Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber (who was tracked by police) was using?

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber (who was tracked
by police) was using?

All the reports say the police tracked him to his final location using
standard cell-phone geolocation signals, but none of the reports say what
phone he was using.

I'm curious what type of phone someone so evil and yet so stupid uses.

If/when the news releases the type of phone, please just update this thread
with that data, as I don't think the information is public knowledge yet.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

In article <news:p8ua56$1qh2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ragnusen Ultred wrote:

> If/when the news releases the type of phone, please just update this thread
> with that data, as I don't think the information is public knowledge yet.

This doesn't mention the phone he used, but it has more detail on what was
surveilled...

"Investigators compiled a list of phone numbers and individuals that were
in the area of the bombings, using cell-site analysis and high-tech
computing systems that can detect patterns of callers, and hours before
police tried to pull Conditt over on Interstate 35, he turned on his cell
phone, allowing authorities to hone in on his location, NBC News reported."

Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead idiot Austin bomber was using?

[micky]

In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:00:55 +0000 (UTC),

I wouldn't think it matters. The cell system has to know where every
phone is or when someone called you, it would have to send out the ring
signal from every cell tower in the world.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

In article <news:rdr5bddv7170i46jl...@4ax.com>, micky wrote:

> I wouldn't think it matters. The cell system has to know where every
> phone is or when someone called you, it would have to send out the ring
> signal from every cell tower in the world.

Of course, what you're talking about are the 'voice-related' cellular
signals, where I agree with you that the ability to track the voice part of
the cellular system is the same for all phones, but what's different is the
ability of others to track you based on the many different types of
non-voice-related differences in the cell phones themselves.

There's no sense guessing.
We'll just have to wait for the phone information to be public knowledge.

What I will say is that anyone who commits a crime while carrying a
cellphone, is not all that smart, unless they felt an untoward sense of
security about using that cellphone, especially during and even /after/
committing the crime.

It's my premise that it's even worse if it's a so-called smartphone.

Only someone who merely /felt/ safe from prying eyes, but who was not
actually safe from prying eyes, could possibly do such a stupid thing.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 21.03.18 um 20:15 schrieb Ragnusen Ultred:

I only know the idiot who wants to know it ...
*SCNR*

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[Ragnusen Ultred]

In article <news:p8vfam$nd0$2...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> I only know the idiot who wants to know it ...

It's amazing how you, Jeorg Lorenz, repeatedly prove your inability to post
anything but meaningless drivel in /every/ one of your posts.

I give you credit for that accomplishment which most children grow out of
by adulthood.

Meanwhile, this report reveals yet more facts about how his cellphone was
used to successfully track the bomber's movements.

http://www.kxan.com/news/how-police-finally-found-the-austin-bomber-1/1067304336

"McCaul said Conditt had powered down his phone for "quite some time" but
that police closed in when he switched it back on.

"He turned it on, it pinged, and then the chased ensued," McCaul said.

Abbott said police were able to closely monitor Conditt and his movements
for about 24 hours before his death. The governor said the phone number was
used to tie Conditt to bombing sites around Austin.

"The suspect's cellphone number showed up at each of the bombing sites as
well as some key locations that helped them connect him to the crime,"
Abbott said."

[Ragnusen Ultred]

In article <news:p8v1g2$10fi$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ragnusen Ultred wrote:

> Only someone who merely /felt/ safe from prying eyes, but who was not
> actually safe from prying eyes, could possibly do such a stupid thing.

Apparently, he parked his vehicle at the Home Depot when buying nails,
where his cell phone was apparently turned on at the time of purchase,
according to this article in the LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-austin-bombings-suspect-20180321-story.html

"When Conditt turned on the phone, McCaul said, investigators were able to
pinpoint him at a hotel in Round Rock, which led to a police chase."

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 22.03.18 um 06:58 schrieb Ragnusen Ultred:

> In article <news:p8vfam$nd0$2...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> I only know the idiot who wants to know it ...
>
> It's amazing how you, Jeorg Lorenz, repeatedly prove your inability to post
> anything but meaningless drivel in /every/ one of your posts.

Only anonymous *idiots* are using anonymous news-servers. Your header:

ath:
eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <p8ua56$1qh2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 0JxAd8i8tintIb4vRlNJ4A.user.gioia.aioe.org

You are not only an idiot, you are crossposting troll not able to use a
correct FUP2.

--
Reclaim your inbox! Thunderbird makes emailing safer, faster, and easier
than ever before with the industry's best implementations of features
such as intelligent spam filters, built-in RSS reader, quick search, and
much more. http://www.mozilla-europe.org/de/products/thunderbird/

[Chris]

On 22/03/2018 01:39, Ragnusen Ultred wrote:
> In article <news:rdr5bddv7170i46jl...@4ax.com>, micky wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't think it matters. The cell system has to know where every
>> phone is or when someone called you, it would have to send out the ring
>> signal from every cell tower in the world.
>
> Of course, what you're talking about are the 'voice-related' cellular
> signals, where I agree with you that the ability to track the voice part of
> the cellular system is the same for all phones, but what's different is the
> ability of others to track you based on the many different types of
> non-voice-related differences in the cell phones themselves.
>
> There's no sense guessing.
> We'll just have to wait for the phone information to be public knowledge.
>
> What I will say is that anyone who commits a crime while carrying a
> cellphone, is not all that smart, unless they felt an untoward sense of
> security about using that cellphone, especially during and even /after/
> committing the crime.
>
> It's my premise that it's even worse if it's a so-called smartphone.

Not in this case. It seems clear that they were simply using cell-tower
information to correlate his movements with the attacks and catch him.
The type of phone is irrelevant.

> Only someone who merely /felt/ safe from prying eyes, but who was not
> actually safe from prying eyes, could possibly do such a stupid thing.

Criminals are mostly stupid or thoughtless. The police aren't going to
catch the smart, determined ones. They usually end up in positions of
power where only the FBI/CIA/NSA might touch them.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:31:40 +0100, schrieb Joerg Lorenz:

> Only anonymous *idiots* are using anonymous news-servers. Your header:
>
> ath:
> eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Message-ID: <p8ua56$1qh2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 0JxAd8i8tintIb4vRlNJ4A.user.gioia.aioe.org
>
> You are not only an idiot, you are crossposting troll not able to use a
> correct FUP2.

Hi Joerg Lorenz,

What's impressive is that you are so low on the DK scale that you don't
even seem to know enough about NNTP protocol to realize that these
meaningless headers can be changed on a whim, as can the news server, as
can any of the headers, including the time and date.

So you put too much meaning into nothing, as usual for your kind.

That you're hilariously inept at interpreting the significance of NNTP
headers isn't surprising, but that you actually seem to /think/ you're a
genius is what I find humorous since it's a classic trait of those like you
very low on the Dunning-Kruger scale who put too much faith into your
incorrect assumptions about your skill set in interpreting meaningless
headers.

Please do continue to post meaningless drivel because your very words give
me greater insight into the machinations of the minds of people who are
extremely low on the DK scale when it comes to self-assessment of skills.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:11:46 +0000, schrieb Chris:

> Not in this case. It seems clear that they were simply using cell-tower
> information to correlate his movements with the attacks and catch him.
> The type of phone is irrelevant.

