fact.
HINT: These apologists are deathly _AFRAID_ of facts; which is why, I
posit, apologists flatly deny that facts exist, and as a result, apologists
remain fantastically _immune_ to all facts about Apple they don't like.

It's _easy_ to show that what ruins this newsgroup, are the apologists.
o If apologists didn't exist - the remaining discussions would be adult.

After studying apologists for years, I've categorized them as...
o Type I === this is nospam in a category of his own as he's different
o Type II === these are simply clueless people; but not malicious people
o Type III === these are malicious people of questionable mental stability

*How do each of these apologistic types ruin adult discussions on this ng?*

*Type I apologists incessantly & brainlessly parrot Apple MARKETING mantra*
o It doesn't matter the topic - nospam _always_ takes MARKETING's position;
o Hence, nospam will flatly deny any & all facts he simply doesn't like;
o Worse, nospam incessantly fabricates functionality that doesn't exist;
o Sadistically sending innocent victims on fruitless wild-goose chases;
o And, of course, this is always wasting everyone's valuable time & effort;
o Since nospam's credibility, as a result, is that of a simple coin toss;
o Basically his tactic is to refute all facts he doesn't like;
o But, for those he can't attempt to refute, he will deflect & blame;
o Where countless times he deflects the topic off salient facts;
o Even stooping to the childish levels (e.g., FTFY) to deflect facts.

*Type II apologists are simply hateful & ignorant of facts about Apple*
o These are the most benign of apologists since they're simply ignorant;
o These apologists clearly prefer to remain completely ignorant of facts;
o Where their main detriment to this newsgroup is that they're often wrong;
o But they don't act like children all the time like the other types do;
o An example of an ignorant Type II apologist is Savageduck or Alan Browne;
o They're easily shown to be ignorant & childish in most of their posts;
o But they're not purposefully sadistic (like nospam) or malicious.

*Type III apologists are those who most often ruin discussions on this ng!
o These are those who can't fathom a single word said against Apple;
o While nospam will always blame & deflect when dealing with known facts;
o It's clear that nospam actually _knows_ the facts!
o Yet, these Type III apologists do NOT know the facts;
o They're shocking clueless about even the most obvious published facts;
o Such that they respond with instant hateful vitriol to all facts;
o Since they have absolutely no adult response to facts they don't like;
o Classic Type III apologists are Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK, roctb, Elfin,
Lloyd Parsons, & Snit.

In summary, the apologists prevent an adult discussion three ways:
o Type I apologists brazenly deny any and all facts they don't like;
o Type II apologists prefer to remain ignorant of facts they won't like;
o Type III apologists react with hateful vitriol to the bearer of facts.
--

o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>

o Ammammata <amma...@tiscalinet.it> (not an apologist, but is ignorant)
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> (educated & yet immune to fact)
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o B...@Onramp.net (it's hard to find a human any dumber, sadly to say)

o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>

o dpb <no...@none.net> (posts worthless drivel - but keeps it short)

o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o Elfin <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka Lloyd, aka Lloyd Parsons)

o Hawk <Ha...@gmail.com> (literally posts what children would post)
o Hemidactylus <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> (has no adult thought processes)
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> (child-like cognitive skills)
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> (one of the dumbest of all)
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> (dumber than most)

o Lloyd <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")

o Meanie <M...@gmail.com>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> (bullshitter par excellence)
o Panthera Tigris Altaica <northe...@outlook.com>
o roctb <gh...@mouse-potato.com> Russian poster hates all facts
o Sandman <m...@sandman.net> (hates any and all facts about Apple)
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> (not dumb - but stupid)
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser, troll #1)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> (indescribably childish)
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net> (about as dumb as a human can be)
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> (never posts anything of value)
o et al

[Andreas Rutishauser]

In article <ra8s1q$a17$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

Arlen Holder <arlen...@newmachine.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 May 2020 08:01:48 +0200, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
> >>> It is a fact of the englispeaking usenet that people tend to post
> >>> anonymously and are much more often very rude and impolite to each other.
> >>>
> >>> That is an oberservation I made over 20 years in the englishspeaking
> >>> usenet. It is quite different in french- or germanspeaking groups.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Anonymity is similar to drinking. It allows people to do things they
> >> normally don't have the balls to do in person. Anonymity takes it a step
> >> higher. Most are internet badasses and heroes.
> >
> > Very much so!
>
> For the permanent Usenet record to preserve...
> o This post contains _adult_ concepts of great topical import...
> (Wilf... if you're reading... you'll _learn_ something about this ng.)

which newsgroup would that be as you're posting to 4 of them?

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 25 May 2020 17:44:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> It is a pain, I agree. I prefer having my phone supported so would weigh
> the price vs support.

I'm always amazed apologists are so deathly _afraid_ of everything!
o Who gives a shit about "support"?

Seriously.
o Have you _seen_ the number of bugs in, oh, say, iOS 13.x?

HINT: Even the many bugfix releases even today have known 0-day holes
so big you can drive a Mack truck through them (yes, even today!).

As you know, I study you apologists, where you're all apparently children.
o You can't sleep at night unless your Apple mommy tells you it's safe.

You don't care if you _are_ safe...
o You only care to be _told_ that you're safe.

Like a child told by his mommy a closet door keeps the monsters inside.
o You apologists amaze me, not so much because you're afraid of everything.

But because you apologists only want to _feel_ safe.
--
Hell... how do you ever chop down trees, for example?
(with a butterknife?)

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-25 11:04 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2020 17:44:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> It is a pain, I agree. I prefer having my phone supported so would weigh
>> the price vs support.
>
> I'm always amazed apologists are so deathly _afraid_ of everything!
> o Who gives a shit about "support"?
>
> Seriously.
> o Have you _seen_ the number of bugs in, oh, say, iOS 13.x?

Have you?

Have you seen any comparisons with the number of bugs in iOS versus any
other operating system?

I'm guessing... ...not.

:-)

>
> HINT: Even the many bugfix releases even today have known 0-day holes
> so big you can drive a Mack truck through them (yes, even today!).

Holes? What holes?

>
> As you know, I study you apologists, where you're all apparently children.
> o You can't sleep at night unless your Apple mommy tells you it's safe.
>
> You don't care if you _are_ safe...
> o You only care to be _told_ that you're safe.
>
> Like a child told by his mommy a closet door keeps the monsters inside.
> o You apologists amaze me, not so much because you're afraid of everything.
>
> But because you apologists only want to _feel_ safe.

You have no proof that Apple's OS are any less safe than any other
company's...


..and that's a fact.

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 27 May 2020 19:57:08 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> Having taken plenty of virology, physiology, & immunology courses...
>
> taking courses and actually understanding the material are two very
> different things.

Hi nospam,

The permanent Usenet record will record this adult discussion since it
explains how apologists (all three types) react to facts about Apple
products (specifically facts which apologists just don't happen to like).

Rest assured, much like Dunning & Kruger studied self assessments of skills
in the strange bank robber, I study you strange apologists on Usenet.

There are, currently, three known types of apologists:
o *Type III* === these are clearly not formally educated (e.g., Alan Baker)
o *Type II* === some appear to be college educated (e.g., Steve Scharf)
o *Type I* === these are not likely college educated (e.g., nospam)

You're the only member (to date) in the Type I apologists, nospam
o You never post anything Apple MARKETING wouldn't want you to post.

o Type I === you never post anything Apple MARKETING wouldn't try to claim
o Type II === not malevolent but simply ignorant of the basic facts
o Type III === incredibly ignorant magnified by vicious tirades

Notice nospam that you're in a class of your own creation!

It's almost as if you're (figuratively) paid by the post, by Apple
MARKETING, so simply _parrot_ what they'd want you to parrot, even down to
the fact you often deny that which even Apple is eventually forced to
admit.

What's even more akin to Apple marketing are the word games you play.

For example, you claim that throttling isn't "in" the iPhone X, even when I
published that Apple admitted adding throttling "software" to the iPhone X,
where your silly semantic games are not caught by the Type III or Type II
apologists.

Likewise, you claim that graphical wifi debugging software isn't
"impossible" on iOS, even as you're well aware that the software abounds on
Android and simply doesn't exist on the iOS app store, again, where you
bank on the Type III and Type II apologists not being able to comprehend
the distinction (which, I agree with you - they don't exhibit adult
comprehensive skills).

Yet you applauded the Snit video "claiming", essentially, that a decibel
and a Mbps were the same thing, which simply proves that you Type III
apologists _also_ lack critical adult comprehensive skills.

I've figure out each of you, to the point where I've been predicting your
reactions (witness my recent post to "Chris", for example, clearly a Type
II apologist), testing his response, since I can pretty much box any of you
into revealing your true colors.
o Software Update "Install now" greyed out
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/9IrlC_ypJl0>

Paradoxically, the Type II apologists (those who appear to not be
malicious, but simply who prefer to remain ignorant of facts), are the
hardest to predict - simply because they're less driven by their emotions.

Not surprisingly, the incredibly ignorant vicious Type III apologists
(e.g., Lewis, Jolly Roger, Alan Baker, BK, Joerg Lorenz, et al.) are so
trivial to get them to show their true colors, which you can witness easily
by the Snit-like tirade that the moron Alan Baker cavalcaded upon us
recently, to the point that Alan Baker became only the second person in my
killfile, alongside Snit (not even Diesel, Sn!pe, KWills, Good Guy, Steve
Carroll, et al. are as ignominious).

Like them, you, nospam, are as predictable as the phases of the moon:
a. You will _always_ parrot Apple MARKETING mantra;
b. Even worse, you'll deny even that which Apple is forced to admit;
c. Such that your credibility is no better than that of a coin toss.

The good thing about you nospam, is that you often cleverly disguise the
facts much as Apple did to Congress when they assured them (and the media,
who also fell for it), that throttling software wasn't "as" necessary on
the iPhone 8 and iPhone X...

And yet, the facts show Apple _added_ that throttling software in _every_
single iOS release since that statement, namely iOS 10, iOS 11, iOS 12, and
even the latest iOS 13 release.

Did Apple lie? Not really. They were simply clever by inserting two
letters, which made their denial appear to those who lack adult
comprehensive skills to mean the throttling software wasn't necessary.

And yet, Apple has added that throttling software to _every_ release since
that statement was made to Congress... which is my point about all you
apologists.

All you apologists are shown to lack basic adult comprehensive skills.
o Worse, you act like a child, nospam, when confronted with facts.

The reason you act like a child, nospam, is that your tricks work
beautifully on the ignorant apologists - but not on actual adults.

Your last resort to facts is your remaining response is childish:

o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face
of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ>

>> o I'm well aware of the pathological progression of the Covid-19 disease
>
> meanwhile, medical professionals who actively are researching covid
> still don't fully understand it.

I'd confidently assess that I knew more about the immune response to
coronaviral diseases back in the sixties and seventies than all of you
three types of apologists, combined, appear to comprehend today.

The permanent Usenet record shows I'm perfectly willing to _discuss_ the
virion, and the disease, and particularly the rather complex immune
response, as witnessed in these threads, where you apologists are welcome
to participate, as adults (the record shows you can't ever act like an
adult, nospam - but I still refer you to those threads where you're welcome
to attempt to act like an adult on the level of an adult, nospam):
o *Does a single person espousing the privacy sink covid trackers even know
what a cytokine storm is?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sAcXqAUyZ_U>

See also these discussions, where you're welcome to participate as an adult
o Is that even possible for you apologists - to act like an adult?
HINT: I know the answer. You prove it every time you post.

o *Life with COVID-19*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/xkYQc-yubqk/C89rayHbAgAJ>
--
What defines Type I apologists is they always 100% parrot Apple MARKETING.

[Sn!pe]

Arlen Holder <arlen...@newmachine.com> wrote:

> The permanent Usenet record will record this adult discussion

Message-ID: <1or1295.vbknnb1curgtpN%snip...@gmail.com>

If you want this to stop you have only to retract and apologise
in the original set of groups where you traduced me.

For the convenience of anyone who is interested (as if...)
the offense given was in these groups: comp.mac.sys,comp.
sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.systems,uk.comp.sys.mac

Message-ID: <r9ihhk$nv5$2...@news.mixmin.net>

========[quote]==========
[...]
While the OP, Wolffan, is a known worthless piece of shit (on the level
of Snit, Diesel, Sn!pe, Colonel Ednumd J. Burke, Nomen Nescio, et al.),
the users who invest their valuable time trying to help him should
simply know the OP already spammed the universe with this thread.
[...]
========[end quote]=======

Thank you for your kind attention.

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 06:20:34 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Yet, you must be aware I'm on the other OS newsgroups, namely Windows,
> Linux, and Android, who _never_ bring up Apple when I report OS issues.

Hi Ant,

This is an important, adult, deep, & salient observation of Apple owners.

I've studied Apple owners for quite some time, where I ask, for example
while waiting in lines, _why_ people own their iPhone, and I almost always
ascertain from their answers that they're completely bamboozled, saying...
o "it just works"
o "it's stylish"
o "who wants viruses?"
etc.

Notice the facts show they are completely bamboozled, as shown when I ask
them even the _simplest_ of facts (just as I do here), they draw a blank.

All they know is the MARKETING...
o Nothing else.

MARKETING is _that_ powerful.

It's not just Apple owners, by the way, as I ask everyone at Costco buying
a case of Techron why, and those buying Octane Boosters in the auto parts
stores why, and those buying Premium Gasoline at the pump, why, etc.

Almost always, I ascertain that most people are bamboozled by MARKETING.
o They wouldn't know an iso octane from 2,2,4,tri-methyl pentane.
o They wouldn't know a Tier I polyetheramine from Chevron's Techron.

They're completely bamboozled by Marketing.
o Which is _why_ you Apple people always blame everyone else (IMHO).

Notice on the Windows newsgroup nobody is bamboozled by Microsoft!
o We all know what Microsoft is.

Notice on the Android newsgroup, nobody is bamboozled by Google!
o We all know what Google is.

Notice on the Linux newsgroup, nobody blames Apple for Linux flaws!
o We all know what Linux is.

It's only on the Apple newsgroups that people don't know what Apple is.
o So they blame everyone else whenever Apple turns out to be what it is.
--
This is an important, adult, deep, & salient observation of Apple owners.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 20:11:55 -0500, Ant wrote:

> Does anyone even test sufficiently these days? :(

Hi Ant,

For the permanent Usenet record to preserve...

o Since you're not an apologist, an adult conversation can ensue.

Notice you bring up "anyone", which is _always_ what Apple lovers do
whenever it's found out that Apple is just like everyone else.

Yet, you must be aware I'm on the other OS newsgroups, namely Windows,
Linux, and Android, who _never_ bring up Apple when I report OS issues.

It's _critical_ for you to notice this, since it's _key_ to how Apple
people are bamboozled, without even knowing that they're bamboozled.

It's a rather deep doublethink, which, you probably won't even recognize
since you're "inside" the cocoon by being an Apple lover, almost certainly
unduly swayed by marketing.

You can't have it both ways though, and that's why Apple lovers are
_different_ than Android, Linux, or Windows users.

Apple lovers want to have it both ways:
1. They want to believe the MARKETING that Apple is, somehow, different.
2. And yet, _every_ time they are forced, themselves, to realize they're
the same.

Literally you said it yourself.
o You just don't realize it.

It's classic doublethink by people who are bamboozled, unknowingly, by
MARKETING.

Bear in mind, NOBODY blames Apple when Microsoft, Linux, or Android has a
flaw (of which there are many indeed, no doubt about it).

But _those_ users aren't bamboozled to think they're different.
o Only the Apple users are bamboozled.

Rest assured I'm not chastising you since you're simply exhibiting what
_all_ the people on this newsgroup exhibit; I'm just asking you to think
about _why_ you bring up everyone else, when _nobody_ brings up Apple when
the flaws are shown on the other newsgroups.

As you know, I've studied Apple users ever since they cruelly sent me on
fruitless wild-goose chases, and they claimed, incessantly, that
functionality existed which simply didn't exist.

For years I've been trying to figure out the Apple user...
o And I think I finally have figured all of you out.

You're not malicious, Ant.
o But think about why you bring up the other OS's when they don't do it
about Apple.

What's different?
o Hint: You actually _believed_ Apple marketing (who bamboozled you).
--
This is a deep and thoughtful discussion which I hope you think about, Ant.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 07 Jun 2020 18:58:31 -0400, nospam wrote:

> not only is it very possible on ios, but you've been told exactly how
> many, many times, each time ignoring what you were told and going off
> on a mindless rant.

Hi nospam,

For the benefit of the permanent Usenet record...

You get away with your pure fabrication of functionality on Apple ngs
. Yet you always get your head handed to you on the adult OS newsgroups.

But you won't get away with your fabrication of functionality here, nospam.
. I know you well where, the simplest way to summarize you is:

"You _hate_ what iOS is, so much that you incessantly fabricate
imaginary functionality for what iOS lacks, and when you can't,
you incessantly contrive all sorts of excuses for why iOS lacks
the basic functionality that every other common consumer OS enjoys."

For the benefit of this newsgroup, there are 3 types of apologists:
. You're the only one in the Type I category (the others have plenty).

. *Type I apologist* === Parrots Apple MARKETING dogma at all costs
(but actually doesn't believe almost anything he says himself)
(you can tell he knows what he's saying by his use of clever wording)
(just as Apple did when they blamed batteries for secret throttling)

. *Type II apologists* === these are simply ignorant, e.g., Steve Scharf
(they're much like Mayayana is, where they're just incredibly ignorant)
(in fact, they often make all their decisions based on pure intuition)
(they literally filter out facts since their beliefs aren't fact based)

. *Type III apologists* === these are Dunning Kruger Quadrant I (no doubt!)
(typical TYPE III apologists are Jolly Roger, Snit, Alan Baker, et al.)
(they actually _believe_ what they write - which is the scary part)
(they're fantastically immune to facts no matter what the facts may be)

Consider Type I apologists no different than an agent of Apple MARKETING.
Consider Type II apologists no different from Mayayana (purely intuitive).
Consider Type III apologists no different from the lemon-juice bank robber.

> you give a free pass to what you call a 'different mechanism' in linux
> (whatever that is supposed to be), but refuse to accept a different
> mechanism in ios.

We're all on to your fabrication of imaginary functionality nospam
. Where you're shockingly sadistic in how you lead innocent people astray

Whenever we ask you to prove what you say, you can't.
. That is, you _always_ fail the "name just one" test of pure bullshit

Worse, you're sadistic in how you send innocent users astray
. Which you did, to me, years ago, before I figured all you apologists out
--
Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users on
wild goose chases?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I>

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 09:10:46 GMT, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:

> Reason doesn't work on trolls, just nuke them and move on. :-)

Hi Richard L. Hamilton,

You proved that you are an adult by how you responded to the octane rating
issue (i.e., you clicked on the link, read, and comprehended what it said).

You have to realize that there are a _lot_ of people on this Apple
newsgroup who can't do any of those three things, e.g.,

*Type III apologists* like Alan Baker won't even _click_ on the link
o Before brazenly claiming that all facts in the link are "lies by liars".

*Type II apologists*, like Steve Scharf, won't _comprehend_ the link
o For example, he _still_ believes Qualcomm royalties went down per phone!

*Type I apologists* will click, read, and comprehend what's in the links...
o But they will brazenly deny all that goes against Apple MARKETING mantra.
For example, nospam claims the iPhone X didn't have throttling software

In terms of "trolls", what I find interesting is a *Type I apologist*
(there's only nospam in that class) calls anything they can't refute a
troll - but - in general - they avoid calling people trolls simply because
Type I apologists actually know the truth (they just won't say it as they
only parrot Apple MARKETING mantra).

Quite different are the *Type II apologists* (e.g., Savageduck,
Steve Scharf, Alan Browne, Andreas Rutishauser, et al.) who can't stand
hearing facts that differ from what MARKETING told them, so, to avoid those
facts, they simply filter them out. These people are not malicious, they
just consider facts a danger to their belief systems, so they filter them
out on purpose (which is why it's so easy to prove them wrong, as, for
example, when Steve Scharf claims Apple CPUs are "the fastest" and yet, he
filters out the fact that they're throttled to half speed almost invariably
after "about a year").