It does seem that they tracked him by simple means, where he seems to have
been triangulated to each of the bomb sites, according to the news.

I find it odd that someone, planning a crime, would bring a cellphone along
with them on the crime.

It just seems stupid.

At this point, he's made a twenty-minute video which the police have
characterized as a confession, but it was all about the bombs, which is
odd, don't you think?

He seemed to be wrapped up in the /technology/ of the bombs, which is why
it matters what technology he chose for his phone.

Time will tell as it will come out, eventually, which phone he used, where
I'm only seeking to better understand the machinations of his mind since
most of us reasonable people would consider it extremely dumb to bring a
cell phone along while on a /planned/ crime spree.

>> Only someone who merely /felt/ safe from prying eyes, but who was not
>> actually safe from prying eyes, could possibly do such a stupid thing.
>
> Criminals are mostly stupid or thoughtless. The police aren't going to
> catch the smart, determined ones. They usually end up in positions of
> power where only the FBI/CIA/NSA might touch them.

Heh heh ... yeah. You're right. The best are those during the Harding and
Grant eras, where they made hundreds of millions of 1920's dollars, which
is likely billions in today's dollars.

James Comey comes to mind, when talking about criminal politicians, where
Comey wasn't even paid to be a sleazy politician - but he was nonetheless.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:52:10 -0100, Ragnusen Ultred
<rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:

>Am Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:31:40 +0100, schrieb Joerg Lorenz:
>
>> Only anonymous *idiots* are using anonymous news-servers. Your header:
>>
>> ath:
>> eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
>> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
>> Message-ID: <p8ua56$1qh2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 0JxAd8i8tintIb4vRlNJ4A.user.gioia.aioe.org
>>
>> You are not only an idiot, you are crossposting troll not able to use a
>> correct FUP2.
>
>Hi Joerg Lorenz,
>
>What's impressive is that you are so low on the DK scale that you don't
>even seem to know enough about NNTP protocol to realize that these
>meaningless headers can be changed on a whim, as can the news server, as
>can any of the headers, includ

Are saying that your header was changed? For all of your nyms? If
not then Lorenz is absolutely correct. Sorta hard lie when the truth
is so apparent.

PLONK de novo

[Frank Slootweg]

Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:
> Am Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:31:40 +0100, schrieb Joerg Lorenz:
>
> > Only anonymous *idiots* are using anonymous news-servers. Your header:
> >
> > ath:
> > eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> > Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> > Message-ID: <p8ua56$1qh2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 0JxAd8i8tintIb4vRlNJ4A.user.gioia.aioe.org
> >
> > You are not only an idiot, you are crossposting troll not able to use a
> > correct FUP2.
>
> Hi Joerg Lorenz,
>
> What's impressive is that you are so low on the DK scale that you don't
> even seem to know enough about NNTP protocol to realize that these
> meaningless headers can be changed on a whim, as can the news server, as
> can any of the headers, including the time and date.

That you say "as can the news server" and "as can any of the headers"
(note: any) shows that you do *not* (fully) know what you're talking
about.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:28:20 -0500, schrieb B...@Onramp.net:

> Are saying that your header was changed? For all of your nyms? If
> not then Lorenz is absolutely correct. Sorta hard lie when the truth
> is so apparent.
>
> PLONK de novo

Notice, as always, is the well-known cadre of about a half-dozen Apple
Apologists who can only spout drivel on this newsgroup?

Apple Appologists: BK@onRamp, Jolly Roger, nospam, Joerg Lorenz, Lewis, etc.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 22 Mar 2018 18:49:27 GMT, schrieb Frank Slootweg:

> That you say "as can the news server" and "as can any of the headers"
> (note: any) shows that you do *not* (fully) know what you're talking
> about.

Hi Frank,

You're not a childish Apple Apologists like Joerg Lorenz and BK@OnRamp are,
so I'll look at your objections with more than just the energy it takes to
swat away an annoying brainless fly (which is all the effort I expended on
the Apple Apologists who never have any intention to be helpful).

First off, I might remind you that the subject matter here is rather
simple, which is simply what technical telephone prowess did the bomber
have, given he prided himself on his bomb-making skills (according to
police reports of the 20-minute recorded video on his cellphone).

Given he prided himself on his technical prowess, and yet, given the fact
that the cell phone is a key component that resulted in the police knowing
he was at the hotel (which ultimately caused his untimely death), we can
reasonably wonder what cellphone he used.

To that question, Joerg Lorenz, having nothing of value to add, brought up
the issue of headers, where I simply "swatted the gnat" in my response.

If you want me to prove a more technical response, you may need to clarify
where you're confused about headers.

I'm not sure what you're asking, so I ask you, adult to adult, to clarify
both what your question has to do with the topic, and what response you are
looking for, since it seems that you may just be playing silly games
yourself, in which case, I'll swat away the gnat in you as I did with the
Apple Apologists.

Do you think we can't change our news servers at will?
Do you think we can't change the date line?
Do you think we can't change the newsreader line?
Do you think we can't change the subject line?
Do you think we can't change the MIME encoding line?
DO you think we can't change the Message-ID line?
DO you think we can't change the Newsgroup line?
Do you think we can't change the Content-Transfer-Encoding line?

Which of those lines do you want me to change in my next post?

Frank Slootweg. Are you being serious as an adult?
Or are you just playing silly semantic games?

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 22.03.18 um 22:09 schrieb Ragnusen Ultred:

And you troll are "Harry Newton" who had to change the identity because
he was in everybodys killfile. And you are bragging to be able to change
the header. You are not. you are simply a big mouth.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 22.03.18 um 19:49 schrieb Frank Slootweg:

> Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:
>> What's impressive is that you are so low on the DK scale that you don't
>> even seem to know enough about NNTP protocol to realize that these
>> meaningless headers can be changed on a whim, as can the news server, as
>> can any of the headers, including the time and date.
>
> That you say "as can the news server" and "as can any of the headers"
> (note: any) shows that you do *not* (fully) know what you're talking
> about.
>

+1

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:41:03 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
wrote:

Wow. I've been included among some of the better posters here. I
would be happy to be an Apple Appologist (sic) except they don't need
apologies.

[Jolly Roger]

Nor do they actually exist in any of this troll’s threads.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:41:03 +0100, schrieb Joerg Lorenz:

> And you troll are "Harry Newton" who had to change the identity because
> he was in everybodys killfile. And you are bragging to be able to change
> the header. You are not. you are simply a big mouth.

The Apple newsgroups are always easily proven to be filled with babies.

Only the half-dozen or so Apple Apologists seem to troll a simple yes/no
answer thread like this one is, into a billion meaningless posts, where
they complain about everything they can complain about, and yet, these
half-dozen Apple Appologists are so stupid, they /never/ contribute an iota
of value to the thread content.

Just watch what the child-like Apple Apologists "complain" like little
children about that has /nothing/ to do with the thread topic.
Joerg Lorenz, BK@OnRamp, nospam, Jolly Roger, Lewis, etc.

By way of stark contrast of normal adults look at what the Linux users and
Windows users have come up with for disabling Windows update, where the
point is that my headers changed on those thread too (I used the same
personna), and nobody complains there like the little babies do only on the
Apple newsgroups.

alt.os.linux
Only if you use iOS: What do you use to interface to Ubuntu 17.10?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/P7WlZ5OcJPU>

alt.comp.os.windows-10
Do you have iOS? How to get it to xfer screenshots to Windows 10 easily
<http://www.pcbanter.net/showthread.php?t=1103286>

Then notice what the Apple babies do on the Mac newsgroups to a similarly
simple question. The instant the Apple Babies are involved in /any/
interoperability question, they /all/ turn into instant fifth graders at
best:

comp.sys.mac.system & comp.sys.mac.apps
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.apps/meGWUcgR8Gs[26-50]>

I can provided /scores/ of recent examples of the phenomonena which is, it
doesn't matter what question you ask, if the Apple Babies don't like the
question, they will troll the thread to death like the little children that
they are.

Why?
I don't know why.

The Apple Babies have been doing this for decades.
They're just not like normal adults.

No matter what the topic, the Apple Babies always act like little children.
Just watch.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:44:48 -0500, schrieb B...@Onramp.net:

> Wow. I've been included among some of the better posters here. I
> would be happy to be an Apple Appologist (sic) except they don't need
> apologies.

Notice that BK@onRamp is one of those Apple Babies who can /never/ add
on-topic value to /any/ thread.

He's exactly like Jolly Roger, and Lewis, and Joerg Lorenz, none of whom
will /ever/ be able to act like an adult to add technical value to /any/
thread.

What's interesting is that, of all the half-dozen or so Apple Appologists,
only nospam has any adult comprehensive skills.

He trolls prolifically, just making up perhaps 80% of his responses (where
his accuracy is just about 30% to 60%, which is at the guessing level), so
he cares not about his credibility beign worthless ... but ... every once
in a while, that one Apple Apologist accidentally adds value, because he
actually knows some things.

The rest of the half-dozen or so Apple Apologists act like little babies
and they have about as much technical on-topic value as little kindergarten
kids do.

Why do so many Apple posters act like little babies on Usenet?

I don't know why.

I used to think it's because they can't stand facts, but I think it's
closesr to that they can't stand inconvenient facts about their beloved
operating system, whereas the adults on the Android, Linux, and Windows
newsgroups have no problem handling inconvenient facts.

Witness, for example, this recent thread on the Windows newsgroup about the
inconvenient fact that the Windows 10 start-menu can't handle hierarchy:

alt.comp.os.windows-10
Trying to make the Win10 start menu work - can it do more than 5 groups?
<http://www.pcbanter.net/showthread.php?t=1103409>

Or, witness this Linux thread where Linux users disagreed with the poster,
but /still/ were helpful to a man, very unlike Apple posters are:

alt.os.linux
What's a good way to back up Gmail when you've reached the size limit?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/6YHdHFcpGxs>

Notice that the adult platform groups have no problem handling inconvenient
facts. It's only the Apple newsgroups where little children reside in such
numbers that any inconvenient fact sets them off.

I have no problem with the Apple Babies not liking inconvenient facts, but
you'll note a huge contrast in how the adults on the non-Apple newsgroups
post purposefully helpful content, even when they disagree.

It's only on the Apple newsgroups that the Apple Babies destroy any
technical thread that contains inconvenient facts.

Witness what the Apple Babies did to this recent mac thread for example:
Can a Mac edit an iOS file over WiFi without iTunes existing on the Mac?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/qjSmqEa-P8k[1-25]>

Why is it that, of all the platform newsgroups (android, windows, linux,
iOS, mac), it's only the Apple newsgroups which are filled to the brim with
purposefully unhelpful technically incompetent little children?

Just watch...

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 23 Mar 2018 15:32:07 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:

> Nor do they actually exist in any of this troll¢s threads.

Do you see how Apple posters are different from normal adults?

You'll notice that the Apple Babies always call everyone else a troll, even
when, you'll notice, the Apple Babies /never/ add any on-topic value to the
thread they're posting to.

It's funny, but if you search for "Jolly Roger" and "troll", in the Apple
newsgroups, he comes up, by far, as the number one troll of accusing
everyone else of being a troll!
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad
http://tinyurl.com/misc.phone.mobile.iphone
http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-sys
http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-apps
etc.

Why is it that these half-dozen or so Apple Babies can never add on-topic
technical value to any thread?

I don't know why.

I used to think it's because these Apple posters are extremely stupid, and
they do write stupid things - you must admit, for the most part (only
nospam, of the half-dozen Apple Apologists doesn't /always/ write stupid
things), but since nospam does the same thing the rest of the time as the
other Apple Babies, there's more than stupidity involved.

Can it be simply that Apple posters are AFRAID of inconvenient facts?

For example, Windows adults aren't afraid of inconvenient facts about their
beloved operating system. Witness this very recent threads, using the same
identities that the Apple users rebel against where Windows users admit
that Microsoft pulled a fast one, a sneaky trick, in the February 2018
update of Windows.

alt.comp.os.windows-10
What is this strange new Windows file-system beast (C:\Windows\System32\wuaueng.dll)?
<http://www.pcbanter.net/showthread.php?s=b8523e7071f551085b1e6b2a2d4281de&t=1103450>

Likewise, Linux adults aren't afraid of inconvenient facts about their
beloved operating system, as witnessed by this Knoppix bug recently posted
by the same identities that the Apple babies universally throw taunts at.

alt.os.linux
Error splicing file: Value too large for defined data type (Knoppix 8.1)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/Nv1JhzgwfaI>

Since this fact that the Apple children act like babies, and they have been
acting like babies for decades, the real question is why do they do that?

Why do the Apple babies consistently prove they can't ever add on-topic
technical value to even the /simplest/ of questions?

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:43:36 +0100, schrieb Joerg Lorenz:

> +1

The half-dozen Apple Apologists always write what babies write.

Notice how the Apple Babies who can never add any technical value, jump out
of the woodwork when Frank makes what is, in essence, a stupid statement,
the Apple babies pile on with high-five slaps on the back!

Since Frank often acts like an adult acts, it remains to be seen whether
Frank "can" add on-topic technical value to this thread (probably he can't
- but let's give him a chance to prove he's an adult).

However, it has been proven time and again that Joerg Lorenz is simply one
of the half-dozen Apple Babies (along with BK@onRamp, nospam, Jolly Roger,
Lewis, and others) who have proven they can /never/ add any on-topic

technical value to /any/ thread.

You'll note that these same Apple Babies high-fived +1'd Snit, for example,
when Snit posted (over 400 times!) that Android couldn't record video &
audio, even when told that this capability was native in Android /years/
ago.

comp.mobile.ipad
Why do the Apple Apologists deny facts & habitually fabricate imaginary content?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/K_yBNZiPFYo/yekUPvIXAwAJ>

Then these same Apple Apologists high-fived +1'd Snit when he posted
another 400 posts stating that iOS had the simple Android functionality of
graphing Wi-Fi signal strength for all available access points over time.
Why do iOS apologists incessantly fabricate fictional iOS functionality?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/K_yBNZiPFYo/yekUPvIXAwAJ>

What's hilarious is that they were high-fiving Snit, who was posting purely
imaginary iOS functionality, that they /all/ fabricated in their minds!
Why do the Apple Apologists deny facts & habitually fabricate imaginary content?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eRTC23FyVDY/fDk0k8KAAwAJ>

misc.phone.mobile.iphone
It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/-T7FEXIdU9Q/Dhy-LFH3AwAJ>

Why do the iOS users constantly fabricate fictional iOS functionality?