Yet far more different, are the *TYPE III apologists* (e.g., Alan Baker,
Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK at Onramp, Wade Garrett, Chris, Davoud, Joerg
Lorenz, Your Name Elfin (aka Lloyd Parsons), roctb, Tim Streater, John
McWilliama, Snit, Hawk, Hemidactylus, Rescuba, Panthera Tigris Altaica,
Sandman, et al.).

These are literally a combination of Quadrant 1 Dunning Kruger and fifth
grade bully, who are so highly influenced by Apple MARKETING that they
can't fathom even a single fact that strays against what they _believe_
that Apple MARKETING fed them to believe - hence - these are the ones
calling all facts "lies by liars" and they all people who convey facts
as trolls.

Years ago I went to the trouble of seeing which poster called others
"trolls" the most, and it was Jolly Roger, by far, who himself, vies with
Alan Baker for the lowest IQ of this group (probably around 50 I would
guess).

To give you an example of how these people are Dunning Kruger quadrant I,
they actually _believe_ they understand Octane, for example, and yet, they
can't even figure out the difference between knock, detonation, and
pre-ignition.

Based on what you wrote, I think you, Richard Hamilton, _could_ figure out
the difference of something that simple (were you to care); but my point is
that these people clearly cannot.

The main _reason_ they can't figure out things even _that_ simple, is that
they are Dunning Kruger Quadrant I - and they're the ones calling all facts
"lies by liars" and that all bearers of facts must be "trolls".
--
You can _never_ communicate with Type III apologists in DK Quadrant I.
o They're literally too stupid to even realize how stupid they are.

[Arlen Holder]

For the permanent Usenet record, one of the Type III apologists (Alan
Baker) recently infested a "search" thread on the Windows 10 newsgroup,
where no matter what was said, Alan claimed Apple does everything better.

That's fine... but for the permanent Usenet record, what's important to
_this_ thread on the insight into why Apple apologists are such strange
people, these posts today by VanguardLH and Mayayana are illustrative of a
different angle on the strange mind of the Apple apologists.
o *Why is search so brain dead these days?*
<https://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com/tHNllec9/why-is-search-so-brain-dead-these-days>

What you'll see below is how others (independent of me) characterize,
instantly, the Apple Apologists as "_inane children_" with an obvious
"_cult mentality_", and where adults quickly concluded the apologist
Alan Baker lacked "_reading comprehension_" capabilities.

Additionally, the concept that the Apple cult only believes what MARKETING
fed them to believe is _threatened_ by facts, also shows up in Mayayana's
characterizions below.

Synopses:
1. OP, Yousef Khan, asks for a solution to crappy Windows native search.

2. Plenty of people post purposefully helpful freeware solutions.
(Many of which were quite detailed and which took energy to compose.)

3. Alan Baker spends zero energy posting this un-helpful suggestion:
"*I suggest you try out a modern Mac and its Spotlight facility.*"

4. To which, pointedly, for one, Mayayana responds, as any adult might:
"But can Spotlight find it all on Windows?
I use Agent Ransack. It finds text in files, file name segments, etc,
at an amazing speed, and I don't need indexing...

5. Where Paul purposefully helpfully clarifies:
"Agent Ransack (a brute force [free] program), doesn't hook the journal.
It doesn't keep indexes, either filename only indexes (Everything.exe)
or filename+content indexes (Windows Search)."

6. To which, the apologist Alan Baker responds:
"*So they copied Spotlight!*"

7. Also responding to #3 Alan Baker above, VanguardLH points out:
"[Spotlight] is not a solution. Does nothing to address the problem.
Go inhabit your Mac newsgroups and stop bothering those using a
different OS than your choice."

8. To which the apologist Alan Baker purposefully unhelpfully responds:
"*I'll educate you about how much better it could be for you.*"

9. To which VanguardLH correctly characterizes Alan Baker as an...
"_inane child_"

More to the point of insight into the psychology of Apple Apolotists

10. Mayayana characterizes Alan Baker's responses to date as:
"This is actually another symptom of AppleSeed indoctrination.

Since they're a cult they assume Windows users are a cult.
They also see the hardware as part of the product.
That's why so many of them refer to "Wintel".

Macs are maybe 8% of the market, but most Mac users see it as a clash
of the titans.

Their monolithic device provider, Apple, vs the opposing, monolithic
device provider, Wintel. So, while we mostly don't think about Macs,
because there's simply no reason to, they're constantly thinking about
Wintel, their imagined competitor.

So Alan thinks the plural "you" is attacking the AppleSeed home base.

11. At around this point, VanguardLH realizes what apologists are, saying:
"Ah, [not only are you, Alan Baker, an inane child] you also have a
reading comprehension defect, too."

12. To which, shockingly, the Alan Baker apologist responds inanely:
"*Still not seeing how I failed of reading comprehension.*
*If you hook up a Windows formatted disk to a Mac, you can get*
*spotlight to index it and it will perform its usual continuous*
*indexing process."*

Finally, exasperated with this strange behavior of Apple apologists...
13. Mayana offers us this valuable insight into the "cult" mindset:
[Alan Baker is] an AppleSeed. Their knowledge consists of marketing
nuggets from Lord Jobs and disciple-in-chief Timmy Cook.

They'll always have a comeback because Apple marketing has trained them
in how to believe that Macs are better than anything else in the world.

I wouldn't be surprised if Advanced AppleSeed Training includes a
specific list of answers for Windows doubters, just like any good cult
has:

Q: "But I can use any one of 4 free programs on Windows to do XYZ.
What about Macs?"

A1: "The Apple version only costs $70 and it's much better."
A2 (inspired by Linux fanatics): "If you can't do it on a Mac
then you don't need it."

In summary, it's useful to see how others characterize, instantly, the
Apple Apologists as "_inane children_" with a "_cult mentality_", where
others who were being purposefully helpful in that thread quickly concluded
the apologist Alan Baker lacked "_reading comprehension_" capabilities.

Additionally, the concept that the Apple cult only believes what MARKETING
fed them to believe is _threatened_ by facts, also shows up in Mayayana's
characterizions above.
--
It's quite revealing that all adults assess these apologists similarly.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-21 10:33 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> For the permanent Usenet record, one of the Type III apologists (Alan
> Baker) recently infested a "search" thread on the Windows 10 newsgroup,
> where no matter what was said, Alan claimed Apple does everything better.

Nope. I said nothing like that.

I said that Spotlight works better than Windows included search
functionality.

>
> That's fine...

And yet here you are whining about it. :-)

[Wolffan]

On 28 May 2020, Sn!pe wrote
(in article<1or4x1n.1x2dmwj16b3ujkN%snip...@gmail.com>):

oh, gee, Arlen is still smarting after I kicked his arse... again, eh? I’ve
been ignoring his posts, he simply has nothing interesting to say.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:33:59 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> o *Why is search so brain dead these days?*
> <https://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com/tHNllec9/why-is-search-so-brain-dead-these-days>

UPDATE:

For the benefit of the permanent Usenet record, this post, from that thread
today, verbatim from this line down, gives further insight into the strange
psychology of the Apple Apologist, in this case, where what's important is
that others, not just me, notice how strange these Apple Apologists are;
they're not like normal people.


Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

[Technical stuff deleted.]

> | So I have to ask again: Are you sure you aren't one of nospam's
> | socks!? :-(
> |
>
> Yes, but look who keeps arguing with him. :)

Yes, I'm sorry to realize that I did go full circle with him, but at
least it was only one circle! :-)

> Alan Baker
> has even proclaimed that he's only here to be a
> dimwitted irritant. He apparently has some kind of
> grudge about a Windows person who was showing
> up in a Mac group, so he decided to take revenge.

Yes, he chased that person (if I'm right about who his main target is)
around like there's no tomorrow, but at least that person deserves
what's coming to him. At first, he marked these responses with 'OT', so
people could ignore/filter them, but AFAICT he stopped doing that.

> (Like so many AppleSeeds, he thinks "Wintel" and
> Mac are locked in mortal combat.) Or maybe that's an
> excuse to extend his endless thirst for argument.

Yes, they seem to feel the need to prove the alleged superiority of
their tools and to attack anything else.

As you said, there is no such thing as 'Wintel' people. We just use
Windows. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, not so great and we
will be the first to complain, etc. about it. These groups are the very
proof of that.

Contrary to what some Apple fanbois believe, I don't 'hate' Apple at
all. Their products just don't run the software I need/want and aren't
in the price range [1] I'm willing to pay.

Macs, Chromebooks and Linux just aren't an option for me, period.

[1] Not using the - plain English - term 'expensive', to (try to? :-))
preempt another rant from one of them.

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE on the strange psychology of Appleseeds, from others (not from me!)

BTW, Ant, who is often on the Apple ngs, is on that same thread, and where
I haven't categorized Ant as an apologist, and, not surprisingly, Ant's
posts on that Windows ng are quite "normal" for that Windows newsgroup.

But not the strange apologists, in this case, nospam & Alan Baker.

Within just a few threads (Alan Baker is apparently stalking me around the
Internet), _multiple_ people who are no friend of mine in fact, have
quickly NOTICED how fantastically _strange_ these Apple Apologists nospam
and Alan Baker truly are.

Apologists are quite unlike normal people.

As you know by now I've studied the apologists, and classified them into
three types, where they have common traits, but also differences (e.g.,
nospam doesn't believe a word he says while Jolly Roger, Lewis, Joerg
Lorenz and Alan Baker, shockingly, actually _believe_ what they write).

What's interesting is that people on that Windows newsgroup, which Alan
Baker has recently infested, within one or two threads, are also noticing
how _similar_ the apologists nospam and Alan Baker are, to wit, where
everything below is verbatim (unrelated stuff snipped out):

--- Frank Slootweg to Alan Baker ---

From: Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Subject: Re: Why is search so brain dead these days?
Date: 23 Jun 2020 13:34:18 GMT
Message-ID: <rct7dh...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>

Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> That insists on a correlation between indexing and the journal that
> doesn't exist.

Nope. Paul did not state nor imply that.

> Read it as many times as you need until you understand that there is no
> "because". You can have an index without hooking into the journal.
> That's just a fact.

Yes, that's obviously true, but - *in context* - that's not what Paul
said or implied.

Hope you realize by now that taking something out of context, often -
and even nearly always - leads to incorrect conclusions/assumptions/
<whatever>.

So I have to ask again: Are you sure you aren't one of nospam's
socks!? :-(

Anyway, if you want to argue this further, take it up with Paul.

EOD.

--- Mayayana to Frank Slootweg about Alan Baker ---

From: Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Subject: Re: Why is search so brain dead these days?
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:24:29 -0400
Message-ID: <rct3c3$alq$1...@dont-email.me>

| So I have to ask again: Are you sure you aren't one of nospam's
| socks!? :-(

Yes, but look who keeps arguing with him. :)

Alan Baker has even proclaimed that he's only here to be a dimwitted
irritant. He apparently has some kind of grudge about a Windows person
who was showing up in a Mac group, so he decided to take revenge.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:06:35 +1200, Your Name wrote:

> Your software collection wasn't "orphaned". Apple and most developers
> did an exceptional job at keeping most of it usable during the past CPU
> changeovers, and all signs point to the Intel to Apple Silicon
> chageover being equally as "smooth".

Hi Your Name,

Regarding your strange remarks in this thread today about the Mac ARM:
o Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/LxnTUNLR-fI>

*Nobody should be happy losing all their existing software functionality.*

I realize you're a well-known Type III apologist, so I simply remind you
that the topic is that the demise of the ability to multi boot on the new
Mac ARM is a pretty big hit in loss of basic boot functionality, which is
the topic of this thread after all.

*The new Mac ARM puts users back in the Stone Age of boot functionality.*

Given this loss of basic functionality on the new Mac ARM puts users in the
unenviable position of being slammed back to the Stone Age of computing,
Paul additionally rightly noted the loss of all prior Mac apps on the new
Mac ARM puts them even further backward in terms of their current
capabilities.

Since you're a well known apologist, none of those facts will have any
impact on you given that you justify Apple's actions in all cases, where
the scary _difference_ between Type III apologists is what scares me:
o Type I apologists === nospam: simply parrots Apple MARKETING always
o Type II apologists === Alan Browne: not malicious, just ill informed.
o Type III apologists === Your Name: actually _believes_ Apple MARKETING

Notice the key differences:
o Type I apologists don't believe a word they, themselves, say
o Type II apologists think for themselves but often filter out facts
o Type III apologists can't think for themselves - they believe the
bullshit.

The facts appear to be, whether you can comprehend them or not:
o While the Mac ARM may help Apple in _their_ brilliant business plans...
o The new Mac ARM instantly causes _loss_ of critical user functionality.

Only an apologists would be happy with that as the obvious 1st step.
--
Nobody should be happy losing all their existing software functionality.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-24 7:28 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:06:35 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>
>> Your software collection wasn't "orphaned". Apple and most developers
>> did an exceptional job at keeping most of it usable during the past CPU
>> changeovers, and all signs point to the Intel to Apple Silicon
>> chageover being equally as "smooth".
>
> Hi Your Name,
>
> Regarding your strange remarks in this thread today about the Mac ARM:
> o Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/LxnTUNLR-fI>
>
> *Nobody should be happy losing all their existing software functionality.*
>
> I realize you're a well-known Type III apologist, so I simply remind you
> that the topic is that the demise of the ability to multi boot on the new
> Mac ARM is a pretty big hit in loss of basic boot functionality, which is
> the topic of this thread after all. >
> *The new Mac ARM puts users back in the Stone Age of boot functionality.*
>
> Given this loss of basic functionality on the new Mac ARM puts users in the
> unenviable position of being slammed back to the Stone Age of computing,
> Paul additionally rightly noted the loss of all prior Mac apps on the new
> Mac ARM puts them even further backward in terms of their current
> capabilities.

The new ARM instruction set machines have NOT lost the ability to
multi-boot, Arlen...

...but it is not Apple's responsibility to create systems for the
convenience of other operating system developers.

[Alan Baker]

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:
o Amazing what Windows still doesn't do well.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/7BV04N_AAEI>

On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 08:16:07 -0700 (PDT), Thomas E. wrote:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/7BV04N_AAEI/GM3-w34kAwAJ>
> Apple forces you to get an Apple ID to make an iOS device useful.
> If you want to sync your Edge browser across multiple devices
> you need at least a Live account. That's what I use for Windows 10
> and my Apple phone and tablet. It takes all of 2 minutes to set up.
> Finally, Liarboy, you can set Windows 10 without a Microsoft account,
> you are NOT forced.
> A simple Bing search on "set up windows 10 with no sign in" found this:
> https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-windows_install/set-up-windows-10-without-account/d7c08c1a-0fcc-49ac-96ac-297879dbee6f
> Your ignorance of Windows continues to amaze and delight!

Hi Thomas E.,

As you noted, it's only on iOS that not only _must_ you have an Apple ID
for even basic functionality of downloading apps, but concurrently, you
must have the privacy hole of an "advertiser id".

It's quite rare, on this newsgroup, to have anyone like you who actually
understands the facts, where my hat is off to you for trying to knock sense
into the Apple apologists.

Alan Baker is, at once, a cultist for Apple par excellence, dunning kruger
far-to-the-left first quadrant, and what I call a "Type III" apologist
(i.e., shockingly, he's not pulling your legs - he actually _believes_ what
he writes!).

*Notice what Alan Baker claims is mutually exclusive (i.e., doublespeak).*
o Windows, he thinks, requires a login in order to be functional (he
thinks)
o The iPhone, he claims, is functional without a login (which it's
definitely not).

Notice apologists are quite unlike normal people.
o They're bamboozled by MARKETING such that they can't comprehend facts.

I've noticed almost all Apple users appear to so bamboozled by their
imaginary belief system that they literally think, in doublespeak!
a) They want to think Apple is very different, and yet,
b) They constantly excuse Apple for doing exactly what everyone else does.

BTW, I have Windows 10 Pro, and Windows 10 Home on a variety of machines,
_none_ of which have a Microsoft account.

And, of course, on Android, there's absolutely no need to set the phone to
an account for _full_ functionality (e.g., Google Play works just fine via
the many anonymous scrapers such as the Aurora Store).

NOTE: That means the "advertiser ID" simply does not exist on Android!

It's only on iOS that not only _must_ you have an Apple ID for even basic
functionality of downloading apps, but concurrently, you must have the
privacy hole of an "advertiser id".
--
Bringing TRUTH to Usenet newsgroups by logic & application of fact.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:36:44 -0700 (PDT), Thomas E. wrote:

> He just wants to bitch, not look for solutions that are dead easy to find

Hi Thomas E.,

Regarding this thread:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/7BV04N_AAEI>

Actually it's worse than "he just wants to bitch".
o *Shockingly, Alan Baker actually _believes_ what he wrote!*

He's a Type III apologist, similar to Jolly Roger, Lewis, Chris, BK, Joerg
Lorenz, et al., where their entire _identity_ is wrapped up in Apple's
MARKETING messaging.

Apple knows these Type III apologists far better than they know themselves.

Apple MARKETING constantly feeds them exactly what they want to hear, about
what they fear most, which is, as far as I can tell:
a. They fear functionality - they actually call functionality complexity!
b. They fear danger - which is why they _rush_ to install iOS each time
c. They fear not being stylish - such that they line up to ditch old phones
etc.

Apple _knows_ their customer is _driven_ almost mad by these three fears.
o complexity
o danger
o style

They are basically driven insane by these fears, where all three are
threatened by Windows and Android, such that any dirt they can find on
Windows or Android, they _love_ to tout since they're _threatened_ by these
operating systems.

What's interesting is nobody on Android or on Windows is even in the least
threatened by Apple products - it's only the Apple users who are
threatened, because they live their lives daily in abject fear.

On the Android newsgroup, we openly discuss when Google sucks, just as we
do on the Windows newsgroups - where we're not at all afraid of the truth.

But on the Apple newsgroups, they're literally afraid of the truth.

Which is why, for example, like flat earthers and cultists, they simply
deny the truth, flat out, as their entire belief system is imaginary.

As I noted, the type III apologists (Alan Baker, Lewis, Jolly Roger, et
al.) actually _believe_ what they write, even as it lacks any semblance of
adult cognitive thought processes.

So trust that Alan Baker actually believes it when he boldly claims:
"You can eliminate the Apple ID on iOS & still have full functionality"

*Shockingly, Alan Baker actually _believes_ what he wrote!*
--
That's the petrifyingly scary thing about these Type III Apple apologists.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-29 3:15 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:36:44 -0700 (PDT), Thomas E. wrote:
>
>> He just wants to bitch, not look for solutions that are dead easy to find
>
> Hi Thomas E.,
>
> Regarding this thread:
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/7BV04N_AAEI>
>
> Actually it's worse than "he just wants to bitch".
> o *Shockingly, Alan Baker actually _believes_ what he wrote!*

<https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/02/22/microsoft-is-making-it-harder-to-use-windows-10-local-accounts/>

<https://www.howtogeek.com/442609/confirmed-windows-10-setup-now-prevents-local-account-creation/>

<https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-users-fume-microsoft-wheres-our-local-account-option-gone/>

<https://www.thurrott.com/forums/microsoft/windows/thread/microsoft-remove-option-to-create-local-windows-account>

<https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-wants-to-do-away-with-windows-10-local-accounts/>

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 18:46:05 -0400, Paul wrote:

> It's there.
>
> Release 2004 tested in a virtual machine, so I can take pictures.
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/7YjwSXSF/local-acct-waltz.gif
>
> If the picture isn't sharp enough, use the "Download Original" at
> the top of the page.
>
> The necessary buttons are placed in a "darker" part of the
> screen in the hope you won't see them.
>
> Paul

Hi Paul,

You're dealing with what Mayayana calls an "AppleSeed"...

As usual, Alan Baker is fantastically _immune_ to obvious facts!
o He just wants to complain about Windows by making up issues
o And, he wants to claim iOS is functional without an Apple ID

All sans even a single shred of actual adult cognition behind his claims.

Let's see how this Type III apologist, who claimed many times it is not
there, responds to your image showing that it _is_ actually there:
o <https://i.postimg.cc/7YjwSXSF/local-acct-waltz.gif>

Given Alan Baker is the one who authored that thread, he should respond:

o Amazing what Windows still doesn't do well.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/7BV04N_AAEI>

Bear in mind Apologists like Alan Baker are so afraid of Windows & Android
that they have to fabricate completely imaginary issues that don't even
exist (even as, Lord knows, there are _plenty_ of real issues on both
platforms that we users discuss daily, openly, and factually).

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/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/4AdaprOPM-g>

Let's see what 'adult' response Alan Baker has, to the facts you provided!
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the
Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/miwGEINsoFQ>
--
The weird thing with Apple apologists is they feel Microsoft (Windows) &
Google (Android) are both a dire threat to their very existence; and yet,
nobody on Windows or Android feels Apple is in any way a threat to them.

[Arlen Holder]

On 30 Jun 2020 17:08:14 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> JF Mezie, Alan Browne, and trollboi Arleen are all out of their depth -
> all making arguments based on lies and willful ignorance.

Regarding this post by Jolly Roger against all who speak facts:
o Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING bullshit
regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC silicon
with licensed ARM technology
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/xKTMWDhKztk>

What's consistent is the Type III apologists always claim all facts they
simply don't like, are "lies by liars".
o Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they
don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nVzWBU2otC4>

Why do apologists claim all facts are lies?
o I don't know why.

I think, perhaps, facts are a threat to apologists like Jolly Roger...
o Just as facts are a threat to Cultists & to Flat Earthers.

Apologists have only 7 responses to facts, none of them adult:

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the
Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM%5B1-25%5D>
--

Note: Jolly Roger sets a no-archive bit, so here's his post, in full:
On 30 Jun 2020 17:08:14 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Subject: Re: Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple
MARKETING bullshit regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC
silicon with licensed ARM technology
> Date: 30 Jun 2020 17:08:14 GMT
> Message-ID: <hm19ru...@mid.individual.net>
>
> On 2020-06-29, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <9nsKG.76486$7vd....@fx35.iad>, JF Mezei
>><jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
>>>> chip, as was the entire industry.
>>>
>>> Blindsighted is too strong a word.
>>
>> not at all. if anything, it greatly understates what happened.
>>
>>> ARM is the one who released the 64
>>> bit architecture to licensees, so Qualcomm would have been working on
>>> implementing it on silicon it and would assume Apple and others were
>>> doing the same.
>>
>> to use everyone's favourite quote: *stop* *making* *things* *up*.
>>
>> qualcomm wasn't working on 64 bit arm processors, and when apple
>> announced the 64 bit a7, they tried to claim 61 bit wasn't needed and
>> nothing more than a gimmick because they were *completely* caught by
>> surprise.
>>
>><https://wccftech.com/qualcomm-employee-64bit-apple-a7-chip-hit-gut/>
>> "The 64-bit Apple chip hit us in the gut," says the Qualcomm
>> employee. "Not just us, but everyone, really. We were slack-jawed,
>> and stunned, and unprepared. Itąs not that big a performance
>> difference right now, since most current software wonąt benefit. But
>> in Spinal Tap terms itąs like, 32 more, and now everyone wants it." 
>>
>> only *after* apple's announcement did qualcomm scramble to come up with
>> their own implementation, except that apple continued to advance and
>> widen the gap even further.
>>
>>> Apple was first to market with the new architecture. It may have been a
>>> surprise, but not a blindsight. But it showed that Apple's chip
>>> designers were seriosu business.
>>
>> it completely blindsided the industry. full stop.
>
> JF Mezie, Alan Browne, and trollboi Arleen are all out of their depth -
> all making arguments based on lies and willful ignorance.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:51:20 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

> Well, obviously. Except when someone has a reading comprehension problem,
> like, oh, poor old Arlen the kiddie-fiddler.

Hi Wolffan,

*"kiddie-fiddler"*?

How _old_ are you, Wolffan?
o Ten?

Regarding this thread today:
o Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>

And specifically this post by Wolffan, moments ago...
o <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I/Zf0dIIgYAwAJ>

It's interesting when I brought up known _facts_ about Apple smartphone CPUs
o Appologists' only response to those facts is.... "*kiddie fiddler*"?

Is _that_ how you apologists "process" facts about Apple that you hate?
o *kiddie fiddler*

Apologists simply deny all facts, even these, which are well known facts:
o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be fatally compromised
o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be throttled in about a year

To those facts, you apologists respond....
o "*kiddie fiddler*"?

That's apologists' _best_ response to the known facts about Apple products?
*Kiddie Fiddler*
--
Apologists have only 7 responses to facts about Apple products, none adult.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:10:03 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> Apple does dominate in one way, of course. They make margin.
>
> Oodles of it.
>
> Apple also dominate in getting into the heads of people who somehow hate
> them.

Hi Alan Browne,

Regarding your factually correct comments in this thread just now...
o Direct public quote from Sr. Apple exec:
"*Apple does NOT have a dominant position in _ANY_ market*"
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/WQpGuZnzp2c>

You're astutely correct, IMHO, on two important factual assessments:
o You only fail on the third count because you're an apologist after all.

Luckily, you're a "type II" apologist, (IMHO), which means you're not they
way you are out of maliciousness, but you think the way you do about me
simply because you're unduly swayed by MARKETING and you hate that I'm not.

However, if you keep making sense like you did on your first two point I
might have to ignore your hatred for folks who comprehend facts and
perhaps, someday, remove you from the apologists' category, as Apple _does_
have one thing (and one thing only) making it the best in class, and, in
fact, the best in the world.

... ... *MARKETING* ... ...

If there was a law against monopolizing the thought process of people's
brains, Apple would be the first company broken up as a result of that law.

So, you're astutely correct, IMHO, on two important factual assessments:
1. Due to MARKETING, Apple makes "ooodles" of profit margin indeed, and,
2. That profit margin is due to MARKETING "getting into people's heads".

The only place you're dead wrong is in me hating Apple, which I don't (I
buy plenty of Apple products and I only speak well cited facts about them).

I do hate that Apple MARKETING has bamboozled the dumber people which is
why I don't particularly trust disingenuous people like nospam & Jolly
Roger who sadistically send those innocent Apple users (one of whom was me,
years ago) on wild-goose chases that have absolutely no hope of fruition.

Why Lewis, Jolly Roger, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, and nospam brazenly
fabricate functionality for iOS that simply doesn't exist is beyond me.

What I hate are two things, you confuse with Apple (where I don't hate
Apple since they're simply manipulating what turns out to be a rather
ignorant customer base into spending a lot of money to allay their fears):

Apple customers are inherently afraid of almost everything out there
o Where MARKETING palliates their fears with glossy MARKETING messages

What I dislike are people like nospam making claims that simply waste
people's time, since his credibility is no better than that of the result
of a coin toss....

And what I dislike are people like Alan Baker, Jolly Roger, Lewis, et al.,
who claim that any and all facts about Apple products are "lies by liars".

I also dislike when Type II Apologists, of which you are one (IMHO), like
Steve Scharf claim repeatedly that the Qualcomm royalties went _down_ per
iPhone, when, in fact, they went up (by 130%) and then they're not man
enough to admit they can't even comprehend a news article correctly
(as far as we know, they _still_ errantly believe what they wrote!).

In summary, you should realize, by now, I speak, FACTS about Apple
products, where I speak facts about Windows, Linux, and Android products
also - but you apologists can't comprehend something that balanced.

What you fear is Windows, Android, etc., while what Android and Windows
users fear is _not_ Apple - not in the least (as you noted, in the sense of
Apple's lack of market dominance in _any_ category).

Notice it's always the Apple owners who react so "funnily", which I think
is simply due to their abject fear, where that fear is well known to Apple
MARKETING - who preys most on people who are the most driven insane by fear
(IMHO).

In short, you made two astute comments, but you don't understand that
someone who speaks facts about any operating system (whether that's
Windows, Linux, iOS, or Android), is simply stating facts.

You don't _like_ those facts perhaps...
o But the fact you don't like facts doesn't change the fact they're facts.

See also:
o *What to tell Apple Apologists who claim anyone who speaks facts is "down
on Apple"*
(i.e., they conflict with Apple Marketing)?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/z7HCl4tm71E>
--
Apple users are a cult which can't fathom anyone speaking facts about it.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 03:22:01 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> You have gone one for quite some time about iPhone throttling its CPU.
>
> Suggest you watch this video from Linus Tech Tips on efforts to avoid
> throttling on Android phones.
>
> https://youtu.be/78dHkn1O1EM

Hi JF Mezei,

Regarding your thread moments ago...
o *To Arlen on Photo [sic] Throttling* [probably meant "CPU" throttling]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6sjJL3sxDxA>

This is long because you're an adult... so you can handle complexity.
o As I have studied not only Apple apologists, but also Apple iPhone owners

HINT: As you're aware, I ask _everyone_ I see with an iPhone _why_ they
own it, just as I ask at the gas pump why people are putting Premium
in a Honda Civic, and what I almost always get as an answer is that
they're completely bamboozled by MARKETING messages to the point that
they lost the ability to think independently of what MARKETING fed them.
o *Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING*
*bullshit regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC silicon*
*with licensed ARM technology*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/1GSxfEdrL6k>

While it's well known I purchase plenty of Apple products (many as gifts),
I do realize most Apple owners hate facts about Apple products, simply
because they're supremely blinded to the facts by (rather clever) Apple
MARKETING...
o *What to tell Apple Apologists who claim anyone who speaks facts is*
*"down on Apple" (i.e., they conflict with Apple Marketing)?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/z7HCl4tm71E>

So it's not really your fault that you can't see what everyone else can
clearly see, since Apple MARKETING is one of the finest on this planet:
o *What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU>

However, given you're not an apologist, a normal adult conversation can
ensue, simply because you're not hell bent on claiming all facts about
Apple are "lies by liars" (ala Alan Baker), & you don't refute obvious
facts simply because you don't like them (ala Joerg Lorenz), & you don't
brazenly fabricate imaginary functionality that simply never existed (ala
Jolly Roger), and you don't incessantly play silly childish semantic
games around facts in the vogue of "he didn't inhale" (ala nospam), etc.
o *Apple throttled your iPhone by cutting its speed almost in HALF!*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l79Xb6qx8Fs>

No adult conversation is possible with those apologists, so what you're
mostly reacting to, I suspect, is the fact I have to drop down to their
level whenever I need to deal with the three types of known apologists:
o Type I apologists, like nospam, always parrot Apple MARKETING messages
o Type II apologists, like Andreas Rutishauser simply ignore basic facts
o Type III apologists, like BK, actually _believe_ what Apple feeds them

Please notice that my reaction to those apologists is dumbed down like you
can't believe, simply because _they_ don't have the cognitive abilities to
comprehend anything but the simplest messaging.

(Actually, nospam _has_ the adult cognitive skills; but he pretends to be
an ignorant parrot of Apple MARKETING for reasons only known to him), so
even nospam, in effects, requires dumbed-down messaging.

Hence, whenever these apologists "claim" Apple has made the best-in-class
smartphone CPUs, I simply remind them of the unpatchable flaws in almost
all of them, and of the fact Apple admitted to the criminal offense of
secretly throttling them in order to decrease the life of the device, and,
worse, in _every_ iOS release since Apple claimed to Congress that
throttling wasn't "as" necessary, Apple became drunk on throttling more and
more devices in iOS 10, iOS 11, iOS 12, iOS 13, and who knows which phones
will get throttling software in iOS 14. (Apple is drunk on throttling!)
o *Every iPhone CPU from the iPhone 6 to iPhone 7 were throttled*
*then iPhone 8 to iPhone X were throttled*
*& now the iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max & iPhone XR get throttling software*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Mzh1IvniDr8>

While you're not an apologist, you are an Apple cultist, as are most of the
people (yes, most of them, but not all) on this newsgroup, where every
single time you see a flaw in an Apple product, you _blame_ someone else
for Apple's own design decisions.

Bear in mind, for Apple's clearly _unique_ Apple-only OS-based CPU
throttling, not only have I kept up on the throttling situation,
criminally, e.g., Apple admitted the criminal offense & paid a criminal
fine:
o *Apple agrees to pay 25 million euros fine as Apple admits*
*"Apple committed the _crime_ of deceptive commercial practice*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ>

But I've also kept up on the _unique_ Apple-only OS-based CPU throttling
situation on the civil side, e.g.,
o *Apple's Plan to Pay $500 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over*
*Secretly Throttling Older iPhones Gets Preliminary Approval today*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jN-h4WvWTEA>

And, I've kept up on this _unique_ Apple-only OS-based throttling
technically, e.g., I was the first one to break the news to this newsgroup
before we even knew the full extent of Apple's unique illegal throttling
which they admitted (see above) they did to purposefully and secretly
reduce iPhone life - only the secret was out when iOS 10 reduced CPU speeds
in half, drastically affecting iPhones:
o *Report says Apple 'Powerd' code secretly slows your iOS device*
*down to trick you into buying a new device*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/GdEtzzrc9F0>

I studied why you do this, so I think I know the _reason_ you do this, even
as you likely do not realize why you're always blaming everyone but Apple
for Apple's own flaws, but it's clear most of you Apple cultists are
literally _desperate_ to blame someone else for Apple's admitted criminal
act:
o *Why do apologists like Alan Baker & nospam desperately try to shift*
*the blame of Apple bugs to Google & Microsoft?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/LOQx1Ok-79c>

HINT: You actually believe the doublespeak, in that:
a. Apple is different
(but when caught)
b. Apple is the same
(you can't have it both ways)

You (plural) blame everyone but Apple every single time Apple is caught
breaking their own rules, e.g.,
o *Contractors in Cork, Ireland, were expected to each listen to more than*
*1,000 recordings from Siri every shift - without Apple users' knowledge.*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/n2O1TywAeGQ>

You don't realize this doublespeak thought process is _why_ you (plural
you), always blame everyone else for Apple's flaws... but I've studied why
you do this as it's one of the 7 responses to facts by Apple owners:
o *What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the*
*Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

Having said that as an adult, I will let you know that you seem to be
unaware that we fully covered this topic, directly, & in detail:
o *Do any Android phone manufacturers throttle (CPUs, PD Charging, Modems)*
*like Apple consistently does?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/xK0qCYaagRw>

In the always purposefully helpful goal to get to the truth, I will post
this response to that thread, so that we can, together, pick it up from
there, on both the Apple and Android newsgroups, where balance is possible.
o *This weird thing made my phone faster...*
<https://youtu.be/78dHkn1O1EM?t=401>
--
Apple owners don't realize they fall for Orwellian MARKETING doublethink.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2020 14:01:28 -0400, Paul wrote:

> FFS Lewis, will you stop with that nonsense!

Hi Paul,

Regarding your response to Lewis' post in this thread just now:
o *Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>

Now you know what I deal with every day on the Apple newsgroups...
o Type III apologists like Lewis aren't capable of adult logical thought.

Lewis truly thinks...
Since, with oodles of money, they can make a super computer using ARM
silicon...
o Apple can therefore make a best in class PC CPU (calling it "Apple
Silicon").

That's the same logic as if a red race car with STP stickers wins a race...
o Then people like Lewis run out to buy STP for their red Honda Civic.

Type III apologists like Lewis are _that_ incredibly immune to logic!
o Type I, like nospam, are essentially informal Apple MARKETING spokesmen
o Type II, like sms, are no malicious, just influenced greatly by MARKETING
o Type III, like Lewis & Alan Baker believe _everything_ MARKETING claims

Note: It's critical to realize that while Type I apologists like nospam
"sound" like Type III apologists like Lewis, the crucial difference is that
nsopam doesn't believe half of what he claims, while Lewis actually and
truly is telling us how his belief system works.

That is, while nospam realizes you can't compare a super computer to a PC
computer for this purpose, Lewis actually _believes_ that, since they "can"
make a super computer using ARM technology, that the Apple PC will, in
essence, be a super computer (of sorts).

Type I apologists don't even believe, themselves, most of their claims.
Type II apologists mostly just don't think all that much about the claims.
Type III apologists, sadly, actually believe everything that they claim.

The fact Type III apologists flock to purely imaginary belief systems...
o Is why (admittedly brilliant) Apple MARKETING holds sway on them.
--
Apologists like Lewis believe anything MARKETING feeds them to believe.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 16:56:35 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> Rosetta 2 will cnvert an x86 OS-X binary to an
> ARM binary before the applicatiion is launched. So the application
> launches as a native ARM app and runs natively.

Hi JF Mezei,

You're an adult, so the conversation is _different_ than with nospam.

You're also not an apologist, so, again, the conversation with you is
different than with nospam, just like the conversation with a five year old
(like Alan Baker appears to be) is, of necessity, quite different than a
conversation with an actual adult.

My point about nospam is that he always parrots Apple MARKETING.

Interestingly, nospam is actually smart enough to know that (roughly) half
of what he claims, he, himself, knows is utter bullshit (sort of like how
most MARKETING is - where a tad is based on truth, but the rest is
innuendo).

That's why there are three types of apologists, with respect to beliefs:
o *Type I*, e.g., nospam, claim it whether or not they actually believe it
(e.g., nospam might claim it's "Apple Silicon" while knowing it's not)
o *Type II*, e.g., sms, simply filter out facts, where they're just lazy
(e.g., Alan Browne might claim it's "Apple Silicon" without even thinking)
o *Type III*, e.g., Alan Baker or Lewis actually completely believe the BS
(e.g., whatever Alan Baker claims, rest assured, he actually believes!)

Obviously the scary ones are nospam, if you believe him...
o But he's not scary once you realize you can predict his every word.

Fundamentally, like a defense lawyer, he'll excuse whatever Apple does
o Mostly by blaming Google or Microsoft or even Amazon - for Apple's flaws
o But often by simple doublespeak or brazen denial of even well-known facts
o Often he resorts to claiming imaginary functionality that doesn't exist
etc.

If you disagree, I'll simply provide you with proof via cited threads.

o *Why do apologists like Alan Baker & nospam desperately try to shift*

*the _blame_ of Apple bugs to Google & Microsoft?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/LOQx1Ok-79c>

The apologists have only 7 responses to fact, none of them adult.

o *What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the*
*Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

My point on nospam's use of "Apple Silicon" is that, as a type I apologist,
he _knows_ full well it's not even remotely close to Apple Silicon; and he
knows exactly why Apple is frantic for us to NOT call it what it is, which
is ARM Silicon (e.g., product differentiation); however, deep down, nospam
will never admit it, but he _knows_ it's not even close to Apple Silicon.

The ones to really worry about are the Type III apologists like Alan Baker
and Lewis, who actually _believe_ the MARKETING bullshit.

It petrifies me, for example, that they're given the same vote as we are.
--
People _that_ fundamentally prone to believing MARKETING should't exist.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 10:32:20 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> Ah. Sorry then. Since the Dipshit is KF'd here, I didn't realize that.

Notice Alan Browne _proves_ why he's _immune_ to facts.

I speak facts about Apple products.

Alan Browne _hates_ facts about Apple products.

So he filters them out.

Which is the point.

o Type I apologists, like nospam, know the facts; but they only will claim
what Apple MARKETING itself, would claim, where Type I apologists defend
Apple actions at all costs to their credibility.

o Type II apologists, like Alan Browne, aren't malicious, but they're just
immune to facts; they simply believe whatever Apple MARKETING tells them
to believe, without ever thinking twice about checking their facts.

In fact, they filter out all facts that pertain to Apple from sources,
(e.g., Forbes), which they deem to speak too many facts about Apple.

o Type III apologists, like Alan Baker and Lewis are the strangest.
They actually _believe_ everything Apple has ever stated in its history.
Jolly Roger claimed, many times, Apple _told_ everyone fully and
completely about throttling, and Alan Baker claimed, many times,
that iOS works with full functionality without an Apple ID.