I don't know why.

I think it might be that they are /afraid/ of the inconvenient fact that
other operating systems can do the /simplest/ of things that they can't do.

Why are they so afraid of the other operating systems?

I don't know why.

Perhaps these inconvenient facts threaten the entire underpinnings of their
entire fictional belief system?

But I really don't know why the Apple posters invariably act like babies
do.

Just watch.

[Frank Slootweg]

Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:
> Am 22 Mar 2018 18:49:27 GMT, schrieb Frank Slootweg:
>
> > That you say "as can the news server" and "as can any of the headers"
> > (note: any) shows that you do *not* (fully) know what you're talking
> > about.
>
> Hi Frank,

[...]

> First off, I might remind you that the subject matter here is rather
> simple, which is simply what technical telephone prowess did the bomber
> have, given he prided himself on his bomb-making skills (according to
> police reports of the 20-minute recorded video on his cellphone).

The subject matter is *your* text to which I responded.

You 'conventiently' silently snipped that text and a pathetic attempt
to - try to - not be confronted with what exactly you said.

[...]

> To that question, Joerg Lorenz, having nothing of value to add, brought up
> the issue of headers, where I simply "swatted the gnat" in my response.
>
> If you want me to prove a more technical response, you may need to clarify
> where you're confused about headers.

Don't be the usual obnoxious pompous twat! *I* am not in any way
"confused about headers". I don't want to engage in a pissing contest,
but rest assured that you're out of your league.

> I'm not sure what you're asking, so I ask you, adult to adult, to clarify
> both what your question has to do with the topic, and what response you are
> looking for, since it seems that you may just be playing silly games
> yourself, in which case, I'll swat away the gnat in you as I did with the
> Apple Apologists.

I'm trembling in my wooden shoes! NOT!

> Do you think we can't change our news servers at will?
> Do you think we can't change the date line?
> Do you think we can't change the newsreader line?
> Do you think we can't change the subject line?
> Do you think we can't change the MIME encoding line?
> DO you think we can't change the Message-ID line?
> DO you think we can't change the Newsgroup line?
> Do you think we can't change the Content-Transfer-Encoding line?
>
> Which of those lines do you want me to change in my next post?

The ones you did *not* mention!

Did you *really* think that I would fall for your cherry-picking!?

> Frank Slootweg. Are you being serious as an adult?
> Or are you just playing silly semantic games?

The one playing silly games is clearly you. And I wouldn't call them
'semantic', 'pathetic' is a much better classification.

Don't bother responding. You've already lost and you know it, or at
least you should.

EOD.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 23 Mar 2018 18:25:18 GMT, schrieb Frank Slootweg:

> The subject matter is *your* text to which I responded.

Hi Frank,

I explained exactly what happened, which is that the brainless gnat Joerg
buzzed me, having zero intention to be anything but annoying, so I swatted
him as one would swat a gnat, without thinking all that much about my
response, which, in his doing, was about his incorrect assumption about
headers.

Do you comprehend that simple fact yet?

> You 'conventiently' silently snipped that text and a pathetic attempt
> to - try to - not be confronted with what exactly you said.

Frank, you play silly tricks, where I've been on Usenet for decades, so I
know the simple rules of quoting etiquette, which is, I might remind you,
well known so I assume you are aware of this classic advice:
http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/?quoting

Please don't ascribe to malice what is a simple fact that I always follow
that simple rule of quoting what you're responding to.

That you don't like such facts, doesn't make them not facts.

Do you agree Frank - that the quoting advice I referenced, is a fact?

> Don't be the usual obnoxious pompous twat!

Frank ... you are the one who asked a confused question about headers.
That you know I know what headers are, and that you /still/ asked what
amounts to a confused question about headers, does not make me a twat.

That you instantly resort to your fifth grade vocabulary is obvious, when
all I did was ask you to clarify what was, in effect, a very confused
questions.

To repeat, I know what headers I can change and I know what headers I can't
change. If you want to play silly semantic games about that statement, then
please simply clarify what silly semantic game you want to play Frank.

Bear in mind, my statement to Joerg had about as much attention from me as
what I would expend in swatting away an annoying gnat who had zero
intention to be helpful with respect to answering the question posed in
this thread.

Since you, Frank, appear to be very interested in headers, and since I
already explained to you, Frank, that your question came across as
confused, all I ask you, Frank, is to clarify your technical question about
headers.

*Q: What is it, Frank, that you wish to learn about headers?*

> *I* am not in any way
> "confused about headers". I don't want to engage in a pissing contest,
> but rest assured that you're out of your league.

Hi Frank,
You asked an off-topic question about headers, and I told you very clearly
that your question came off as confused, since my point to Jeorg, who had
brought up headers, not me - was that headers are easily changed.

That you then brought up a question about which headers are easily changed
is fine, if that's what you want to know about.

But now, I find out that simply asking you to clarify your question about
headers results in a hate-filled tirade from you about "twats", is a bit
disconcerting.

Do you talk to your own mother that way, calling her a twat, if she simply
asks you to clarify a simple off-topic question from you?

Remember Frank, it's you who asked the question about headers.

What is it Frank, that you want to know more about with respect to headers?

> I'm trembling in my wooden shoes! NOT!

Do you notice, Frank, how you respond to a simple question for you to
clarify your own off-topic question?

DO you realize that you instantly resort to using the word "twat", simply
becuase I aswked you to clarify your question about headers?

I sincerely want to help you Frank, to answer your question about headers,
but I just ask you to ask your question in a non-confusing way, so that we
can all benefit from your completely off-topic question about headers.

In fact, if you really want a thread just about headers, I suggest, Frank,
that you open a /new/ thread, outside of this one, about headers.

Can you do that Frank?
For all of us?

I promise I'll give you the help and advice you asked of me earlier.

> The ones you did *not* mention!

C'mon Frank. Are you simply playing silly semantic games.

Do you think I can't change the NNTP posting host header, for example, just
because I forgot to mention it in that off-the-cuff post to you?

Look at the nntp posting host header in this very post, for example.

Question for you Frank, and please answer is faithfully because you not
comprehending fact does not make it fact. Do you understand Frank?

Good.
Here is the question:

Q: Is my NNTP posting host /different/ from one you've ever seen me use?
A: (This is for you to answer Frank.)

Now, here's the question that is relevant to the quoted text above:
Q: Did I mention that header in the response you responded to?
A: (HINT: The answer is no.) So you're wrong Frank. Dead wrong.

That you don't comprehend facts, does not make them NOT facts, Frank.

That you are intentionally playing silly semantic games is the fact here.

> Did you *really* think that I would fall for your cherry-picking!?f

Frank. I just proved to you that my off-the-cuff list wasn't even all
inclusive, so it wasn't "cherry picking".

This whole discussion is a complete waste of everyone's time, Frank.

That you want to play silly semantic games is fine, but why don't you play
your silly semantic games in some other thread, Frank?

This thread is simply about what mobile device technology a certain bomber
used, where you seem to want this thread to be about silly semantics about
headers.