Notice how _different_ and yet, the same these three apologist types are?
o Type I, like nospam, simply parrot whatever MARKETING would have said.
(but they don't themselves, believe even a word that they say)

o Type II, like Alan Browne, aren't malicious, but are incredibly ignorant
(since they filter out any source of facts about Apple they don't like)

o Type III, like Alan Baker or Lewis or Jolly Roger, et al., are, of
course, fantastically ignorant, but what's scary about them is they're
so immune to facts that they can't fathom a single fact that betrays
what Apple Marketing fed them to believe.

While all three types can be predicted for the most part:
o Type I will say whatever Apple MARKETING defense lawyers would say
o Type II will almost always be wrong since they're immune to facts
o Type III apologists are the scariest of all types of apologists though.

*It petrifies me, for example, that they're given the same vote as we are.*
--
People that fundamentally prone to believing MARKETING should't even exist.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2020 03:25:14 +0200, Kees Nuyt wrote:

> Apple can call it Apple Silicon

Hi Kees Nuyt,

I don't know you, so I can't say whether your brain is so influenced by
MARKETING that it can't actually operate independently as an adult.

I also don't know how much MARKETING education you have, but, if you're
college educated, as I am, you have some if you have at least an MBA.

Based on what you wrote, you sounded rather logical, sensible & educated,
where, everything you said I agree with, since I'm also a cognizant adult.

However, you have to understand how then that you're _different_ from Apple
Apologists, who are cultists, first and foremost, who, like flat earthers,
actually believe anything and everything that Apple MARKETING feeds them.

My point to nospam (who is a Type I Apple Apologist, which means he is
capable of getting the point), and to Your Name (who is a Type III
apologist, and hence, not capable of independent adult thought), was simply
that Apple MARKETING is playing a game with their brains.

Just as Exxon used to have a tiger run across the TV screen to imply that
higher-octane fuel gave their Honda Civic magical powers, when it can't
possibly do anything other than waste their money, these Type III
apologists like Your Name actually _believe_ the bullshit marketing.

By way of contrast, Type I apologists, like nospam is, would "claim" that
Techron is better for your engine, but he'd know that his claim is bullshit
since all Top Tier gasolines (e.g., Costco gas) have the _same_ 400 ppm or
so of polyetheramines that Chevron patented long ago (the patent expired,
as I recall, the point being that it's just a name at this point in time).

Notice that the Type I apologists (e.g., nospam) will bullshit everyone
that, for example, "Techron is better", all the while _knowing_ that it's
bullshit (and only backing down when caught)... but the Type III apologists
(like Your Name, Alan Baker, Lewis, Jolly Roger, BK, Joerg Lorenz, et al.)
will actually not only _believe_ the "Techron is better" bullshit, but they
will argue with you until the end of time _claiming_ that it's better.

That's what it's like dealing with these Type I and Type III apologists
(where the Type II apologists like Alan Browne and Steve Scharf (sms)
simply filter out the facts so that they're simply ignorant of these facts,
so they _think_ "Techron is better", all the while simply being wrong.

Back to the "Your Name" troll...

He actually _believes_ it's somehow (magically) some super fancy special
only Apple can possibly do it kind of really special product this,
so-called "Apple Silicon", that is so special that it's worth whatever he
can possibly pay for it.

I don't mind him wasting his money and wasting his mindl; but I do mind
when he espouses his utter and total bullshit on Usenet.

When he does that, I will simply point out that this "Apple Silicon" is
coined simply because, IMHO, Apple MARKETING decided that the fact it's
based on ARM technology was something they _needed_ to hide from the
consumer like Your Name who desperately _wants_ to feel that what he's
buying is somehow different (like "Chevron gas" is to "Costco gas").

My job is simply to set the facts straight.
--
Apple is frantic that we NOT think of the new ARM Mac as an ARM Mac.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2020 08:59:55 +0200, Andreas Rutishauser wrote:

>>> Ah. Sorry then. Since the Dipshit is KF'd here, I didn't realize that.
>>
>> Notice Alan Browne _proves_ why he's _immune_ to facts.
>>
>> I speak facts about Apple products.
>

> none of what follows is facts about Apple products, so I delete ist.
> Wha can't you just stop your apologism?

You're a well-known Type II apologist, Andreas Rutishauser.
o That means you're not malicious, per se... just that you're ignorant.

The reason you are ignorant is you "mostly" believe in MARKETING.
o Type II apologists don't take the time & energy to cross check facts.

For example, Steve Scharf (aka sms) _still_ believes that the Qualcomm
royalties went down, which is a _classic_ trait of you Type II apologists.

You're not malicious, and you're not childish - you're simply ignorant.
o You're not ignorant out of stupidity though - like Type III apologists.

Nor are you like Type I apologists (e.g., nospam), who will claim anything
that fits into a defense or promotion of Apple MARKETING motives.

However, to your credit, you _can_ comprehend facts, when those facts are
provided, where, it will be noted that I provided tons of cites of fact in
this thread.

How many cites of fact in this thread did you provide, Andreas Rutishauser?
o HINT: None.
--
Type II apologists, like Andreas Rutishauser, aren't malicious (like Type I
apologists are), nor are they stupid (like Type III apologists are);
they're simply ignorant due to the fact they don't cross check their facts.

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:

Regarding this thread, just now...
o *Always record phone calls and FaceTime?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/pObGmeQn47I>

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 16:59:33 +0200, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> An absolut NoGo in Europe.
> No such Apps. Neither in the App Store nor in the Google Play Store.
> Consent from the counterparty is a legal requirement with all call
> recordings.

As with Flat Earthers, Type III apologists like Joerg Lorenz never let
actual facts get in the way of their excuses for why iOS apps lack
functionality that abounds elsewhere (Apple simply restricts apps).

The iOS users can't fathom the fact that Apple simply restricts them
o So they desperately concoct imaginary excuses for Apple's behavior

All three types of apologists do it, but they do it differently:
o Type I like nospam simply parrot MARKETING like he's their defense lawyer
o Type II like Savageduck aren't malicious, nor stupid - just ignorant
o Type III like Joerg Lorenz concoct any _imaginary_ excuse they can

The hardest thing for an adult is the realization Joerg is typical.
o Again and again, and again, iOS users are fantastically _immune_ to fact.

They make up _any_ excuse they can for the lack of iOS app functionality.
o They are forced, by their belief system, to concoct excuses for Apple

Where the fact is always the same that the only reason iOS lacks app
functionality is simply that Apple restricts what apps can do.

It's not any more complex than that.

Even long after Joerg was provided the facts about various Euro laws...
o And even well after Joerg was shown the links he claims don't exist...

What makes Jeorg Lorenz a Type III apologists is that, shockingly, even
well after being shown the facts, he still _believes_ what he says!

Note: Type I apologists like nospam don't actually believe what they claim.
o And Type II apologists like Savageduck are merely ignorant - not stupid.
But Type III apologists like Joerg actaully _believe_ everything they say.

That's why Type III apologists petrify me... they only _look_ like adults!
o Hence, they're given the _same_ vote as we normal adults are. (Yikes!)

Any & all facts have absolutely zero effect on Jeorg's IQ 40 to 50 brain.
o That's exactly the key trait of all Type III apologists, which Joerg is.

FACTS:

We covered the laws, in detail, already, on both the iOS & Android groups!
o *Call recorder for the UK?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/_Gmo2K4GmeE/>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/0MizoJ1WcvA>

In those threads, we provid Google Play links to what Joerg claims doesn't
exist, and yet, he _knows_ his claim is dead wrong.

But wait... He was _informed_ his claim was dead wrong... but... but...
o He _still_ believes in his claim - even after having been proven wrong!

That's what Type III apologists are.
o They're nothing like normal adults with a normal IQ of around 100 or so.

This complete inability to comprehend even well documented well publicized
well known facts when they pertain to Apple products is what makes people
like Joerg Lorenz, Alan Baker, Lewis, Chris, Jolly Roger, et al., Type III
apologists.

As with Flat Earthers, Type III apologists like Joerg Lorenz never let
actual facts get in the way of their excuses for why iOS apps lack
functionality that abounds elsewhere (it simply doesn't exist on iOS).
o *Automatic call recorder freeware (best)*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/Tb8wf4fJu_A>
--
The hardest thing for an adult to fathom is Joerg is a typical iOS user.

[Arlen Holder]

On 13 Jul 2020 09:12:29 GMT, Sandman wrote:

> Instead of reporting facts you trolls lie

Hi Sandman,

Regarding these published well-cited facts which you brazenly deny:
o *Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8>

You just proved you're a Type III apologist (ala, Alan Baker)

The entire post was verbatim - and - it included the cite to the original.
o I didn't add anything - I simply quoted the salient facts for you.

*How can you possibly call a verbatim post (with the cite), a "lie"?*
o No reasonable adult does what you strange apologists always do.

Since I've studied you apologists for years, I've assessed you _hate_ what
Apple is, because you own an imaginary belief system (fed to you by
MARKETING) of what you _thought_ Apple was.

And yet, every fact points to what Apple _is_ which is why you hate them.

It's like your mom is a prostitute whom you _think_ is an angel.
o So every fact about your mom, even as it's fact, you call a lie.

Like flat earthers, the _only_ way you can maintain your imaginary belief
system intact is to simply claim that all facts about Apple are lies.

Even verbatim quotes are "lies" to you apologists.
--
Apologists _hate_ what Apple is so much that all facts about Apple, to
them, must be lies since facts don't fit into what MARKETING fed them.

[Arlen Holder]

On 14 Jul 2020 11:32:38 GMT, Sandman wrote:

> He is so afraid of this that his only course of action is to SNIP OUT his
> lies in every single post, and try to ignore them outright. Go ahead little
> liar, snip it again and run away with your tail between your legs, it is
> after all what you do best. Far be it from you to actually acknowledge the
> lie you told and admit to it. No, snip little boy, snip and run!

Hi Alan Baker (aka Sandman),

The problem with Apple newsgroups is simply that you apologists exist.
o This thread is PERFECT for the permanent archives - to prove that point.

A. Facts that Apple published themselves, were provided.
B. To date, 34 of 36 responses were apologists' refuting the facts
(or me explaining, patiently to those apologists, the facts)
C. And yet, *all the apologists are fantastically _immune_ to those facts*
(they literally brazenly deny Apple said what Apple clearly said!)

To wit, we come to this utter moron, of the same low IQ as Alan Baker.
o I estimate Alan Baker's IQ of around 40, maybe as high as 50 (IMHO).

Which is likely why he can't comprehend what a double quote indicates...
o Nor what the word "verbatim" even means (especially with double quotes).

Sandman _is_ most likely a sock of Alan Baker, as far as I can tell.
o As with Alan Baker, he incessantly claim all facts are "lies by liars".

Hence, to spare adults the indignity of me having to drop to his level
o This is my last post to Sandman on this topic.

For the very few actual adults on this newsgroup...
1. The topic was EXACTLY what it said (verbatim) in the Subject.
2. The description was EXACTLY as said (verbatim) in the OP.
3. Sandman (aka a sock of Alan Baker) refutes what Apple said.

If this "Sandman" isn't perchance, Alan Baker, they act the same:
a. They both call all facts "lies by liars" (even verbatim posts!)
b. They both hate when we use proper Usenet quoting netiquette
c. They both fail to comprehend Apple said exactly what Apple said:
o *Don't close your MacBook, MacBook Air, or MacBook Pro with a cover over the camera*
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211148>

Where the original post contained (verbatim) quotes from this cite:

o *Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera*

<https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/10/apple-macbook-camera-cover-warning/>

There are 36 responses by 9 authors, only one of which is from an adult:

o *Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8>

Other than the OP, the only posts on an adult level are these two:
o Ant
"Weird. No problems with old MBPs like from 2012 and 2008.
Must be the newer models."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8/mICgDVwTDQAJ>
o My adult response to Ant
"In _this_ situation, Ant, Apple says that if you use a cover,
then you can easily break the screen, as the tolerances are rather
tight (and it has happened, apparently, enough to have caused Apple
to issue the warning).
So simply consider this a PSA, so that you know how to not have
it happen."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8/DSmIvCAXDQAJ>

The rest of the responses prove why this newsgroup is what it is:
o Alan Baker, Sandman, John McWilliams, John Dee, Wolffan, Otto Pylot

While all those are Type III apologists (IQ of around 40 or 50, IMHO)...
o Our resident Type I apologist, nospam, weighted in claiming,
essentially, he's sick and tired of seeing accurate & well cited
facts about Apple products, saying (correctly so), "it never ends".

Good.
o When people are claiming the facts will never end... I'm doing my job.

While the Type III apologists claimed that Apple didn't say what Apple
clearly said (all of which was verbatim and they _still_ claimed Apple
didn't say what Apple said)...

The _best_ that Sandman (aka Alan Baker) can come up with is that in my one
reply to the one adult (Ant), I didn't bother to quote verbatim since I was
speaking with an adult, so I paraphrased what Apple said (where Ant well
knew I was doing that since ALL ADULTS would know I didn't state it was
verbatim - it was a summary to Ant, as an adult to an adult).

That one sentence, of that one-line summary, caused Sandman (aka Alan
Baker) to foment upon us a tirade of "liar liar pants on fire" posts,
all simply because Sandman (aka Alan Baker) is too stupid to understand
what Ant (and all adults) instantly knew was a paraphrase (since it had no
quotes, and it wasn't stated to be a quote, which, for God's sake, I can't
believe I have to EXPLAIN on this newsgroup).

Sandman (aka Alan Baker) is an utter moron who is so stupid he can't fathom
what the word "verbatim" means (it wasn't in that post to Ant as it wasn't
needed!) nor, what a double quote means (it wasn't in that post to Ant)...

Jesus Christ... can you believe how _loooooow_ the IQ of Sandman/Baker is?

Having worked in the Silicon Valley for decades, I have never run into
people like Sandman/Baker _that_ incredibly incomprehensibly stupid.

I can deal with nospam, since he's actually not as stupid as what he writes
shows him to be (nospam is simply a dutiful parrot of MARKETING mantra).

But I just can't stoop down to the low-IQ level of Sandman/Baker.
o I just can't.

*Clearly, these apologists are what has ruined this newsgroup, for years.*

See also:
o *Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups - is simply that apologists exist*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/7IqoAq8fURo>

And...
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/_50ZqBhcbYs>

And, in relation to apologists claiming all facts are lies by liars:
o *Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nVzWBU2otC4>

And, in relation to apologists brazenly denying even what Apple admits!
o *What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0>
etc.

Given the problem with this newsgroup, _is_ that the apologists exist...

To spare the few adults on this newsgroup further childish indignity...
o This is my last response to Alan Baker (aka Sandman), on this topic.
--
The problem with Apple newsgroups is simply that the apologists exist.

[Arlen Holder]

On 15 Jul 2020 14:54:47 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> It's so funny - in a rather pathetic way - that 'nospam' will argue
> the exact opposite (of what he does in this case), when the shoe is on
> the other foot (i.e. Apple is the accused party).
>
> It's also amazing to see that 'nospam' continues to misread/
> misinterpret what is written and 'reads' what's not written and
> continues to argue both these fallacies.

Hi Frank Slootweg,

Apple apologists always prove they have no adult tools to deal with facts.

We know each other well where's no love lost between us, where I just want
to let you (& others) know I've _studied_ these unprepossessing apologists.

Their strange (but consistently repetitive) actions piqued my interest:
a. They _always_ take the case of Apple (as you see nospam doing now)
b. They brazenly deny what Apple does (or blame M$ for what Apple does)
c. They fabricate functionality they _wish_ Apple products have

While there are three major types of apologists, what's consistent about
their arguments is that they are so used to being among their own cultists,
that they have absolutely no adult strategies to deal with actual facts.

For example, nospam will literally change your words in his quote of what
you said, and then he'll respond to _those_ changed words. He's done this
so many hundreds of times that I have an entire thread of when he's done
that - simply because he has no skill for handling actual facts.

For another example, all the apologists, will simply deny facts outright,
where they do it differently depending on the type. For example, Type I
apologists (nospam being the canonical member) will claim "he's told you
already", or just "nope" without calling all facts "lies by liars" which
the Type III apologists do. He'll deny any fact he simply doesn't like.

And yet, unlike the other types of apologists, nospam actually _knows_ the
facts, which is why his credibility is rather high for an apologists at
about the same result as a dumb random coin toss outcome.

The three types are clearly distinct, even as they're all strange people:
o Type I (e.g., nospam) will always parrot Apple MARKETING mantra.
o Type II (e.g., sms) are normal people who simply aren't factual minded.
o Type III (e.g., Alan Baker) are well into Quadrant 1 of Dunning-Kruger.

Notice what sets apart nospam from the other two despicable types is that
he doesn't believe a word he, himself, says, whereas the other two types
literally believe what they say (where the Type II are simply ignorant
people who aren't used to facts, e.g., Steve Scharf _still_ thinks the
Qualcomm royalties went down per iPhone!)... but it's the Type III (e.g.,
Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, BK, Joerg Lorenz, et al.) who are the most
petrifying since they truly believe the strange things they claim.

By way of contrast with nospam, the Type III apologist are clearly of very
low IQ, whereas nospam has only a slightly below normal IQ (AFAICT), where
the fact he _understands_ the facts puts him in the normal range but the
fact he has no methods to deal with facts shows he's below normal in IQ.

The Type II apologists, as far as I can tell, have a normal range of IQ
(e.g., Alan Browne, Andreas Rutishauser, Savageduck, Steve Scharf, et al.),
where their flaws are simply that facts aren't something they're used to
dealing with (it's likely zero of them were science or engineering majors,
for example, but more likely they couldn't handle any factually rigorous
field of endeavor, e.g., Steve is the mayor of Cupertino, which doesn't
require factual skills - but which requires political acumen instead).

One thing that distinguishes apologists is their purpose on denying facts:
o Type I simply defend Apple and blame Microsoft/Google for Apple faults.
o Type II simply believe the MARKETING but otherwise are normal people.
o Type III are viscous hate-filled horribly unprepossessing bullies.

One trait both Type I and Type III apologists share is that they're easily
shown to be sadistic, which has been proven many times, where they
sadistically send innocent users on wild-goose chases simply because they
incessantly claim functionality that simply never existed.

It's shocking, actually, how horribly sadistic nospam is when he does that.
o He's a completely unprepossessing human being - devoid of purposefully
helpful advice - as he NEVER has any other goal but to push Apple's
marketing message on Usenet. He's NEVER purposefully helpful. Ever.

In short, nospam is, IMHO, a truly despicable human being, devoid of
purposefully helpful intent, honor, credibility, or compassion.

But he's not stupid! He's of only slightly below normal intelligence.
o He is the way he is because he _chooses_ to be despicable.

Unlike Type III and Type II apologists, who don't know any better.
o This nospam actually _knows_ he's despicable; he simply doesn't care.

In summary, all of the apologists deny what normal people know to be facts.
o Type I know the facts, but they'll support Apple at all costs

Hence, most Usenet threads they participate in are _filled_ with their
garbage, such that some threads are 99% them simply denying what nobody
normal would ever deny.

IMHO, these despicable people like nospam are what ruins Usenet.
o They don't have a single purposefully helpful bone in their bodies.

Happened just this week, for example, fully documented here:

o *Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups - is simply that apologists exist*

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mQsBECSbICw>
--
Apple apologists always prove they have no adult tools to deal with facts.

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:

Regarding this informative fact-based thread, from just moments ago...
o *How to submit your claim in Apple's half a billion dollar secret throtting settlement*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wm-8YUKl5M0>

On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 08:06:25 -0400, nospam wrote:

>>> Ant:
>>> Why isn't on Apple's web site to check and send us payments like in the
>>> past? Is that web site legit?
>> Your Name:
>> No. It's a crap website posted by a brainless troll ... avoid BOTH of them!!!
> nospam:
> nonsense. it's the official website for the settlement.

*Why do apologists brazenly deny even the most easily verified facts?*

Given I've studied Apple posters for years, I _love_ that I can pretty much
accurately characterize every single one of you, before you even post, as
to almost exactly _what_ you'll claim given any specific fact about Apple.

o Type I apologists, like nospam, surprisingly actually _know_ the facts.
o Type II apologists, like Steve Scharf, never seem to check their facts.
o Type III apologists, like Your Name, are fantastically ignorant of facts.

In this case, Ant, who is not an apologist, asked a valid question.
o nospam, who is an apologist that knows the answer, clarified the answer.

And yet, Your Name, who is probably of an IQ of, oh, 40 or 50 like most (if
not all) of the Type III apologists, refutes facts that were _cited_ in the
opening post.

While none of the apologists seem to care about their lack of credibility,
in the case of Type III apologists like Your Name is, EVERY post from them
proves they lack the basic adult capacity of rational cognitive thought.

These Type III apologists prove my point, with every post, that they simply
refute ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they don't like about Apple products.

Why?

o I don't know why.

I suspect these apologists _hate_ what Apple is so much that the only way
they can maintain their self-fabricated imaginary belief system, is to deny
(or filter out) any and all facts about what Apple actually does.
--
Even verbatim cites from reliable sources these apologists brazenly refute.

[Arlen Holder]

Update re:
o How to submit your claim in Apple's half a billion dollar secret throtting settlement
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wm-8YUKl5M0>

On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 16:43:24 -0400, nospam wrote:

> he uses an automated script to generate and post his drivel, which is
> very broken and he refuses to fix it. he doesn't even know how it works
> to be able to fix it.

Hi nospam,

The answer though, to Ant's question, should be obvious to all adults:
1. Facts
2. Strategic threads
3. Tactically updated

You're only partially correct, where Ant doesn't appear to own the
cognitive skills to realize I strategically create canonical threads and
then I tactically update them with related factual cites, for the purpose
of creating a PERMANENT USENET RECORD of not only facts about Apple
products, but also examples of why you Apple Apologists deny anything and
everything about Apple.

Why do you apologists deny all facts about Apple you simply don't like?

o I don't know why.

I suspect it's as simple as you _hate_ what Apple is.
o What Apple is, isn't what Apple MARKETING fed you to believe it was.

So you _hate_ facts about Apple, even when it's as simple as throttling
(which even you, nospam, attempted to deny for the iPhone 8 & iPhone X).

What's interesting, nospam, is that you're likely one of the highest IQ
apologists, where I assess you at about normal (or slightly lower than
normal because you turn into an instant child in the face of facts):
o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face
of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4>

I completely understand that you always parrot Apple MARKETING, nospam.
o And I realize you don't believe a word you claim about Apple products.

You'll brazenly deny outright what Apple openly publicly already admitted!
o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0>

You not only brazenly deny even what Apple themselves publicly admitted...
o But you incessantly fabricate imaginary functionality that never existed!

That's why I realize you're literally sadistic, when you send innocent
people on wild-goose chases that have absolutely zero chance of success:
o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users
on wild goose chases?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I>

But, of all apologists, you actually own a brain, so you're partially
correct that I use scripts written by Marek on Linux and ported to Windows
which use vi/vim and telnet-based dictionary based headers (and killfiles)
which even I don't dive into, and which do screw up, particularly when I
switch between machines mid thread.

The Type III apologists like Alan Baker/Sandman are so incredibly stupid
that they can't fathom what you can fathom about newsreaders, nospam:
o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics

skills an adult should have on the Internet?

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

In summary, at average or most likely slightly below average IQ (assessed
based on your childish response to facts you simply don't like), you're
only of a few people on this newsgroup most likely to stand eye to eye to
me based on their IQ (most apologists clearly own very low IQs).

While your IQ is obviously far lower than mine, almost nobody else has
anywhere near the adult cognition (save for David Empson) that you have on
Apple products - so you appear to be the "best" they have on this
newsgroup.

And yet, your credibility is no better than the result of a coin toss.
o While I have never even once been wrong on facts posted to this ng.

You _know_ that my facts have never even once ever been materially wrong,
so the way you _attempt_ to refute them is to use your 7 basic habits of
denying facts you simply don't like (none of which are adult tactics):

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple
Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

And, you're correct that my scripts are not only buggy, but I don't dive
into them unless I need to fix something (which I don't do often).

The answer though, to Ant's question, should be obvious to all adults:
1. Facts
2. Strategic threads
3. Tactically updated

[1]
But the simple answer to Ant's question you should already know, which is
that I am here to bring needed FACTS to this Apple newsgroup.

[2]
I do so by creating canonical threads.

[3]
And, each time an example fits those canonical threads, I _update_ those
canonical threads.

In this case, my response to Ant updated a couple of the canonical threads.
o It's only morons who can't understand something _that_ incredibly simple.
--
Apple apologists fail to comprehend the most obvious of stragegy & tactics.

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE: More proof apologists have no defense to facts...
o Apologists have only seven responses to fact, none of which are adult.

Proof below that two of those responses to fact they don't like are...
(1) They brazenly deny outright all facts about Apple they don't like
(2) And, they incessantly blame everyone but Apple for Apple's faults.

Note: No other OS newsgroup does this (e.g., Windows & Android users don't
blame Apple for everything Microsoft & Google do that they don't like).

Only apologists incessantly do this:
1. They deny facts about Apple outright, and,
2. They blame everyone but Apple for Apple's own flaws.

Proof below... from this recent thread...
o do ios updates only screw up iphones or ipads as well?, by sobriquet
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/Ilygf2QRnNU>

On Sun, 02 Aug 2020 19:11:08 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <rg7ent$kvq$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
> <arlen...@newmachine.com> wrote:
>
>> Apple's admission of criminal intent, in & of itself, IMHO, is the victory.
>
> apple did not admit criminal intent, since there was none.
>
> apple's goal was to make sure users were not interrupted by unexpected
> shutdowns due to an aging battery.
>
> android device makers chose not to bother and were sued, resulting in
> making a much, much higher payout.

It's interesting that nospam's _only_ defense to facts he doesn't like...
o Is simply to claim that facts about Apple he doesn't like don't exist.

And yet... the facts apologists brazenly deny, always exist for adults!
o <https://i.postimg.cc/BQZ9hZg1/crime00.jpg>

Why do apologists always brazenly deny what even Apple openly admitted?

o I don't know why.

I suspect Apologists _hate_ what Apple is - so they deny what Apple does.
o <https://i.postimg.cc/HnL1QKxH/crime03.jpg>
--
Apologists hate what Apple is, so much, they brazenly deny what Apple does.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 19:20:26 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> This is how Lewis operates. It's either because he's a narcissist who
> really thinks he's better than everyone else or he has really low self
> esteem and berates others to supposedly elevate himself. My guess is
> the first.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 20:19:23 +0100, Wilf wrote:

> Cor, advice in this group sure comes with some extreme and unnecessary
> insults and gratuitous name calling. What is with you people? It's not
> advice when you call the person asking for help stupid names.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 12:53:37 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> 5GB is more than enough space to backup a 128GB iPhone. I currently have
> three devices backed up, my 256GB iPad (2.8GB) my 128GB phone (1GB) and
> a previous backup of my phone (988MB). My iohoine is using 117GB of
> space, and my iPad is using jut under 200GB.
>
> Add those numbers up, dumbass.

On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 19:20:26 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> This is how Lewis operates. It's either because he's a narcissist who
> really thinks he's better than everyone else or he has really low self
> esteem and berates others to supposedly elevate himself. My guess is
> the first.

Hi badgolferman,

Regarding this simple factual question, which didn't require Lewis' vitriol
o transferring to a new phone, by badgolferman
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QEMn3fgKodg>

As you're aware, I've studied each poster to this newsgroup, for years.
o What are the traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

Lewis, et al., is a TYPE III apologist.
o They're completely taken in by _everything_ Apple MARKETING feeds them.

In a sense, they're cultists.
o Facts about Apple are extremely _personal_ to TYPE III apologists.

Apple is literally a critical portion of their sense of "belonging".
o Anyone who threatens their sense of belonging - is, by them, hated.

I posit that's why they react with vitriolic hatred to _bearers_ of fact.
o Jolly Roger, for example, is a TYPE III apologist clone of Lewis, IMHO.
--
Apologists brazenly deny what they _hate_ about Apple (which is a lot).

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 22:16:58 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> No, its because I do not tolerate stupidity, ignorance, or fools.
> You check all three boxes.

I love when TYPE III apologists like Lewis & Jolly Roger post!
o Unlike nospam, TYPE III apologists actually _believe_ what they say!

Basically, they're cultists, who protect their cult at all costs.
o Type III apologists intensely _personalize_ their Apple experience.

Anyone who threatens their imaginary Apple personalization, is, to them:
a. Stupid
b. Ignorant
c. Fools

Simply because badgolferman spoke a fact the cultists happens to not like.
--
For Type III apologists, both fact & people speaking them - are the threat!

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:03:04 -0400, News wrote:

> Why not rename Apple "Trump"?
> Same degree of facade and truthfulness.

The cultists _identify_ stronly with religiou/political/marketing dogma.

I don't blame politicians for claiming falsehoods
o I blame the cultists for believing them.

Only the TYPE III apologists are true die-hard cultists, though:

o Type I apologists (e.g., nospam) don't believe a word MARKETING says
(but, like a politician, Type I apologists parrot MARKETING claims)

o Type II apologists (e.g., Steve) can filter out the MARKETING bulldunk
(but they simply don't ever seem to doublecheck their facts)

o Type III apologists (Lewis, Jolly Roger, Joerg et al.) are different
(*they strongly believe _everything_ that Apple MARKETING claims*)

I generally refrain from political intrigue, but in a sense, the Type III
apologists are much like die-hard Democrats & die-hard Republicans.

They actually _believe_ what the politicians claim.
--
For example, didn't Trump recently claim table 3 of the CDC report showed
only 6% of the covid-related deaths were from covid alone?

And didn't Gavin Newsom just claim that he has no patience for
intellectuals who don't emotionally believe that these fires are caused by
global warming?

The cultists _identify_ stronly with religiou/political/marketing dogma.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:15:11 -0400, nospam wrote:

> apple did not lag anyone.

Are you seriously claiming Apple didn't lag on 5G flagship phones?

If so, you're proving my point that a reason you deny all facts about Apple
you simply don't like, is likely that you _hate_ what Apple actually does.

So you deny Apple did it.

[Arlen Holder]

On 15 Sep 2020 21:31:42 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> It's debatable whether it ever was - the whole thing is witless and
> juvenile at best. I suppose if witless, juvenile humor is your thing,
> though...

Type III apologsits' self image is that which Apple MARKETING paints.

Hence, it's interesting how Type III apologists are so cultish, they can't
even stomach even a bit of humor poked at their revered cult leaders.

Why?

o I don't know why.

I suspect Type III apologists "deeply personalize" their Apple experience.
o To Type III apologists, Apple's "image" is their very own image.

That's why, I suspect, they react with hateful vitriol to the _bearer_ of
facts, since those facts are hurtful to their self image.
--
Type III apologsits' self image is that which Apple MARKETING paints.

[Arlen Holder]

On 21 Sep 2020 15:46:51 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Indeed! nospam is always ranting about Apple's market share, but in
> this case that market share is - understandably - rather low. So he
> 'has' to come up with a meaningless statistic, which *looks* impressive,
> but of course *isn't* (because there are magnitudes more models of
> non-Apple phones than of Apple phones).

I've assessed all the apologists, where nospam is a Type I apologists:
o He, himself, doesn't believe a single word of what he claims

To understand nospam is simply to assume that he's paid by Apple MARKETING
since he _always_ parrots a position that is favorable to Apple.
(I'm not saying he's paid, but assume that and you can predict nearly
everything that nospam claims, and, more importantly, why he claims it when
he, himself, doesn't believe even a word of his own claims.)

Given that assumption, I don't worry about Type I apologists like nospam
o It's the TYPE III (cultists) apologists that worry me.

TYPE I apologist don't believe a single claim they themselves say.
Type II apologists simply believe Apple sans checking facts.
Type III apologists actually believe _everything MARKETING_ feeds them.
--
The TYPE III apologists, on the other hand, believe everything they say.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 06:50:21 -0500, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> I guess apologists will pretend this minor update never happened because we
> are an unrepentantly evil bunch who believe everything Apple marketing
> tells us. Good thing there¢s a hapless crusader who can spend every waking
> moment obsessing over a smartphone OS since there is nothing else at all
> bad happening in the world today. We have only the scourge of Apple
> marketing and its usenet minions.

Hi Hemidactylus,

Type III apologists literally take facts about Apple as a personal affront.
o You apologists are who ruin this Apple newsgroup, not those bearing fact.

All you worthless pieces of shit fit into three categories, but you're all
the same in that you literally _hate_ what Apple is, so much that you

brazenly deny what Apple does.

If you want, I can assemble probably hundreds of instances, for example,
where Jolly Roger or Lewis or BK or Chris or Joerg, et al. claimed Apple
didn't do what Apple clearly did.

Why?
o I don't know why.

I've assessed you apologists believe _only_ in the MARKETING message.
o Apologists appear to have absolutely no abilities of independent thought.

While the TYPE I apologists (e.g., nospam) simply deny any fact outright,
people like nospam don't bother me because it's clear from how nospam
couches his denials that he, himself, doesn't believe a word he claims.

What scares me are you TYPE III apologists.
o You actually _believe_ every single thing Apple MARKETING has fed you.

Worse, some of you, particularly those like Jolly Roger & Lewis, have
imbibed the MARKETING in a cultist way, such that any fact that goes
against their self-image which Apple MARKETING carefully crafted just for
such weak-willed people, is taken as a personal affront.

Haven't you ever wondered why Type III apologists react with such vitriol
to the simplest of the most basic of the most obvious of Apple facts?
--
Type III apologists literally take facts about Apple as a personal attack.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 17:27:01 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

>>> Cant resist always being an asshat, can you? Fuck off to the bit bucket
>>> with you.
>>
>> Proof badgolferman was onto something and of course Lewis goes all angry
>> asshat.
>>
>
> {As for Lewis]... He's something...isn't he?

Hi badgolferman,

Regarding:
o iOS doesn't need to be more like Android, it just needs more Google
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fEIsHPYE9vs>

As you are well aware, I study the three types of apologists, in terms of
why they are always seemingly shockingly immune to simple basic facts.
o Type I (nospam) know facts; but always take an Apple position on them
o Type II (sms) know facts too; but simply don't bother to doublecheck them
o Type III (Lewis) usually instantly trigger personal reprisals to facts

Note that Type III apologists are all the same in their personal reprisals:
o Alan Baker always calls the bearer of facts a "liar", for example.
o Jolly Roger employs hateful personal vitriol against the bearer of facts.
o Lewis did the same as does Jolly Roger & Alan Baker, to you, just now.

Why?
o I don't know why.

I previously claimed that they are all cultists who have imbibed the Apple
MARKETING position of what Apple "should be" but not what Apple "is".

Hence, any fact that shows what Apple "is" is considered, by these Type III
apologists, as a dangerous personal affront, since, presumably, any facts
about Apple products that deviate from their cultist beliefs (carefully
crafted by Apple MARKETING), literally detract from their self image.

That is, my hypothesis of why Type III apologists like Lewis and Jolly
Roger and Alan Baker react to mere facts with such personally hateful
vitriol is that facts are actually a dire _threat_ to their self image.

I think, in a small way, your commendation of Lewis' unusually adult like
behavior, somehow, in some way, triggered this instantaneously lashed out
self-image protection mechanism by Lewis of personally attacking you.

Why?
o I don't know why.

I just know that it did.
--
Adult conversations on this newsgroup are possible if apologists stay out.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 17:13:50 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

> 1. I am not in denial

Hi John McWilliams,

I know you apologists, because I've studied you for years, John.
o I can predict what most of you will claim, years in advance, John.

You apologists hate you're so simpleminded as to be trivial to predict.
o It's why you fall for admittedly brilliant Apple MARKETING after all.

I've dealt with you many times before John McWilliams.
o All you infantile apologists are children of the same mindset.

You hate people who speak facts instantly DESTROY your imaginary beliefs.
o People who speak facts are a dire _threat_ to your very self image, John.

> 2. I don't hate Apple.

Ah, but you do. :)
o It's why apologists literally _hate_ many facts about Apple products.

You deny these facts; you minimize these facts, you ignore these facts...
o Because you _hate_ that facts belie Apple MARKETING isn't "the truth"

Most of you apologists are so viciously against facts about Apple...
o You attack the mere messenger...

As you just did.
o Fact scare you so much that you're afraid of the messenger of facts.

> 3. I don't hate "a lot of facts" about Apple.

Again, you don't realize it's why you're so ignorant of Apple facts.
o You _hate_ the truth about Apple products so much you deny it.

> 4. I think the reported move is a good one.

What reported "move"?

> 5. I don't deny that the report is true.

The apologists have denied that throttling occurs; they've claimed Apple
hasn't admitted they throttled on purpose; they claim the batteries made
them do it (secretly so); they claim there have been no exploits of Apple
chips; they claim the cameras are top notch when they can barely make the
top dozen in quality of results; they claim functionality for Apple
products that simple doesn't exist, etc.

Apologists do this why?

o I don't know why.

I know that they do it all the time.
o Want zillions of references proving that statement, John McWilliams?

> That would seem to prove I am not an "apologist"! Wow.

The apologist in you, John McWilliams, is that you _hate_ what Apple is.
o It's why all you apologists say what you say on this newsgroup.

What you want is to desperately believe in what Apple "says" it is.

> Unless an apologist is someone who thinks "Arlen" has his head up his ass.

All you apologists are afraid of anyone who speaks facts about Apple
o I accept the fact you are deathly scared of me, John McWilliams

It's why you attempt your childish personal attacks of me, John.

Because I speak facts.
o And you have absolutely zero adult defense against facts, John.

It's good you hate me, John McWilliams, because we're not evenly matched.
o What you hate about me, John, is that I understand who you are.

You, John McWilliams, are perfectly well described here, in fact:
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>
--
Apologists hate that they're so simpleminded as to be trivial to predict.
(It's why they fall for admittedly brilliant Apple MARKETING after all.)

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:51:45 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> That's not an "apologist". It's a person with an actual brain that they
> use at least some portion of (unlike Arlen Holder). Of course, a person
> who uses their full brain would have killfiled the moron ages ago and
> not bother replying to that idiotic troll.

What I love is how the apologists, like "Your Name" prove me right!
o They all _hate_ anyone or anything that brings facts to the table

Whenever they hear facts - they literally attack the mere messenger of fact
o Notice - They have absolutely no adult response to the actual facts...

Why do apologists like Your Name attack the messenger of (verbatim) facts?

o I don't know why.

I suspect they actually all _believe_ the cultist ideals MARKETING portrays
o It's clear anyone bearing facts is a grave _threat_ to these apologists
--
More details here:

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 21:33:14 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Well, at least they invited the hacking and rewarded the people who found
> them. It could have been worse if hackers just exploited them and didn┤
> tell anyone.

Hi badgolferman,

If I got paid for all the facts about Apple I've posted - I'd be rich.

You're not an apologist so nuances of detail are possible with you.
o That means specifically I don't have to overly caveat the message

I agree with you that Apple paying a bounty for things _outside_ the
express words of the bounty program is a very "good thing" indeed.

It encourages white hats to inform Apple of their iCloud vulnerabilities.

> I agree it would have been better if the code was done properly the first
> time, but there are always bugs and that's one reason why there are always
> revisions to software especially if it's connected to the internet.

What irks me about Apple isn't that they have bugs, but that they advertise
that they don't (essentially) - and while I expect that of any sleazy
MARKETING organization - what bothers me most is that the cultist morons
out there _believe_ only in what Apple advertises.

The fact is that if Apple paints an entire building wall saying they're
better at privacy, it doesn't prove anything but that they know how to
paint a building with bullshit.

The real fact of privacy is that it's just not there.
o Neither is Android - but Google doesn't paint buildings saying it is

Fundamentally, what irks me is Apple users are completely clueless.
o They're desperate for safety where Apple MARKETING is glad to claim it.

> Obviously your purpose is to point out the obvious and I have no issue with
> that. If people think they are safe, private or invincible on the internet
> then they are fools.

<soap box pedestal>

Notice that you said "your purpose", which I am very clear & upfront about:
o I don't make any money pointing out facts about Apple products here. :)
(I wish I did - I'd be rich!)

What irks me is NOT that MARKETING claims all sorts of privacy bullshit
o What irks me is the morons who populate this newsgroup _believe_ that BS.