If you want to ask about headers, Frank, why can't you ask in a thread of
your own with a topic of your own?

What is your problem that you can't ask a question in your own thread that
is completly unrelated to the topic that is in this thread.

Do you not comprehend the topic of this thread, Frank?
Seriously. That's an adult question. From one adult, presumably to another.

What part of the topic of this thread do you need me to clarify for you?

>> Frank Slootweg. Are you being serious as an adult?
>> Or are you just playing silly semantic games?
>
> The one playing silly games is clearly you. And I wouldn't call them
> 'semantic', 'pathetic' is a much better classification.

Again, you /instantly/ refert to your fifth-grade potty-mouthed stage the
moment an adult provides facts that prove you're simply playing silly
semantic games.

If you truly wanted help from me on headers, you'd ask the question
separately on your own thread instead of polluting this thread with your
off-topic and confused questions.

> Don't bother responding. You've already lost and you know it, or at
> least you should.

Notice how childishly you acted here Frank.

If you truly cared about the answer to your question, you'd ask your
question in its own thread.

This thread is simply about one thing and one thing only:

[Frank Slootweg]

Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:

[...]

[Unsnip:]

Me:

> That you say "as can the news server" and "as can any of the
> headers" (note: any) shows that you do *not* (fully) know what
> you're talking about.

[...]

You [1]:

> Frank ... you are the one who asked a confused question about headers.

I didn't ask a question. My response had/has no question mark.

[...]

> To repeat, I know what headers I can change and I know what headers I can't
> change.

You said (quote above) "as can any of the headers". I specifically
noted your "any" claim, which you now - implicitly - admit is false.

QED.

EOD.

[1] And umpteen other sentences saying I asked a question.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 23 Mar 2018 20:52:37 GMT, schrieb Frank Slootweg:

> You said (quote above) "as can any of the headers". I specifically
> noted your "any" claim, which you now - implicitly - admit is false.

Frank Slootweg,

Given that's your response, you have proven , yet again, you are incapable
of acting like an adult should - and that all you can do is waste our
valuable time with your childish silly semantic games.

The question remains for this newsgroup which will be answered in time,
hopefully by an adult who reads the news when that news comes out...

[Frank Slootweg]

Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:
> Am 23 Mar 2018 20:52:37 GMT, schrieb Frank Slootweg:
>
> > You said (quote above) "as can any of the headers". I specifically
> > noted your "any" claim, which you now - implicitly - admit is false.
>
> Frank Slootweg,
>
> Given that's your response, you have proven , yet again, you are incapable
> of acting like an adult should - and that all you can do is waste our
> valuable time with your childish silly semantic games.

Translation: Mr. EMAK was caught with his pants down, can't deliver on
his claim and is so hypocritical that he blames the *other* party for
being "incapable of acting like an adult should".

Anyway, let's hope he likes egg and pie.

[Frank Slootweg]

Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:
[...]

> The question remains for this newsgroup which will be answered in time,
> hopefully by an adult who reads the news when that news comes out...
>
> Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber (who was tracked
> by police) was using?

Nope, the question does not remain for this newsgroup. It remains only
for you. The others already have the - blatantly obvious - answer.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 24 Mar 2018 18:22:50 GMT, schrieb Frank Slootweg:

>> Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber (who was tracked
>> by police) was using?
>
> Nope, the question does not remain for this newsgroup. It remains only
> for you. The others already have the - blatantly obvious - answer.

Hi Frank,

That you intimate that the phone model and make is "blatantly obvious"
means either that you're a genius, or, you just make everything up.

Which is it Frank?

HINT: If you're a genius, you have yet to prove it, and the fact you just
make everything up is already proven in this very thread.

Why do you just make everything up Frank?
Why?

Why can't you back up a /single/ statement you make Frank?
Why?

For example, if it's blatantly obvious the make and model of the phone,
then tell us what that is Frank.

What's that?
You can't?

Oh. I see.

You just made that up.
Again.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 24 Mar 2018 18:21:56 GMT, schrieb Frank Slootweg:

> Translation: Mr. EMAK was caught with his pants down, can't deliver on
> his claim and is so hypocritical that he blames the *other* party for
> being "incapable of acting like an adult should".
>
> Anyway, let's hope he likes egg and pie.

Why do you Frank, respond to facts with senseless hate-filled potty-mouthed
vitriol?

You should simply apologize for having made up your silly semantic games
and we would have simply accepted your sincere apology.

Instead, when it's proven you were playing silly semantic games, you
respond with fifth-grade hate-filled vitriol.

[The Real Bev]

Flame wars just ain't what they used to be.

Oh wait, yes they are :-(


--
Cheers, Bev
"Don't you wish there were a knob on the TV to turn up the
intelligence? There's one marked "brightness", but it
doesn't work." -- Gallagher

[Jolly Roger]

It doesn't matter. The fucker was yet another in a long line of
"Christian" "conservative" fascist right wing nut jobs who desperately
want the United States government to ban gay marriage, ban abortion,
institute Christian Law, and so on. That's really all we need to know.
What sort of phone he used is irrelevant in terms of what sort of person
he was or how authorities tracked him down since they use the same
method for any type of cellular phone (smart or not). "Ragnusen" is just
looking for a reason to make idiotic blanket statements and claim
causation where there is only slight correlation, because: troll.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:51:25 -0700, schrieb The Real Bev:

> Flame wars just ain't what they used to be.
>
> Oh wait, yes they are :-(

I have been on Usenet for as long as you have, which is a very (very) long
time.

My model of Usenet is /different/ from yours, which is why I would think
you'd generally follow the oft-suggested axim of never arguing with a fool
(such as Frank Slootweg showed himself to be) because that fool drop you to
his level of fifth-grade silly semantic games and he's far better at it
than you are.

However ...

There is what I call the "coffee-shop" use model, and the "Q&A" use model,
where the fools like Frank Slootweg are fine in a coffee-shop model where
people post 95% to other people's threads and only 5% to their own, where
what they say is far less important (as Frank reveals often) than who they
are.

In the Q&A model that I use, I post about 95% to my threads and only about
5% to other people's threads, where what I say matters far more than who I
am (which is meaningless).

Whenever a fool, such as Frank Slootweg often proves himself to be, comes
into other threads as the fool he is, I simply ignore his foolish antics
(bearing in mind I read /all/ threads in the newsgroups I am in).

But when that fool, such as Joerg or Frank shows themselves to be, they
will /ruin/ any thread they participate in. They don't ruin the thread only
because they're actually too stupid to comprehend the content - but because
they have zero intention to be helpful.

So, just as I swat away an annoying brainless gnat, I swat away the
brainless gnats who have no intention whatsoever to be helpful, so as to
save the thread for the answer, which is all that matters.

Over time (for some, like Frank Slootweg, it takes a long time because he
long ago proved to all that he doesn't have adult comprehensive
capabilities), Frank will learn that he can't play his silly games when he
tries his childish antics with adults.

Does that make sense to you, TheRealBev, who has been on Usenet for quite
some time so you can comprehend the veracity of that which I speak?

It's /different/ than a flame war because I tell facts, whereas those like
Frank and Joerg can't back up a /single/ statement they make.

They're little children who are easily run rings around, but they still can
ruin a Q&A thread simply by their childish silly games.