Take Alan Baker, or Lewis or Jolly Roger or BK, for example...
o They actually _believe_ everything that Apple MARKETING fed them!

Then take nospam, who doesn't believe a single word of what he says
o He doesn't bother me because he's just a bullshitter himself

But the Type III apologists actually _believe_ everything they claim
o Whereas TYPE II apologists (like Steve) simply don't check their facts

I point out FACTS about all operating systems on many newsgroups
o But only on the Apple newsgroup are the majority immune to those facts.
</soap box pedestal>
--
If I got paid for all the facts about Apple I've posted - I'd be rich.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 04:34:20 -0500, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> If the rest of the industry were torturing puppies and kittens would you
> say Apple should follow?

I've studied the apologists for years, classifying them into 3 main types:
o Type I (nospam) will _always_ toe the party line - no matter what
o Type II (sms) will tend to believe the party line - without factchecks
o Type III (Jolly Roger, Lewis) are cultists whose self worth is inseparable from the party

What's essentially different between the three types is:
a. nospam always defends MARKETING but he, himself, doesn't believe a word he says
b. sms actually believes what he says but only because he doesn't check his facts
c. Jolly Roger & Lewis react with hate-filled vitriol toward anyone who disagrees with the party

As they all do now, and forever.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:54:30 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

>>a. nospam always defends MARKETING but he, himself, doesn't believe a
>>word he says
>

> How do you know this?

Hi badgolferman,

There is nuance in detail below which requires adult cognition.
o I say this to you since I believe you can comprehend that nuanced detail.

Yours is a very good and welcome question as to how I happen to know:
o Even nospam doesn't believe the claims that he, himself, makes

If you remember, I used to try to argue with facts with nospam, until I
realized how _clever_ he was with those facts - which is how I know.

It's like when Clinton said he didn't inhale, he was being clever with
facts, just as Clinton said he didn't have "sexual relations" with that
woman. And just as Apple told Congress in February of two years ago that
throttling wasn't "as" necessary in the iPhone 8 & in the iPhone X.
(then, in October, throttling software was added to both those phones!)

The very way Apple lawyers said it - proved they didn't believe what they
were trying to make Congress believe - which is that throttling wasn't
going to be on those iPhones (and yet, they had planned it all along).

The very way they said it proves they don't believe a word they said.
o The very way nospam makes many of his claims proves he knows better.

I used to characterize him as a defense lawyer, but not a prosecutor, since
nospam doesn't have to prove anything he claims - which he almost never
does. He just makes the claim that his party is innocent.

An example was when nospam claimed that the iPhone X didn't have
throttling, but when we delved deeper his claim was about the actual
throttling (which is harder to prove) than the software - but the _way_
nospam made his claim was evidence he knew _exactly_ the game he was
playing.

Likewise when nospam claimed that the iPhone had modern wifi debugging
ability, which, when we delved deeper, his claim turned out to be you could
_write_ your own software - you just can't get it from the app store.

In addition to nospam's claims that are cleverly written like Clinton's
answers, nospam also almost never comes up with the facts when challenged
with just three simple words that always betray a born bullshitter.
o *Name just one*

Whenever nospam makes his outrageous claims, I simply ask him 3 words:
o *Name just one*

The fact is that nospam almost _never_ can name even a _single_ fact that
backs up his stated belief system.

His claims almost always are completely built upon _zero_ actual facts!
o He just makes it all up (sans a single cite of supporting facts)

The easiest way to prove nospam wrong in many claims he makes is 3 words:
o *Name just one*

The fact he generally goes mum at that point _proves_ he can't fool me but
why he continues with his baseless claims is because he _can_ fool most of
you. And that's all he cares about. Fooling people who don't have adult
cognitive skills (of which abound on this Apple newsgroup, rest assured).

Generally, nospam can't name one, so he goes into his childish mode of
changing the quoted text and then responding to that changed text; or he
claims that Google made Apple do it; or his favorite of "I told you so many
times but you don't believe it", etc.

But they're all ploys by nospam since 3 words _prove_ he simply made it up
o *Name just one*

There are so many instances of this, that I realized, over time, that
nospam makes the claims hoping that people dumber than I am will _believe_
what he claims - but I'm always armed with the facts so in the beginning
what nospam claimed used to frustrate me - because even he couldn't be that
stupid.

Well, it turns out the "stupidity" of the apologists falls into 3
categories, which are the same categories of their excuse types:
o Type I apologists actually know that what they claim isn't true
(Just as Clinton knew, and just as Apple lawyers knew.)

o Type II apologists are the most benign - they just don't check facts.
(For example, sms _still_ believes Qualcomm royalties when down.)

o Type III apologists petrify me; they really _believe_ what they say.
(Jolly Roger & Lewis "are" Apple cultists to their very self-worth core)

TYPE I:
In summary, I don't worry about nospam because, for whatever reason, you
can _predict_ everything he will say forever, simply if you know what the
Apple party line is.

TYPE II:
Likewise, you can predict if it's a bit complicated (such as resale value
or Qualcomm royalties), Steve will get it wrong since it requires the
ability to check facts against what Apple claims (e.g, the facts are that
Apple has the lowest R&D percentage spend of all high tech).

TYPE III:
What's petrifying is not nospam or Steve since you can predict everything
they claim, and they shut up when they're proven wrong with facts (which is
almost all the time). No.

What's petrifying is that the Type III apologists like Jolly Roger, Lewis,
BK, et al., exist.

They're cultists.

Their entire embodiment of self worth is wrapped inside an Apple MARKETING
message, where Apple has pegged them to their very core - and they feed off
of those Apple MARKETING messages to build up their own self image.

Any fact to the contrary is met with instant vicious vitriol simply because
facts are a dire _threat_ to the entire being of Type III cultists.
--
Apple apologists can be predicted almost exactly in three clear categories.

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:
I update these threads to consistently provide _evidence_ for its claims.
o Apologists _hate_ that fact that they do EXACTLY what I claim they do.

Apologists _hate_ what Apple is so much they apologize for what Apple does.

Repeatedly...
o As this thread proves...

To wit...

On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 17:34:57 -0000 (UTC), 123456789 wrote:

>>> So perhaps this may be a good Apple move for the environment and less
>>> electronic waste...
>
>>For anyone to "believe" Apple did this "for the kids", is just ridiculous
>
> Didn't say I believed Apple did it for the kids. *My guess* is that Apple
> probably did it for the bottom line. But IMO it was a good move for the
> environment whatever Apple's reason...

It's only blind-to-fact apologists who believe Apple's "greenie" rhetoric
o Normal people hear what Apple says, but they also _see_ what Apple does

I didn't claim, nor even imply you said Apple did it "for the kids".
o Apple did it for the reason that I already reported Kuo said they did

1. Apple needs to recoup BILLIONs surrendered to Qualcomm for 5G technology
2. Apple eliminated the cost of putting necessary accessories in the box
3. At the same time, Apple wiped out the competitor's devices in the stores
4. And, the bottom line is Kuo said Apple's revenue will go up as a result

*Clearly, Apple is cheaping out on what it claims is a "premium" device*.
o What's interesting is how the apologists react to that simple basic fact

None of the apologists argued logic that Apple did it for the bottom line
o Type II apologists, like Alan Browne, argued Apple did it for the kids
o While nospam, unique as a Type I apologist, _blamed_ Android instead.
o Type III apologist claim nobody needs a charger & earphones anyway!

Notice _all_ their excuses are "apologies" for what Apple actually does!
o That's why they're called "apologists" (the apologize for what Apple is)

It's classic because apologists actually _hate_ everything Apple does!
o They prefer to believe only in what Apple MARKETING says it is
--
It's only blind-to-fact apologists who believe Apple's "greenie" rhetoric
o Normal people hear what Apple says, but they also _see_ what Apple does

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:
As always, I post these _facts_ for the permanent Usenet record.
o The apologists survive, only because most people lack these facts.

These are facts which prove the apologists _incredibly_ stupid.

On 22 Oct 2020 14:25:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> As I said - and you as usual dishonestly snipped - you didn't
> understand my response at the time and still don't.

Frank,

I do not bullshit - so don't try to bullshit me with your utter bullshit.
o Just stop it.

You claim you "just now" found the URL?
o WTF?

It was always there, Frank.
o Always.

All you're doing is attempting to weasel your way out of the facts.
o Just like the unprepossessing apologists incessantly always do.

You can easily bullshit the Apple apologists - but you can't bullshit me.
o The reason you can't bullshit me, Frank, is that I point to the facts.

I went to some of the oldest & best schools in this country, Frank.
o I worked in Silicon Valley startups next to the brightest people, Frank.

People like you who incessantly bullshit - wouldn't last a week, Frank.
o Some of you, like nospam, couldn't last a single day.

Nobody on this newsgroup compares in the least to those intelligent people.
o All the apologists are nothing but bullshitters par excellence, Frank.

I succeeded with these intelligent people, Frank, because I speak facts.

Anyone can read _exactly_ what you wrote, Frank.
o they can read the entire thread, Frank.

I'm not afraid of the facts, Frank.
o I cited your exact post I'm referring to, Frank.

And I cite it yet again:
o <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/VGtq9RzpBgAJ>
"But *my* point is that you've indeed proven that iOS can do what
'harry' claims it can't, but - IMO - you've not proven that Android
can't do what you show in your video. (Nice video, BTW!)"

Frank: Is that verbatim what you wrote to Snit or not?
o HINT: Yes.

For those who aren't aware, the apologists _hate_ that iOS lacks even the
most basic functionality such that the apologists will "claim" wholly
imaginary functionality, as Snit (and most of the apologists did):
o iOS showing Wi-Fi over time, by Snit (aka Snit Cola)
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>

I took a single glance at Snit's infamous video, and literally laughed.
o *Apologists are incredibly stupid - they didn't even LOOK at the Y axis*

Even Frank, who is NOT an apologist, applauded that infamous video!
o Not one of these morons knows the difference between a decibel & megabit

Even now, nospam still touts this completely imaginary iOS functionality!

Why?

o I don't know why.

I suspect apologists actually _hate_ that iOS lacks even the most basic
functionality that they believed, from MARKETING alone, that it had.

To wit:
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>
--
The apologists are incredibly ignorant of even the most basic iOS facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:34:49 -0400, nospam wrote:

> the statement is exactly correct.

Hi nospam,

Everything you say can easily be predicted, years in advance.

*You will ALWAYS defend MARKETING's side of the story - no matter what.*
o Yet, you, yourself, are too smart to be as stupid to believe what you claim.

> 5g adds roughly $100 to the cost of the new iphones, yet they retail
> for approximately the same price as last year's models. there are also
> additional features, particularly the pro models with the lidar sensor.

And Apple also cheaped out on the batteries...
o And Apple cheaped out on the accessories...

And almost zero consumer electronics doesn't get cheaper better faster over
time. Except products like Apple products which are all MARKETING and
almost zero R&D (Apple had to buy even their modems, for Christs sake).

> it doesn't take an expert in marketing or engineering to figure out how
> that was done. a 3rd grader could explain it to you.

And yet, your own argument _missed_ where Apple cheaped out

>
> the same 3rd grader could also explain why including things that in the
> past have not been used is a waste of resources.

Only an idiot would believe Apple did it to be "green".
o And you're actually not that stupid, nospam.

You don't believef a single word of what you claim
o Because you KNOW all the things Apple does that are NOT green, nospam.

Unfortunately, TYPE II apologists (like Alan Browne) believe the "greenies"
o And the TYPE III apologists (like JR) believe EVERYTHING Apple feeds them

But luckily, you, as Type I, don't believe a word of what you say
o You're too smart to be that stupid.
--
The Type I apologists are too smart to be as stupid as what they write.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:34:52 -0400, nospam wrote:

> keep in mind that google already did the same thing and nobody said a
> word. samsung is expected to do it with their next release cycle and
> just like google, nobody will complain.

You, nospam, can be predicted, years in advance since you always blame
(Google and Samsung and Microsoft) for what you _hate_ about Apple.

You, nospam, literally _hate_ what Apple is...
o ... so much you incessantly blame Google for what Apple does.

Happens every time.
--
Applogists always blame everyone but Apple for Apple's own decisions.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:12:58 +1300, BungleBob wrote:

>> Because wires suck (something I learned in the 1980's with the Sony
>> Walkman).
>
> Batteries and recharging also "suck".

The apologists have been _desperate_ to excuse Apple's 'el cheapo behavior.

The fact is the apologists are so desperate to apologize for what they
literally _hate_ about Apple, that they make up everything they claim.

Type II apologists like Alan Browne claim Apple's "el cheapo" move is, they
think, "green", and yet, they're oblivious to the non-green things Apple
does.

Likewise, Type I apologists like nospam even go so far as to blame everyone
but Apple for the fact they _hate_ that Apple cheaped out on accessories.

You even have the inane claims of the Type III apologists like Lewis and
Jolly Roger that they have a single cable from the stone age that powers
not only their ipads, their iPods, their iPhones, but also their Prius.

How "green" is that!
--
The apologists have been _desperate_ to excuse Apple's 'el cheapo behavior.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 03 Nov 2020 12:58:58 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
>
> it is *not* a fact, as you've been repeatedly told many, many times.

Hi nospam,

*Name just one.*

Regarding your claim (yet again) of imaginary Apple functionality in
o WI- FI access point
<https://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com/GiKyAa4m/wi-fi-access-point>

You Apple apologists _hate_ that the apps you claim exist, don't exist.

There's a psychological question of why Apple apologists always fabricate
imaginary app functionality where I don't know why nospam always fabricates
apps that never turn out to exist - but I believe the reason nospam will
always fail that simple 3-word factual test of a bullshitter is simply that
the Apple apologists _hate_ that the app nospam claims extant, simply
doesn't exist.

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

The apologists, like nospam, _hate_ that the app they claim extent simply
does not exist anywhere anyone has ever found on the Apple App Store.
o What freeware graphical Wi-Fi debugging tools do you use on Android & iOS to graph signal strength for available APs over time?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QlDr3oeZExA>

If the app did exist on the App Store, then nospam could answer this query:
o *Name just one*

A simple 3-word adult question _always_ shuts nospam up given he claims
he's told us the name and link of the app that does what he claims it does.
o *Name just one*

Yup. These apologists' belief system is completely imaginary such that
three simple adult words prove they simply fabricate apps that don't exist.
o *Name just one*

My challenge to nospam is for him to simply respond with the unique Apple
App Store URL to the app he claims he's "repeatedly told us, many times".
o *Name just one*

The Apple apologists have only 7 responses to facts, since they fabricate
everything they claim, none of those 7 responses are an adult response,
where they fail, every single time, even the simplest 3-word request:
o *Name just one*

For the permanent Usenet record, nospam is an Apple Type I apologist, which
is quite different from the other two types in what they "believe", i.e.,
o Type I (nospam) don't even believe what they themselves claim
o Type II (sms) simply believe MARKETING without doublechecking facts
o Type III (Lewis) are cultists whose "identity" is fueled by MARKETING

In the case of Type I apologists, they will always parrot Apple MARKETING,
but in the case of nospam, he's not as stupid as what he claims makes him
appear to be. (By way of contrast the Type III cultists _are_, shockingly,
as stupid as what they claim makes them appear to be!).

We've already been down this road where the Apologists claimed that this
app which Snit even did a video on to "prove" that iOS had this basic
capability, graphed wifi signal strength for all visible access points over
time, where it turned out none of the apologists know the difference
between a megabit and a decibel (nospam clearly being of that ilk):
o Snit video purporting to show iOS Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>

What's different about nospam is that even he, himself, doesn't believe a
word that he says, since he will fail this simplest of adult tests of fact:
o *Name just one*

In summary, if this app on the Apple App Store exists, then we can simply
ask nospam to name the URL to this App (or at least the name of the app):
o *Name just one*

See also:
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>
--
There's a psychological question of why Apple apologists always fabricate
imaginary functionality for iOS, which I do not know the answer to, but
which I believe is simply that they _hate_ the fact the app doesn't exist.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 02:07:59 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> 1. I saw (and fully understood) what Steve posted when he posted it.
> 2. I decided not to intervene - because I want Steve to prove what he is

Hehhehheh...

Regarding:
o For the record, I'm watching very interestedly, the thread comments by the type II apologist to prove what they are is what I say they are
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/FWq0jLyXCR8>

I wish I could predict an election outcome as well as I can predict all
three types of you apologists...
o Type I (nospam) parrot MARKETING no matter what the facts are
o Type II (sms) never seem to check their facts so they're just ignorant
o Type III (Lewis) equate Apple MARKETING mantra with their "self worth"

Steve, being a TYPE II apologist, just proved what he was moments ago:
o PSA: NewPipe v0.20.1 (YouTube ad-free clone on steroids) workaround posted earlier today [newpipe-FIXED.zip]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/kjwJS4AeiVc>

In this message:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/kjwJS4AeiVc/2A69NkvuCQAJ>

Note two things about Type II apologists (who aren't malicious per se):
1. They don't ever seem to doublecheck their facts (hence they're ignorant)
2. Which means they base all their assessments on pure ignorance

As another example, sms _still_ thinks Qualcomm royalties went down!
o None of the apologists own even the most basic of adult cognitive skills

The worst, of course, are the TYPE III apologists like Alan Baker:

o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

But even the Type II apologists (who are not malicious like the Type III
are) are still utterly fantastically immune to even the most basic fact.

Note that in this case, despite the entire point of the thread (which was
to update to the 0.20.2 release version), Steve's claim that NewPipe didn't
work (and hence, his reason for "giving up") was based on him using the
wrong version.

What shocks me is that Steve lives in the Silicon Valley, where we expect
people to be able to process the simplest of the basic obvious facts.

And yet, he failed.
o As do all three of you apologist types

The only things I can infer about the "purpose" of the three types are:
o Type I (nospam) have the sole purpose to defend MARKETING at all cost
o Type II (sms) simply form incorrect conclusions based on pure ignorance
o Type III (Jolly Roger) are cultists whose "self worth" === Apple products
--
I wish I could predict an election outcome as well as I can apologists.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 19:20:45 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> I wish I could predict an election outcome as well as I can apologists.

Poutnik just valiantly tried to teach the Type II apologist a fact here:

o PSA: NewPipe v0.20.1 (YouTube ad-free clone on steroids) workaround posted earlier today [newpipe-FIXED.zip]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/kjwJS4AeiVc>

In this message, which, had Steve not been ignorant, he would have known
since the _entire_ thread was about updating to the latest version:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/kjwJS4AeiVc/kxJGqWHzCQAJ>

Notice Steve made an incorrect assessment that NewPipe didn't work
o So he "just gave up"

Which is what Apple owners often do whenever confronted with an obstacle
o Except in this case the obstacle confronting Steve was his own ignorance

Which simply proves (again) what I've said about you apologists all along:
o Type I (nospam) parrot marketing; they don't even believe what they say
o Type II (sms) base their assessments on accidental ignorance of fact
o Type III (Alan Baker) are purposefully ungodly ignorant of basic facts
--
Given that we can easily (and repeatedly) prove none of you apologists
comprehend fact, it's petrifying that you apologists are allowed to vote.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 20:19:32 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 19:20:45 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> I wish I could predict an election outcome as well as I can apologists.
>
> Poutnik just valiantly tried to teach the Type II apologist a fact here:
> o PSA: NewPipe v0.20.1 (YouTube ad-free clone on steroids) workaround posted earlier today [newpipe-FIXED.zip]
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/kjwJS4AeiVc>
>
> In this message, which, had Steve not been ignorant, he would have known
> since the _entire_ thread was about updating to the latest version:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/kjwJS4AeiVc/kxJGqWHzCQAJ>
>
> Notice Steve made an incorrect assessment that NewPipe didn't work
> o So he "just gave up"
>
> Which is what Apple owners often do whenever confronted with an obstacle
> o Except in this case the obstacle confronting Steve was his own ignorance
>
> Which simply proves (again) what I've said about you apologists all along:
> o Type I (nospam) parrot marketing; they don't even believe what they say
> o Type II (sms) base their assessments on accidental ignorance of fact
> o Type III (Alan Baker) are purposefully ungodly ignorant of basic facts

On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:49:29 -0800, sms wrote:

> Every Youtube URL I try to open with Newpipe gives me a "that shouldn't
> have happened" error and a crash report. Uninstalled.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 20:19:33 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Which simply proves (again) what I've said about you apologists all along:
> o Type I (nospam) parrot marketing; they don't even believe what they say
> o Type II (sms) base their assessments on accidental ignorance of fact
> o Type III (Alan Baker) are purposefully ungodly ignorant of basic facts

For the record, Steve (sms) proved to be a perfect Type II apologist!

o For the record, I'm watching very interestedly, the thread comments by the type II apologist to prove what they are is what I say they are

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.ipad/c/FWq0jLyXCR8>

Not only did Steve go silent after being proved wrong by Poutnik
o But the _entire_ time, Steve was shockingly immune to basic facts!

Type II apologists wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so confident in their
ignorance since they're not malicious like Type I and Type III apologists
are.

Yet, Type II apologists like Steve clearly proved to be what I claim:
1. Steve confidently concluded the NewPipe software was no good
2. Where his proclamation was based purely on his own utter ignorance
3. Simply because Steve (like all Type II apologists) was immune to fact

Proof that Steve showed himself to be a Type II apologist is here:

o PSA: NewPipe v0.20.1 (YouTube ad-free clone on steroids) workaround posted earlier today [newpipe-FIXED.zip]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/kjwJS4AeiVc>

Where this is the last post, again proving how ignorant the apologists are:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/kjwJS4AeiVc/kxJGqWHzCQAJ>

In summary, what's horrid is how shockingly ignorant you apologists are.
--
It's petrifying how utterly immune to facts all 3 types of apologists are.

[Allodoxaphobia]

Please God, let this thread die!

[Arlen Holder]

On 8 Nov 2020 09:03:15 GMT, Allodoxaphobia wrote:

> Please God, let this thread die!

This thread serves a valid permanent purpose, which is to document, with
facts, what the common well-verified traits of the Apple Apologists are.

If you don't like this thread, you can simply ignore it, as it will retain
its factual purpose as long as the Apologists provide the factual evidence
that proves what they are.

The apologists always prove to be utterly immune to even the most basic of
the simplest of the most obvious of facts, which, Steve Scharf just did in:

o PSA: NewPipe v0.20.1 (YouTube ad-free clone on steroids) workaround posted earlier today [newpipe-FIXED.zip]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/kjwJS4AeiVc>

--
There are three types of apologists, none of whom own adult cognition.

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-11-08 04:03, Allodoxaphobia wrote:
> Please God, let this thread die!
>

Just stop replying to the troll that started it.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 11:42:03 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> Just stop replying to the troll that started it.

For the permanent record (see references below)...
o I _love_ when the apologists like Alan Browne post to prove me right!

*Type II Apple apologists believe Apple without ever checking the facts!*

I love how the apologists like Alan Browne _hate_ that I simply point to
their own words to back up the facts that they're Apple apologists!

Alan Browne is a classic Type II apologist
a. These people basically believe anything Apple tells them
b. But what's different is _why_ they believe what Apple tells them
c. They're not malicious like the other two types of apologists

*Type II Apple apologists believe Apple without ever checking the facts!*

For example, Alan Browne ignores all the cases where Apple created
entirely new cables, and where Apple prevented perfectly working iPhones
from being sold to users, and where Apple hinders repairs of their devices,
and even where Apple admitted and paid a criminal fine for purposefully
slowing down iPhones for the express purpose of shortening their useful life, etc.

Instead of taking in those valid facts, alone, or together, Alan Browne
_believes_ Apple (when no normal person would) that Apple removed
functionality in the latest iPhone 12 "for the environment".

*Type II Apple apologists believe Apple without ever checking the facts!*

Note: Nobody on this planet (other than apologists like Alan Browne)
believes Apple removed the functionality for the "environment".

Apple not only removed basic functionality from the iPhone 12 box
expressly so that their (admittedly gullible loyal) customer is
forced to buy it back, but, to ensure that to be the case,
Apple at the same time _removed_ all competitive products, and
Apple then made it so that *only one charger on this planet*,
(which happens to be a brand new Apple-only charger in fact),
will charge using magsafe charging.

Fancy those facts.
o Add the fact that the analysts all said this was a clever move
which will raise Apple's revenues as their (admittedly loyal)
customer is forced to purchase back the functionality Apple removed.

Notice the facts which Alan Browne ignores (due to lack of fact checking):
a. Clearly Apple does a lot of things NOT for the environment, and yet
b. Even what Alan Browne claims is for the environment, clearly isn't.

RECENT REFERENCE where Alan Browne makes those statements devoid of fact:
o [NEWS] Apple launches iPhone 12
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1VINh4oE34k>

RECENT REFERENCES containing the logical facts Alan Browne ignores:
o Do any Android phone manufacturers throttle (CPUs, PD Charging, Modems) like Apple consistently does?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZTmmGoAndyM>
o Is there an Android manufacturer who employs the customer unfriendly repair practices that Apple foists upon its loyal customer base?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/vE9fFSUVBeU>
o Apple pulls a fast one on its gullible consumers - reputedly only ONE charger on the planet can be used with the MagSafe charger for full power!
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PlbRB5lDbkk>
o Apple's New MagSafe Chargers May Be Far More Limited, Expensive, and Vastly Slower Than We Had Hoped
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/4bw2fa5SMn8>
o iPhone MagSafe Chargers Have A Big Problem - They're Not MagSafe
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sXaqGjXa5CU>
o IFixit iPhone 12 and 12 Pro Teardown (almost a "death by a thousand cuts") [Apple went el cheapo on parts]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6iV70fnpso4>
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU>
o Apple to offset costly 5G iPhone components with cheaper battery tech
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/NXvxAutn4Lg>
o Lower air quality in some Chinese cities points to iPhone 12 production surge, Morgan Stanley says
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Ez3RRMX6qSM>
--
*Type II Apple apologists believe Apple without ever checking the facts!*

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 12:08:27 -0500, Hawk wrote:

> Why the hell is anyone still responding to that moron? You people that
> bored?

What I love about the Apple apologists is they _hate_ facts about Apple!
o They're all deathly afraid of facts - and - anyone who bears facts.

Notice the Type II apologist, Alan Browne, calls all facts "trolls".
o And the Type III apologist, Hawk, calls all bearers of facts, "morons".

And yet, never once in decades of daily posting have my facts been wrong.
o What these apologists truly hate - are facts they don't like about Apple.

Why are these Apple apologists so deathly _afraid_ of mere facts?
o HINT: *Their entire belief system is fed to them by Apple MARKETING*
--
Facts are literally a danger as mere facts _destroy_ their belief system.

[Arlen Holder]

Notice how both Apple apologists & Apple MARKETING fabricate their key
claims and yet, both expect people to believe those fabricated claims,
without even a single fact backing up those claims!

Verbatim below simply because Apologists brazenly deny any and all facts
which have no place to fit into their purely imaginary Apple belief system:

"As for Apple┬ intentional interference claim, Gonzalez Rogers told
Casey, You can┤ just say it - you actually have to have facts that
support it, and you don't."

o Federal Judge Tosses Apple Counterclaims Against Fortnite Maker
<https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-apple-counterclaims-against-fortnite-maker/>

"A federal judge late Tuesday dismissed two counterclaims by Apple against
Fortnite maker Epic Games, in the popular online game maker's antitrust
lawsuit challenging Apple's practice of taking a 30% cut on all in-app
purchases."

"U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also ruled Apple
has no basis for its demand of punitive damages."

"The judge also said Apple failed to show ownership or right to possession
as required for a conversion claim."
--
Notice how apologists & Apple both make claims and expect people to believe
those claims, without even a single fact backing up those claims!

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:11:39 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> You urgently need professional help from a psychiatrist.

Thank you, yet again, for proving me correct about Apple apologists.

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

Apologists like Joerg often attack the _person_ who bears facts because
facts are literally a _danger_ to their imaginary belief systems about
Apple products.
o Facts instantly _destroy_ imaginary belief systems built by MARKETING

Jeorg, like all Apple apologists, has no adult defense to facts.
o That's why Joerg attacks me, the person, simply because I bear facts

o Whether they are Type I, Type II, or Type III Apple apologists
Apple apologists have no _adult_ response to facts

Joerg just proved it - which is why apologists hate me
o They can't stand that I speak facts about Apple products

NOTE: I speak facts about all products; it's only that Apple newsgroups are
filled to the brim with these Type I, Type II, and Type III apologists.
o Type I apologists (e.g., nospam) defend Apple MARKETING to the core
o Type II apologists (e.g., sms) believe MARKETING sans fact checking
o Type III apologists (e.g., Joerg) self identify as Apple cultists

Joerg Lorenz is an Apple apologist of the Type III category
o Joerg is a cultist whose very self worth is tied to Apple MARKETING

These Type III apologists (e.g., Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK, Chris et al.)
viciously attack the _bearer_ of facts because facts are a danger to them.

The adults on this newsgroup will note that my facts are _never_ wrong
o That's not because I'm smart (I'm just average in intelligence)

It's because I do not bullshit (like Type I apologists, e.g., nospam)
o And because I _check_ my facts (unlike Type II apologists, e.g., sms)

In two decades of posting scores of posts a day to Usenet nobody has ever
even once found my facts to be materially wrong.

What Apologists like Joerg can't stand are my assessments of those facts

But what these apologists don't realize is that _everyone_ who is logical
and reasonable assesses those facts the _same_ way that I do.

What these apologists really can't stand is they have no defense to facts.
--
This week in the news...
"[Judge] Gonzalez Rogers told [Apple], You can't just say it - you

[Arlen Holder]

On 13 Nov 2020 17:05:00 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> He's really good at losing. It's all he does. Look at the timestamps of
> his posts. He spends his every waking moment trolling Apple news groups.
> He's just fucking pathetic.

Adults will notice how much hateful vitriol Type III apologists have.
o They literally personally hate anybody who bears facts they don't like

Notice the type I apologists (e.g., nospam) aren't hateful that way.
o Neither are the Type II apologists (e.g., Savageduck) hateful that way.

Type I apologists simply parrot (always!) exactly whatever MARKETING says
o Type II aren't malicious like the rest - they just don't check facts
(e.g., Steve Scharf still thinks Qualcomm royalties went down.)

The Type III apologists (Lewis, Jolly Roger, Alan Baker, Chris, Joerg, et
al.) are different than Type I or Type II in that they all despise any
person who bears facts they don't like.

Notice _every_ post by Jolly Roger to facts is to spew hateful vitriol
against the mere messenger of those facts which he simply doesn't like.

He can't dispute the facts (he tried by saying there were no cites)
o When provided with the cites, he then spewed hateful personal vitriol.

Why do these apologists spew hateful vitriol against the messenger of fact?

o I don't know why.

I suspect facts are a mortal _danger_ to their entire feeling of self worth
o I suspect that's because they identify with the Apple MARKETING messaging

I suspect these Type III Apple apologists hate the messenger of facts even
more than the facts themselves, since they can banish the facts from their
minds, but the messenger of facts is still there to bring new facts to the
fore.

Hence, apologists literally personally hate the messenger of mere facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:44:13 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Am 13.11.20 um 01:19 schrieb Alan Baker:
>> On 2020-11-12 4:17 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>>> o Apple has confirmed it's automatically scanning images backed up to
>>> iCloud
>>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VkODI4K1SC8>
>>
>> A lie.
>>
>> Plain and simple.
>
> Stop feeding this sick Troll.

What's amazing is how the Type III apologists react to mere facts:
o On the adult OS newsgroups, people simply accept facts
(e.g., facts about Google or Microsoft)

It's only the Apple newsgroups where apologists can't accept facts.
1. Jolly Roger claims there are no facts (i.e., no cites for them)
2. Alan Baker claims all facts (in the cites) are all "lies"
3. Joerg Lorenz tells JR & AB to stop responding to any facts

Why are Apple apologists so deathly afraid of mere facts?

o I don't know why.

I suspect facts aren't what their belief systems are comprised of.
o Hence, facts instantly _destroy_ their imaginary belief systems.

Why do the Apple apologists react with personal vitriol to facts?

o I don't know why.

I suspect they _hate_ finding out what Apple is
o Much like a 5th-grade bully hates that Santa Claus is imaginary

In this case, the apologists _hate_ that Apple reads their data.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-13 1:39 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2020 17:05:00 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> He's really good at losing. It's all he does. Look at the timestamps of
>> his posts. He spends his every waking moment trolling Apple news groups.
>> He's just fucking pathetic.
>

> Adults will notice how...

...you've snipped all the factual information carefully laying out in
detail how you got the facts wrong?

Yes, they will.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-13 1:40 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:44:13 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> Am 13.11.20 um 01:19 schrieb Alan Baker:
>>> On 2020-11-12 4:17 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>>>> o Apple has confirmed it's automatically scanning images backed up to
>>>> iCloud
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VkODI4K1SC8>
>>>
>>> A lie.
>>>
>>> Plain and simple.
>>
>> Stop feeding this sick Troll.
>

> What's amazing is how...

...you can't admit when you're wrong?

Nope! It is precisely what everyone expects from you!

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 10:06:38 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> On 2020-11-14 10:03, Graham J wrote:
>
>> I had to look up Dunning-Kruger and found a wonderful quote: "suggests
>> that poor performers are not in a position to recognize the shortcomings
>> in their performance".
>>
>> Describes Trump and Johnson to a tee, I think!
>
> Ironically describes the person you're replying to as well.

We covered why the Type III apologists are Dunning Kruger Quadrant 1 here:
o Apologists are far to the left on the Dunning-Kruger scale

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MwtyT7BdxF4>

Most of you don't seem to realize that _everyone_ is on the DK scale.
o It's simply a position on the scale of self appraisal of skills

There are four quadrants, where interestingly, those in the first quadrant
know the least (as shown by actual scores), and yet they have the most
confidence that they know the most (e.g., Type III apologists).

Those in the fourth quadrant are the experts (as shown by test scores),
where, just as interestingly, they tend to assess themselves as having
lower skillsets than they actually have, and, more importantly sometimes,
they tend to vastly under assess the skillet that it takes for others to
'catch up' to them (think air force airline pilots, for example).

Lumping the two quadrants in the middle, those people tend to be more
realistic, with those in the second quadrant beginning to despair as they
learn the skills, and those in the third quadrant beginning to get the hang
of it.

Unfortunately, since the Apple Apologists don't ever bother to check their
facts, they'll _never_ make it to even the second quadrant.

Their own attitude toward ignoring facts and trusting their own intuition
more so than they trust facts to the contrary is what makes them DK Quad 1.

Please see details, examples, and further proof of Type III Quad 1 DK in:
o Apologists are far to the left on the Dunning-Kruger scale

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MwtyT7BdxF4>

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 12:23:18 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> I'll ask the Type V administration committee for permission to tell you
> if there is or isn't a type IV.

Hi Alan,
We covered the three types of apologists in detail in this canonical thread:

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

Decades ago, I became interested in studying you apologists when I
noticed the peculiar differences between you apologists and normal adults.

Your purely MARKETING-driven belief systems are easily shown to be imaginary.
o Your entire belief system is based on exactly _zero_ actual facts!

That's why every one of you apologists fails a three-word bullshit test:
o Name just one

None of you can ever back up your (imaginary) belief system with even a
single fact (your _entire_ belief system is based purely on MARKETING
bullshit, in fact).

What's far more interesting though, than your imaginary belief system...
o Is how much you _hate_ what Apple is (which isn't what Apple says it is!)

Notice the common thread that all you apologists _hate_ what Apple is...
o You are all _desperate_ to fabricate apologies for what Apple does.

The only difference in your _hatred_ for what Apple is, is how you respond:
o Type I (nospam) simply bullshit in order to apologize for what Apple does
o Type II (sms) are simply ignorant, believing a priori, in what Apple does
o Type III (Lewis) are cultists whose self worth is intertwined by what Apple does

In summary, I know you apologists well...
o Perhaps better than you know yourselves, in fact.

Your utter hatred for what Apple is, ironically, is the emotion that drives
you to be the incessant apologist for what Apple does that you prove to be.
--
You hate me simply because I speak facts and you have no defense to facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 21:41:42 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> It seems I'm not the only one.

Hi badgolferman,

Given the apologists have no credibility whatsoever, between just you and
me, I suspect they actually have plenty of these problems, but they simply
claim that they don't.

It's not much different than when nospam claimed Apple "wasn't worried"
about 5G before Apple spectacularly surrendered to Qualcomm's demands, nor,
is it much different than when Jolly Roger claimed Apple told us all about
the slowing of the iPhones in the release notes (which, heh heh, Apple got
caught having updated well after the fact and for which Apple just settled
with 34 US states in a separate 113M lawsuit, which, again, Apple lost).

Notice that in the cases above (and very many more, as you well know),
the issue had to go to court before Apple was forced to tell the truth.

Personally, I suspect it's the same here, where the credibility of all
three types of apologists is so worthless that you'd have to take them to
court, so to speak, just to finally wrangle the God's honest truth out of
them.
--
Apple apologists' credibility is no better than that of a coin toss result.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 23:43:10 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Try watching a few videos of how fast software loads on the new M1 Macs...

Regarding this recent tirade by the Type III apologist Alan Baker
o How is ArsTechnica being taken in so easily "Apple Marketing"?, by Alan Baker
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/Oqg48BpNCXA>

To Paul, (below is a well-thought out explanation for all adults)

I've astutely studied these Apple cultists on Usenet for many years
o Alan Baker, like all Type III apologists, effuses without understanding.

This moron of about a 40 or 50 IQ (my estimate) Alan Baker is the classic
Type III Apple Apologist, and hence, is like a flat earth cultist, or a Jim
Jones' religious cultist, who has been wholly "fed" by Apple MARKETING.

These Type III apologists will _only_ spew what Apple MARKETING fed them!
o Much like a child fed Santa Claus, they have no comprehension of facts.

If you tell them "Santa Claus is make believe", they will _prove_ he exists
o By feeding you _more_ (and more) of the MARKETING that proves he exists!.

Notice all his responses to Paul's facts are of this infantile sort
o "*bu...bbuu.....bbbut ..but Apple glossy brochures are sooo pretty!*".

We normal people don't self identify with, oh, say Microsoft; we simply use
Windows because it's the best for our needs; likewise, nobody effuses over
Google in the Android newsgroups - it's _only_ in Apple newsgroups you get
these JimJones' cultist types who _only_ believe what MARKETING feeds them.

These Type III apologists are like infantile fifth-grade bullies who, when
told that Santa Claus doesn't exist, repeat "liar liar, pants on fire".

The rest of us, when confronted with the facts, at around fifth grade or
so, simply take it in stride that Santa Claus doesn't exist (although I
wish he did as I have plenty of grandkids he can feed his presents to!).

These Type III apologists (Lewis, Jolly Roger, et al.) literally associate
their self identity with Apple MARKETING hype - their entire feelings of
self worth are identical to what Apple hypes.

This is why this particular Type III apologist is literally just copying
entire Apple-provided shills (which Paul explained quite intelligently so).

These Type III apologists can't separate fact from MARKETING hype.
o Just as flat earthers and religious zealots can't ever see facts.

Nothing from Alan Baker will _ever_ be anything other than him telling us
that he is blown over by how "pretty" those Apple MARKETING shills are.

FACT:
1. Apple has to "spin" their decision to go TSMC Silicon & ARM technology
(and Apple is damn good at spin, only ever telling the truth in court).
2. While Apple has the lowest R&D spend in all of high tech, Apple has one
of the finest (if not the finest) MARKETING orgs on this planet!
So Apple knows _exactly_ how to wow Type III apologists - which are,
let's face it, the cultists who most love everything Apple says.
3. The Type III cultists (e.g., Alan Baker, and elsewhere, Jolly Roger)
are literally effusing by _repeating_ (without understanding)
everything they self-identify with on glossy Apple MARKETING promos!