All they prove is they are children - but they still must be swatted away
with about as much thought as it takes to swat away a brainless gnat.

What's humorous is that it only takes that much energy to prove that they
can never prove a single statement they make ... where only they don't
realize how low on the DK scale they are.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 24 Mar 2018 19:55:18 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:

> It doesn't matter. The fucker was yet another in a long line of
> "Christian" "conservative" fascist right wing nut jobs who desperately
> want the United States government to ban gay marriage, ban abortion,
> institute Christian Law, and so on.

It's highly unusual for you, Jolly Roger, to post to any thread sans
hateful vitriol against the poster, so, it's refreshing to see you bring up
what appears to be a more adult point of view than you normally display -
and - not aimed at the poster of the thread itself but having something to
do with the content.

It's a fair enough assertion of yours that the phone make and model doesn't
matter, even as the technology the guy used was the same technology that
trapped him - which is the same technology he used to create a video -
where all he talked about was technology (of the bombs).

I found it very strange that the police characterized his confession as a
discussion about the bombs, where it seems oddly technical for someone who
was killing innocent people.

The information you have comes from a blog he wrote apparently for a school
project, where many have said that this information is being taken out of
context since it was a required assignment for his schoolwork.

Apparently, the news, hungry for details, is dredging up whatever it can,
but as yet, the news hasn't dredged up the make and model of the technology
he used that ended up pinpointing his location. Yet.

> That's really all we need to know.

It's fair enough that you only wish to know what his reasoning was for
killing those people, while I wish to know what model of phone he used
since that phone is what killed him (among other mistakes he made).

The phone was traced to the Home Depot, to the Fryes, to the FedEx Depot,
and finally, to his hiding place at an obscure roadside motel which caused
his demise.

He was apparently smart enough to elude police for a while, where he had to
know that irking a state-sponsored adversary is almost impossible to
overcome, so it's with amazement that it's obvious that he didn't know the
first thing about the trackability of cellphone technology.

NOTE: It could be that he /wanted/ to get caught; but I suspect that isn't
the case since his confession apparently said that he'd go into a fast-food
place and blow himself up if he thought the police were on to him. So I'm
going to assume he didn't want to get caught when he used his phone at all
those places.

> What sort of phone he used is irrelevant in terms of what sort of person
> he was or how authorities tracked him down since they use the same
> method for any type of cellular phone (smart or not).

Jolly Roger,
You make an adult point here but which is unrelated to the question which
is posed of the cellphone related newsgroups. For any other newsgroup, like
alt.politics, or alt.law.enforcement, etc., his /motive/ would be very
important.

But his motive isn't the point here, although I do respect your opinion,
and, I even agree with you, that in terms of importance, his motive is far
more important to society as a whole, than the technology that brought him
down.

However, this newsgroup is about cellphone technology, is it not?

Hence, the cellphone technology he used is of importance, especially since
it is directly (and indirectly) what caused his demise.

> "Ragnusen" is just
> looking for a reason to make idiotic blanket statements and claim
> causation where there is only slight correlation, because: troll.

Ah. I responded to this post line by line, where I had been heretofore
utterly shocked that this was, I had thought, your first post ever that
didn't attack the poster.

You had been acting like an adult until that last sentence.

And then you fell instantly into your hate-filled vitriolic diatribes
against the poster merely for asking a simple question.

Q: What make/model phone did the bomber use (which is what killed him)?

[Frank Slootweg]

Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:

[20 lines of 'ignoring' me deleted.]

> Whenever a fool, such as Frank Slootweg often proves himself to be, comes
> into other threads as the fool he is, I simply ignore his foolish antics
> (bearing in mind I read /all/ threads in the newsgroups I am in).

If what you do is "ignore" me, then please don't!

BTW, I'm a bit disappointed that this time I'm only a "fool". You can
do better than that! That is, till the next time you'll be praising me
again, not realising that I'm the same guy as the "fool".

[30 more lines of ignoring me deleted.]

[The Real Bev]

On 03/24/2018 01:01 PM, Ragnusen Ultred wrote:
> Am Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:51:25 -0700, schrieb The Real Bev:
>
>> Flame wars just ain't what they used to be.
>>
>> Oh wait, yes they are :-(
>
> I have been on Usenet for as long as you have, which is a very (very) long
> time.
>
> My model of Usenet is /different/ from yours, which is why I would think
> you'd generally follow the oft-suggested axim of never arguing with a fool
> (such as Frank Slootweg showed himself to be) because that fool drop you to
> his level of fifth-grade silly semantic games and he's far better at it

> than you are...

"Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special
Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded."

Having been a participant (I kicked the habit long ago, although I still
drop in occasionally) in a flame war that has been going on since 1995,
engendered a moderated group to avoid the prime loon, and been
responsible for -- as far as I know -- the only court-ordered injunction
against posting on usenet, I am well aware of the futility of flame
wars. At some point all entertainment value disappears and only the
actual combatants are interested.

Easier and less wasteful of energy to drop out before that point is reached.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-03-24, Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:
> Am 24 Mar 2018 19:55:18 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:
>
>> It doesn't matter. The fucker was yet another in a long line of
>> "Christian" "conservative" fascist right wing nut jobs who
>> desperately want the United States government to ban gay marriage,
>> ban abortion, institute Christian Law, and so on.
>
> It's highly unusual for you

Nope, you're just biased because of the reactions you receive due to
your idiotic trolling of the Apple news groups.

> The information you have comes from a blog he wrote apparently for a
> school project, where many have said that this information is being
> taken out of context

He told the world what his position was on many topics. Excuses from
random sympathizers who are desperate to erase his association with
their political leanings aren't relevant to those of us who see the
pattern.

>> What sort of phone he used is irrelevant in terms of what sort of
>> person he was or how authorities tracked him down since they use the
>> same method for any type of cellular phone (smart or not).
>

> Hence, the cellphone technology he used is of importance, especially
> since it is directly (and indirectly) what caused his demise.

Authorities tracked his location using the exact same technology they
use for all cellular phones regardless of make and model: tower
triangulation, which means the make and model is irrelevant. The only
reason *you* want so badly to know is so you can make some lame blanket
statement equating to "since he used ______ make and model others who
use ______ make and model are suspect as well", because: troll. You
couldn't be more obvious about it.

> Q: What make/model phone did the bomber use (which is what killed
> him)?

Nobody but you cares, as it's irrelevant. Troll, troll, troll your
boat...

[Frank Slootweg]

Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:
> Am 24 Mar 2018 18:22:50 GMT, schrieb Frank Slootweg:
>
> >> Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber (who was tracked
> >> by police) was using?
> >
> > Nope, the question does not remain for this newsgroup. It remains only
> > for you. The others already have the - blatantly obvious - answer.
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> That you intimate that the phone model and make is "blatantly obvious"
> means either that you're a genius, or, you just make everything up.

I didn't say or imply any such thing! For once in your life, try
reading for comprehension and don't bombard your audience with your
endless supply of straw men, red herrings and other logical fallacies.

As I said, the others already have the answer. Considering that most
responses in this thread are yours and your ruled out most respondents
as "Apple [Apologists|Babies]" or "fool"s, it should be hard to figure
out who gave the answer, especially because you already acknowledged
their answer.