Anyway, that's for _adults_ to comprehend as to _why_ these utter morons
are simply posting anything and everything they can possibly find that
Apple MARKETING fed to publication outfits as their worthless shills.

To clarify, these Type III apologists are not like normal adults, where,
for example, we Windows & Android users don't ever fall for the Jim Jones'
punch when it comes to Microsoft or Google shills. For some reason, known
very well to Apple MARKETING, these Apple cultists self identify with Apple
MARKETING glossy brochures and videos.

The difference between Type III apologists and the other types is huge:
o Type I (e.g., nospam);
o Type II (e.g., Steve Scharf, aka sms);
o Type III (e.g., Alan Baker, Jolly Roger, Lewis, Joerg Lorenz, et al.).

They're almost always fact free, but for different reasons...
o Type I know most of the facts but they always defend & parrot MARKETING;
o Type II are people who aren't scientific; hence they never check facts;
o Type III literally gain _all_ their self worth from Apple MARKETING.

They're all almost always wrong on facts, but for different reasons...
o Type I are wrong because they will defend Apple decisions at all cost;
o Type II are wrong because they believe MARKETING sans fact checking;
o Type III literally believe every single thing MARKETING has fed them.

On their belief systems, you have to handle each differently:
o Type I, when proved wrong, will retort as a child would when caught;
o Type II will go silent when proved wrong & will not contest the facts;
o Type III will be utterly immune to facts; they simply repeat the shills!

Bearing in mind you're dealing with Alan Baker, the canonical Type III
apologists, you're only going to get from him his utter awe at the glossy
MARKETING shills, absolutely zero understanding of the facts, no
comprehension whatsoever of the drawbacks (which MARKETING never feeds
them, of course), and no actual _comprehension_ of anything whatsoever.

He'll simply throw back at any fact _more_ Apple MARKETING shills.
o Just watch.
--
Someone has to tell the TRUTH on the child-like Apple newsgroups
(which is why they hate me - because they have no defense to facts).

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-23 9:23 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 23:43:10 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Try watching a few videos of how fast software loads on the new M1 Macs...

> Regarding this recent [post]...

...you can't refute a single word of it?

[Arlen Holdеr]

Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2020-11-23 9:23 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 23:43:10 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

Alan is a reliable source of food. Alan provides small portions. But one
can always keep coming back to Alan for more, until one is sated.

Alan is starting its journey as an ECP troll. Alan recognizes in me a fellow
troll. Alan will not let a fellow troll starve. Thank you so much Alan.



Food, glorious food
Flesh picked from the hooked ones
Gulped, swallowed or chewed
Soon, we'll eat the cooked ones!
Just thinking of fish who bite
Puts us in a mood for
Food, glorious food, wonderful food!

[Arlen Holder]

Path: sewer!news.mixmin.net!news.neodome.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Arlen Holder <arlen_...@newmachines.com>
Newsgroups:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.mobile.android,comp.sys.mac.system,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Subject: Re: Just one!
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 21:25:37 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Neodome
Message-ID: <rpmi4g$5rq$1...@neodome.net>
References: <rph1eq$q76$1...@dont-email.me>
<231120201723564762%nos...@nospam.invalid> <eli$20112...@qaz.wtf>
<rpm0ro$i8k$1...@neodome.net> <eli$20112...@qaz.wtf>
Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 21:25:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: neodome.net; mail-complaints-to="ab...@neodome.net"
Xref: sewer comp.sys.mac.advocacy:56923 comp.mobile.android:70216
comp.sys.mac.system:85578 alt.comp.os.windows-10:129279

On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 19:07:52 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded wrote:

> To my eye, Apple is about stylish computing. It's a niche that they took
> a long time to find, but have since nailed down.

Hi Eli the Bearded,

I hope you're worth the effort I just expended to respond to your valid
concerns expressed in your post about the topic at hand of the latest
TSMC Silicon ARM technology designs loudly touted by Apple MARKETING.

You're correct iPhones are MARKETED for "style" & not functionality, which
explains why they have never sufficiently tested iOS releases for bugs
(which I provided previous proof of from independent reliable testers).

Pretty much Apple let's hackers & Project Zero do the zero-day bug testing.
o (Don't even get me started on the reams of proof on that statement.)

What irks me isn't that the "stylish morons" _believe_ Apple MARKETING
o It's that none of them (e.g., Alan Baker) own the semblance of a brain

They're all like little kids wowed by the fact Santa Claus can fly
o When all that flying is simply a figment of the MARKETING imagination

>> 1. Apple makes what is really a minor technical change (in that designing
>> with ARM and fab'ing with TSMC Silicon is no big deal whatsoever
>> technically)...
>
> I would disagree at least partially. Apple running on Intel allowed
> binary cross-overs that previously had not been truely possible. Fat
> binaries and binary translation are slightly different kettles of fish.

It remains to be seen how well "binary crossovers" will work.
o Bear in mind Apple has never been one to be obsessed with being "open"

In fact, take Android, for example, where when you download a free app, you
can use that app on almost any Android device on the planet. Same with
Linux. Same with Windows.

But not with iOS.
o Even for free apps, you can't even use it on another iOS device.

Apple limits everything.
o Don't even get me started on how Apple limits everything people do.

> This is creating work for other companies to continue supporting Apple,
> look at the work Docker needs to do.

It's not only Docker - for example, it kills this dual-boot freeware:
o Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new
ARM-core Macs
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.system/c/qgnkyly9Aj4>

Apple moved to ARM technology Mac on TSMC Silicon for good business reasons
o But that's _not_ what the MARKETING bullshit is about

What these Apple morons are bowled over on is the MARKETING bullshit
o The fact remains Apple has never designed a best-in-class CPU

Note: You can't be best in class if you have to be throttled to half speed
in about a year; and you can't be best in class if you have unpatchable
holes that basically let the hackers' Mack trucks in a wide-open door.

> In general I believe it is good to have a diversity of hardware and
> a diversity of software, as it is good to have a diversity of crops
> grown. It creates friction for things that could otherwise break
> everything.

I'm all for diversity also, as I use Linux when it suits me, and Windows,
and Android, and even the Mac (as I substitute teach at local schools).

In fact, I own _plenty_ of iOS devices, which, interestingly, is one reason
these apologists _hate_ me... because I test out their bullshit claims:
o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users
on wild goose chases?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I>

Note that the apologists constantly claim imaginary functionality, as if
Santa Claus really can fly, based on their take of MARKETING bullshit:
o Why do Apple Apologists constantly brazenly fabricate what turns out to
be wholly imaginary Apple functionality?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/SZfblCIRc9s>

What I find most obvious about these apologists is their lack of facts:
o Type I (e.g., nospam) is the only one who _knows_ the actual facts
(but his credibility is worse than that of a coin toss on facts)
Simply because he will _always_ defend/parrot Apple MARKETING.

o Type II (e.g., Alan Browne) are otherwise normal people;
but not scientific, so they simply _believe_ MARKETING without
ever even once stopping to think about doublechecking their facts.

o Type III (e.g., Alan Baker) are quite unlike normal people;
they are Dunning-Kruger quadrant 1 & far to the left of even that.
That alone explains them, but in terms of MARKETING bullshit, they
not only believe every single thing Apple feeds them to believe,
but, like cultists and other fundamentalists, they literally
self identify with the image Apple MARKETING portrays.

You've mostly been dealing with the Type I apologists in this thread,
where they're easy to deal with because they don't believe a single
word they, themselves, claim (think of them as extensions to the
Apple MARKETING organization - and you can almost 100% predict them).

The Type II also aren't so bad to deal with since they're actually
relatively normal people but on the side of not being able to handle
details in facts (much like a lot of people are who simply believe
in 'techron' and "octane" as being 'good for your car' MARKETING crap.

The Type II apologists like Alan Browne, Steve Scharf, SavageDuck, et al.,
are simply relatively ignorant people - like most people on this planet.

It's the Type III apologists whom you need to watch out for (IMHO).
While I've plonked Alan Baker (because he stalked me all over the Internet)
just as I've put Snit in the killfile (these creeps are not mentally
balanced), there are only a handful of people in my killfile over the
decades of posting daily, scores of posts to Usenet.

This Alan Baker guy literally believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the
Easter Bunny, and whatever else MARKETING has fed him to believe.

Worse, he's too stupid to even realize how stupid he is, but far worse than
that, he's incredibly confident that he's always right when, in fact, he's
an utter moron whose IQ I estimate to be no greater than 40 or 50 (or so).
o Solid incontrovertible proof of how stupid these apologists really are

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

There is absolutely no way to ever discuss anything with him as an adult:

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple
Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

> Raw benchmark numbers that I've seen show Iphones handily beating the
> best Androids in javascript speeds.

What good is a CPU that _must_ be throttled to half speed in about a year?
o Bear in mind, I'm the guy who broke this news to the Apple newsgroups

I've kept up on this throttling, which is done to almost every iPhone
o It's like a house made of paper; it falls apart the instant it gets wet

The instant the battery ages (about a year), the user is FORCED to make
the most unwanted choice anyone who owns a mobile device would want:
o Either choose completely unacceptable stability, or,
o Choose completely unacceptable performance (about half speed!).
YOU MUST CHOOSE ONE AND YOU MUST CHOOSE NOW!

Or... get this... you can pay Apple every single year you own an iPhone
o To prematurely replace the Lithium battery (now how "green" is that!)

> 2015 thread with updates in 2017 and 2020 on successive links:
>
> https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-android-in-2015-is-poor/33889
> https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-android-in-2015-is-poor/33889/246
> https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-android-in-2015-is-poor/33889/270
>
> That suggests Apple has some idea what they are doing with ARM, as all
> of those phones are ARM vs ARM.

Again, my point is what good is a CPU that has two things in it:
a. It _must_ be throttled (to about half speed) in about a year, and,
b. It has unpatchable security holes that hackers drive Mack trucks through

o Which Apple CPUs, bootroms, & SEP secure enclave coprocessors do NOT
already have well-known unpatchable fatal design flaws?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6WKS9KpSyJA>

Note: The Type III apologists like Alan Baker are fond of incessantly
claiming those are just Usenet threads, but that's further proof they don't
even _read_ (nor understand) them because every one points to one or more
(usually quite a few) external links to well-regarded references in the
security community).

Every time they claim it's just a Usenet thread, they _prove_ that they're
morons, because every thread contains many links to reputable external
sites; all they prove when they make those claims is that they didn't even
bother to _read_ the links (they simply deny them outright sans reading).
o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple
admitted?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/fyL1cQUVCp0>

>> There are facts that need to be realized, one of which is that Apple is
>> almost all MARKETING and the lowest R&D spend in the entire tech industry.
>
> I have no idea how accurate that is. Got cites? Cites that are not
> Google Groups links?

Click on the link.
o The link contains the cites.

Note that my facts have never been wrong in decades on the Internet, so
bear in mind that my credibility is stellar (which is saying a lot on
Usenet).

Don't take me for a fool when you claim a link isn't a link.
o It simply indicates you didn't even bother to click the link I gave you.

Bear in mind these apologists would _love_ to find even a _single_ material
fact of mine being wrong - but they can't (they quibble about typos a lot
though).

There are good reasons why my facts are never materially wrong, not the
least of which is I went to the finest schools in this country and worked
in Silicon Valley startups for decades, where at these graduate schools and
startups you don't survive and prosper by being wrong.

Other good reasons I'm not wrong on facts is that I don't trust my
intuition one bit, like Richard Feynman would say - if you trust your
intuition, you're wrong.

I check my facts.

Note: A lot of these apologists can't discern between a fact and an
assessment which is based on those facts - those are different things.

An example of a fact might be:
o Apple makes a red iPhone
An example of an assessment of that fact might be:
o A red phone isn't worth any more than a black phone to me.

I repeat these apologists would _love_ to find a material fact from me
being wrong - but they can't - so what they harp on are the assessments.

Stick to the facts.
o Every thread I point you to contains the facts.

If you can't even click on the links I already gave you...
o What proof is there that you'll click on them when I give you even more

> The more people expect devices to be "secure" while also doing
> everything, the more people will be disappointed. Intel's processors
> have had their own huge numbers of faults. I don't have any current
> knowledge of widespread architecture designs beyond ARM and x86
> compatible, but I would expect any such alternatives are also flawed.

This is a reasonable assessment in my opinion, as the only place that an
Apple common consumer device is any more secure than any other similar
common consumer device is in the Apple MARKETING bullshit that is painted
on the walls of buildings in Vegas...
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities
between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs>

The problem is that a _lot_ of people believe that Apple MARKETING BS.

o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU>

> There are zero-days in Google's stuff, too. Software bugs are orthogonal
> to processor choice. Most zero-days in software don't rely on the chip
> being used to provide the wedge to break things. The chip in question
> will determine what binary you need to stuff in the buffer overflow
> though. A very specific case that goes back to my "diversity is good"
> concerns.

You think I don't know that?

You don't know me but I post a TON of bugs on Google/Android all the time:
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android>

I post a ton of bugs on Windows stuff all the time also:
o <http://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com>

Same with Linux (less nowadays than in the past though):
o <http://tinyurl.com/alt.os.linux>

*I tell the TRUTH about _every_ operating system, including Apple's:
o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad>
o <http://tinurl.com/comp-sys-mac-system>
etc.

In summary, you are welcome to check the facts that I state, but don't ask
me twice to provide you with the links I _already_ provided you.

That's what the apologists do because, interestingly, I believe that _hate_
the facts, so, like flat earthers, they can only maintain their purely
imaginary belief system by denying that the facts exist.

Don't do that please.
o Check the facts.

Bear in mind I have higher degrees (much like many others) and I'm highly
"sensing" so I'm well acquainted with the fact that people don't like facts
that contradict their intuition (think Myers Briggs with respect to people
who trust their intuition more so than they trust facts to the contrary).

I don't trust my intuition at all; I only trust facts.
o That's why I don't trust anything from MARKETING unless I can find it in
a wholly independent source (e.g., Apple battery life claims).

o Every Apple iPhone model tested vastly overstated battery life claims
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Q-x-uIzovg4>

In summary...

Intelligent adults don't disagree on facts (facts are funny that way).
o Where they disagree is on assessments (people are funny that way).

You're quite welcome to disagree with my assessments...
o But if you claim a fact is wrong - then you need to produce the data.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:27:49 -0000 (UTC), Arlen HoldÅr wrote:


Note the headers are of the infamous "highwinds astraweb troll"

Path: doubletreewisp!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Arlen HoldÅr <arlen_...@neumachines.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.ipad,comp.sys.mac.system,comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
References: <pj389p$nd6$1...@news.mixmin.net> <0001HW.210566F000...@news.giganews.com> <ro98l4$le$4...@dont-email.me> <ro9auq$ccr$1...@news.mixmin.net> <rojlcj$ejd$1...@news.mixmin.net> <romue4$19b$1...@news.mixmin.net> <romufh$1b5$1...@news.mixmin.net> <rpgr6o$7lo$1...@news.mixmin.net> <rpgra0$9a1$4...@dont-email.me>
Followup-To: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <3c2vH.42852$%m67....@usenetxs.com>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:00:15 UTC
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:27:49 -0000 (UTC)
X-Received-Bytes: 2603
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3148088681
Xref: doubletreewisp misc.phone.mobile.iphone:82743 comp.mobile.ipad:44047 comp.sys.mac.system:85535 comp.mobile.android:70165

--
These are all socks of the always infantile "highwinds astraweb troll":
o From: Arlene...@gmail.com
o From: ArleneB...@gmail.com
o From: Alan Barker <noton...@no.no.no.no>
o From: holden...@arlen.net
o From: "angelica...@yahoo.com" <angelica...@yahoo.com>
o From: Andy <an...@roto-reuters.news>
o From: Bill <WhoK...@newsguy.net>
o From: "Colonel Edmund J. Burke" <lbone@go usarmy.com>
o From: "Gimme that ol time ACF." <b7r...@gmail.com>
o From: "STD.COM ish jew kike paedophile BARRY Z. SHEIN 700 Washington St B'righton Mass" <inge23...@aol.c0m>
o From: "Tekkie¿" <Tek...@comcast.net>
o From: Anonymous <anon...@anonymo.us>
o From: Bill <WhoK...@newsguy.net>
o From: Bob <b...@bob.cob>
o From: Bucky Breeder <Breeder_Bucky-Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out>
o From: Carlos Peraza <carlos...@monterrey.acceso.mx>
o From: Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
o From: Charlie+ <cha...@xxx.net>
o From: chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
o From: Cleanup in Isle 3 <cleanup@isle.3>
o From: Dan <notg...@guesswho.com>
o From: Duke Nukem <duke....@off.grid>
o From: Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx>
o From: "E. Coast Lib" <e.coa...@naugatuck.guv>
o From: Gary Dingle <garyd...@adam.com.au>
o From: gray_wolf <g_wolf@howling_mad.com>
o From: Greg Carr <gregca...@gmail.com>
o From: Grumpy Old White Guy <gru...@old-white-guy.network>
o From: hub...@ccanoemail.ca
o From: Jeff Hickling <"1st Apostolic"@ats/world.com>
o From: Jenny Telia <jnyt...@gmail.com>
o From: Jim H <inv...@invalid.invalid>
o From: Jim Joyce <no...@none.invalid>
o From: Jim S <j...@jimYscott.co.uk>
o From: Jimmy Kauffenhak <ji...@kauffenhak.llc>
o From: jlov...@gmail.com
o From: Joe Beijing <j...@PresidentEject.dnc>
o From: Joe Bidet <j...@butt-wipe.dnc>
o From: Joey Bidet <joey....@prison.mail>
o From: Joseph Bidett <j...@bidett.flush>
o From: Joel <joel...@gmail.com>
o From: Jonesy <Jon...@myspamitmail.org>
o From: Knut Sveinssen <kss@arbitrage.>
o From: Mark <mark.sc...@mgoblow.edu>
o From: Mark Lloyd <n...@mail.invalid>
o From: Monty <mo...@home.invalid>
o From: nilsson <nil...@toesnullmail.org>
o From: Oscar Mayor <oscar...@hot.dog>
o From: Pabst Blue Ribbon <pa...@blue.ribbon>
o From: Pratt <pr...@g.mail>
o From: Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
o From: Ralph Mowery <rmower...@earthlink.net>
o From: Raven <ra...@invalid.invalid>
o From: Robert Marshall <sp...@capuchin.co.uk>
o From: Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home>
o From: Shadow <S...@dow.br>
o From: Ted <t...@prodigy.aol>
o From: Tekkie¿ <Tek...@comcast.net>
o From: Traitor_Joe <traitor.joe@#2-big-guy.ccp>
o From: The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
o From: The Sidhe <Ancient...@Heaven.Net>
o From: ti...@tibia.com
o From: vallor <val...@cultnix.org>
o From: Voltarin <v-la...@live.com.invalid>

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 23:51:33 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Android sucks ass. Pure rational reasonable sensible logic.
> Arlen is a twit. Proven.

Hi Hemidactylus,

Regarding your numerous posts in this fact-based thread of Android vs iOS:
o iOS exclusive app [that Android doesn't have], by badgolferman
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/vTJ6PVrtyS0>

Thank you for proving me right about you apologists, every time you post.
o Not only do I feel sorry for you, but I understand you.

You Type III apologists are like a stunted fifth grader who just found out
that MARKETING hasn't been telling him the truth about Santa Claus.

You desperately want to _believe_ that Santa flies through the air...
o And that Santa delivers presents to your living room...

Just like the MARKETING people fed you to believe.

SO when someone tells you the truth ("Hint: Santa isn't real"), you react:
"Arlen is a twit. Proven"

Notice your vitriol?
o You Type III apologists are exactly like that stunted fifth grade bully.

You have no defense whatsoever to facts (such as "Santa is make believe").
o So you respond by attacking the mere bearer of those facts you hate.

Why I feel sorry for people like you Hemidactylus is that you actually hate
Apple because Apple is never what Apple MARKETING said it would be.

That's why you hate me - because you actually hate Apple.
o You hate me because I am the messenger of truth about Apple products.

And you have absolutely no adult defense to facts.
o As you just proved in spades in this thread.
--
Apologists actually hate that Apple is never what MARKETING said it was.