So, as I said, the only one who keeps harping for an answer to an
already answered question is you and only you.

[Another slew of straw men and red herrings deleted.]

[Frank Slootweg]

Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:
> Am 24 Mar 2018 19:55:18 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:
>
> > It doesn't matter. The fucker was yet another in a long line of
> > "Christian" "conservative" fascist right wing nut jobs who desperately
> > want the United States government to ban gay marriage, ban abortion,
> > institute Christian Law, and so on.
>

[...]

>
> It's a fair enough assertion of yours that the phone make and model doesn't
> matter

See!? Three strikes and you're ... in.

[...]

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 24 Mar 2018 20:28:37 GMT, schrieb Frank Slootweg:

> BTW, I'm a bit disappointed that this time I'm only a "fool". You can
> do better than that! That is, till the next time you'll be praising me
> again, not realising that I'm the same guy as the "fool".

Frank,
I'm going to ask you a simple adult question.

Frank: How much on-topic value have you added to this thread?

HINT: The topic is ...
Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

[nospam]

In article <p96jpg$1ald$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ragnusen Ultred

<rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:

> Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

many people do.

the real question is why you are so interested in which phone. are you
planning to blow something up?

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:40:08 -0700, schrieb The Real Bev:

> "Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special
> Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded."

The on-topic question at hand is simply this:
Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

As for your comments, The Real Bev, you completly miss the point.
Completely.

Let me try again, since I know you've been on Usenet for as long as I have.

1. You have ideas that apply to most people.
2. Most people are morons (as you know).
3. Most people just make up almost everything they say.
4. Most people get defensive when they're shown to be wrong.
5. Most people need to "win" an argument.
etc.

I'm not most people.
I never have a problem if one of my facts are wrong.

My facts are rarely, if ever, wrong, simply because I don't make this stuff
up. So my facts are always that, just facts.

However, if I do get a fact wrong, then I'm *HAPPY*, nay, I'm *ECSTATIC* if
someone shows me to be wrong, because then they have provided *VALUE* by
showing me a fact that I was unaware of.

So do not ever, The Real Bev, mistake me for most of the people you are
familiar with.

I only care about one thing, which is the ANSWER to the question, whatever
the question may be.

This thread is not a game for me as it seems to be for you.
You can make up all the shit you want, which doesn't apply to me.

If you understood my reasons for swatting the gnats, you'd understand that
I only want the answer to the question.

I can provide scores of threads, outside of threads where the likes of
Jolly Roger, Joerg Lorenz, and Frank Slootweg reside, which don't devolve
into meaningless drivel.

But once Frank Slootweg responds to a thread, that's it. He'll kill it just
as mosquitoes kill a picnic. If Jolly Roger shows up, that's it for the
thread.

Since the moment Frank or Jolly Roger or Joerg or Lewis or nospam or
BKonRamp show up the thread is a goner, I swat the gnats since it's a
thread I authored where I care about the answer.

If you do not *UNDERSTAND* that, The Real Bev, then you are simply not
comprehending adult thought processes. You don't have to agree with adult
thought processes, but if you think this is a silly semantic game, then
you're proving only that you think like a child thinks.

I's not a gam, the Real Bev. It's not. It's a question.
No more. No less.

HINT: The topic is ...

Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

> Having been a participant (I kicked the habit long ago, although I still
> drop in occasionally) in a flame war that has been going on since 1995,
> engendered a moderated group to avoid the prime loon, and been
> responsible for -- as far as I know -- the only court-ordered injunction
> against posting on usenet, I am well aware of the futility of flame
> wars. At some point all entertainment value disappears and only the
> actual combatants are interested.

Hi The Real Bev,
I have only needed to killfile one person in my life, and that was Snit,
because he showed he would never stop. Just like gun-control lobbyist will
never stop until guns are prohibited like alcohol was, Snit is incapable of
stopping. Hence a flame war with Snit would end up like what you speak of
above.

I have no intention on getting into a flame war with you or anyone else who
proves they don't have the adult comprehensive skills to understand and add
value to the simple question of:

Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

> Easier and less wasteful of energy to drop out before that point is reached.

If trolls such as Jolly Roger, Joerg, BKoNRamp, nospam, Lewis, Frank
Slootweg, etc., didn't exist, the Usenet would be a better place for adults
overall.

Nonetheless, the on-topic question remains this simple question, which I
ask others who have no value to add to refrain from attempting to answer
that which is beyond their comprehensive skill set:

Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 24 Mar 2018 20:45:25 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:

> Nope, you're just biased because of the reactions you receive due to
> your idiotic trolling of the Apple news groups.

Well, I have to admit, Jolly Roger, it's rare for you to have an opinion
that is one an adult would have, but I did agree with you that the most
important questions weren't about what technology he used.

Nonetheless, that's the question here:
Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

> He told the world what his position was on many topics. Excuses from
> random sympathizers who are desperate to erase his association with
> their political leanings aren't relevant to those of us who see the
> pattern.

Again, I don't disagree with your point of view that the kid was a
malcontent, in that he seemed to have trouble fitting into the world, where
some blamed his home schooling while others blamed his anti-social
feelings.

I suspect, but I am no psychologist, that the *POWER* he wanted to feel
that he never had, was garnered by killing people. Again, I repeat I'm no
psychologist, so that's just a feeling of mine which is that killing people
and having the police play hide and seek gave him a sense of *POWER* that
made him feel *GOOD* about himself.

You may have seen me use those same words in regards to why the Apple users
always denigrate the bearer of facts, so you probably can better understand
these sentiments than most people will.

Nonetheless, the bomber's psychological needs aside, the on-topic question
for cellular related newsgroups is what technology did him in.

Certainly it was basic triangulation, but there's no doubt the police did
more. Frank Slootweg is too stupid to understand that, but you, Jolly
Roger, you should be able to comprehend that there's more to the story than
we know at the moment.

One of those missing details is the answer to this question:
Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

> Authorities tracked his location using the exact same technology they
> use for all cellular phones regardless of make and model: tower
> triangulation, which means the make and model is irrelevant.

While I completely understand that you missed the point of the cellphone
technology, you can't say it's irrelevant if, and notice the if, if the
bomber felt /safe/ because of a DK-like trust in the brand marketing of the
phone.

Remember the BTK killer felt trust in the cop who was trying to catch him,
when he asked that cop if he could be traced by a MS Word document and the
cop (lied) told him "no". That BTK killer was mad at the cop and even asked
that cop why he lied, to which the cop said "I was trying to catch you",
which is exactly how adults work.

Same here.

If we assume that the bomber felt /safe/ using that phone, then the
marketing of that phone is relevant, whether it be an Android make (most
likely I think) or an Apple make (less likely I would think).

I feel it's a relevant question for a cellphone newsgroup, where I feel
your concerns are relevant for other newsgroups.

For this newsgroup, what's relevant is how did the authorities track him,
and why did the bomber feel /safe/ from authorities using /any/ brand of
cellphone.

To wit:
Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

> The only
> reason *you* want so badly to know is so you can make some lame blanket
> statement equating to "since he used ______ make and model others who
> use ______ make and model are suspect as well", because: troll. You
> couldn't be more obvious about it.

Hehhehheh ... YOu're so /afraid/ of facts that you're clearly stating your
fears that I'll use a "fact" to prove a point.

Hehheh ... do you see how much you're afraid of facts?

You've already manufactured an argument where those facts hurt your
position, when nobody even knows what brand and model of phone the guy had,
least of all me.

Why are you so afraid of facts Jolly Roger?

> Nobody but you cares, as it's irrelevant. Troll, troll, troll your
> boat...

Oh, I think people care because look how much you and Joerg and Frank
Slootweg and The Real Bev seem to care.

If you didn't care, you'd simply ignore this thread, which, if you don't
know the answer to the question, you should. [It's what adults do.]

The question remains:
Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 24 Mar 2018 21:00:15 GMT, schrieb Frank Slootweg:

> See!? Three strikes and you're ... in.

Hi Frank Slootweg,

You play silly games, just like the kind that The Real Bev was talking
about, where, to you, it's some kind of win/loss game.

What you fail to understand, Frank, is that it's a question that you
haven't yet been able to provide one iota of value in answering.

And yet, you persist in your silly semantic games.

The question, I might remind you Frank Slootweg, is simple:

Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

[nospam]

In article <p96kl8$1c42$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ragnusen Ultred

<rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:

> However, if I do get a fact wrong, then I'm *HAPPY*, nay, I'm *ECSTATIC* if
> someone shows me to be wrong,

bullshit.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:38:20 -0400, schrieb nospam:

> many people do.

Hi nospam,
While you have zero intention to provide any value to a thread, you
sometimes accidentally provide value, where you haven't done so in this
thread.

It's certain that the police know what phone he was using since they knew
that once they obtained his cellphone records after tracking his license
plate down at the Home Depot when he bought nails.

Which phone he has might also show up in any warrants, some of which may
very well be public.

Also his friends and family would know, and, if we looked at the EXIF data,
if it shows up on his Facebook photos, would also give us a strong clue (if
EXIF data survives Facebook uploads).

Without digging into that data, I simply ask the user base here:

Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

> the real question is why you are so interested in which phone. are you
> planning to blow something up?

What's interesting about you nospam is that when you want to play that
encryption is super important, you play that game.

But when you don't want to play the game of the all-important-to-you
encryption, you don't play that game.

What's interesting is that, while you have no intention of ever providing
on-topic value to any thread, you accidentally do.

Notice you're not screaming how /safe/ this user was due to the authorities
going frontal on his encryption, as one example.

A lot of your conjecture depends on the answer to this question:

[Jolly Roger]

Yup, the record shows the *exact* opposite.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-03-24, Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:

> Am 24 Mar 2018 20:45:25 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:
>
>> Nope, you're just biased because of the reactions you receive due to
>> your idiotic trolling of the Apple news groups.
>
> Well, I have to admit

Glad we agree.

>> He told the world what his position was on many topics. Excuses from
>> random sympathizers who are desperate to erase his association with
>> their political leanings aren't relevant to those of us who see the
>> pattern.
>
> Again, I don't disagree

Good. End of discussion then. Bye, Felicia.

>> Authorities tracked his location using the exact same technology they
>> use for all cellular phones regardless of make and model: tower
>> triangulation, which means the make and model is irrelevant.
>
> While I completely understand

No you don't.

>> The only reason *you* want so badly to know is so you can make some
>> lame blanket statement equating to "since he used ______ make and
>> model others who use ______ make and model are suspect as well",
>> because: troll. You couldn't be more obvious about it.
>
> Hehhehheh ...

Troll, troll, troll your boat...

>> Nobody but you cares, as it's irrelevant. Troll, troll, troll your
>> boat...
>
> Oh, I think people care

You aren't representative of most people, which is verified by the fact
that you are the only person here out of many who is asking what sort of
phone it was.

> The question remains:

Only in your dull mind.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 24 Mar 2018 20:50:52 GMT, schrieb Frank Slootweg:

> So, as I said, the only one who keeps harping for an answer to an
> already answered question is you and only you.

Q: Does Frank know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?
A: ?

If not, he should refrain from polluting this thread with more of his
off-topic drivel because he's like an annoying brainless gnat that needs to
be swatted away.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 24 Mar 2018 23:38:59 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:

> Yup, the record shows the *exact* opposite.

I realize both you Jolly Roger, and nospam, (along with Frank Slootweg)
have entirely imaginary belief systems, which we've proven time and again,
since none of you can ever back up a single statement you make.

That you just make everything up, is well known, and the proof of which is
that I ask you to show, as I have in the past, a /single/ instance of where
my facts were wrong.

If you can find a single instance in my tens of thousands of posts where my
facts are wrong (it's rare, but it can happen to even the smartest of us),
then you'll see that I would IMMEDIATELY (if not sooner) thank the bearer
of the correction.

That this isn't something YOU would do, is well shown in the public record.
That Frank Slootweg just proved he can't do it in this thread, is obvious.
That nospam is the same, is also obvious.

But you have to realize I only speak facts.
I only care about the facts.

You Jolly Roger, and nospam, and Frank care not about your credibility.

To wit, here's your chance to prove your point, Jolly Roger:

Point to a single instance of fact that I've stated that you feel is wrong
(where you have to show facts that it is wrong).

Just one.

... I'll wait ...


... I'm waiting...







... still waiting ...

...
..

.. .still waiting...

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:02:28 -0400, schrieb nospam:

>> However, if I do get a fact wrong, then I'm *HAPPY*, nay, I'm *ECSTATIC* if
>> someone shows me to be wrong,
>
> bullshit.

You care not one whit about your credibility nospam, where you're so
emotional you can't see a fact that is in front of your face.

In tens of thousands of posts, my facts are correct.

My facts are (almost) never wrong, in all those tens of thousands of posts
for one simple reason.

I'm not like you nospam.
I don't just guess.

I state facts.

That you've been asked to find even once that my facts were wrong, and you
can't, is a fact.

Even more of a fact, because I'm sure I've accidentally stated an incorrect
thing in my entire life, if someone points it out, I'm HAPPY to be
corrected if, indeed, the person corrects with fact.

What you can't comprehend is that, while you're smart, you're absolutely
nothing like I am. Nothing. Night and day you are to me.

I only speak fact.
You mainly guess.

Big difference.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 24 Mar 2018 23:41:07 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:

> Troll, troll, troll your boat...

Notice that Jolly Roger is only capable of acting like an adult
for very brief periods of time, measured in tenth-posts or at best,
quarter-post increments.

Meanwhile, the on-topic question remains:
Q: Do you know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?
A: ?

HINT: If not, there is no need to clutter this thread up with off-topic
drivel.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-03-25, Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:
> Am 24 Mar 2018 23:38:59 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:
>
>> Yup, the record shows the *exact* opposite.
>

> Point to a single instance of fact that I've stated that you feel is wrong

The same boring line you trot out any time anyone calls you out on your
lame trolls. NO SALE. Your posting record speaks for itself, and there's
no need for repeating any of it. You have zero credibility. You're stuck
on repeat playing the same boring game, old fart.

> ... I'll wait ...
>
> ... I'm waiting...

Hold your breath, please.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-03-25, Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:

> Am 24 Mar 2018 23:41:07 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:
>
>> Troll, troll, troll your boat...
>
> Notice that Jolly Roger is only capable of acting like an adult

Notice that "ragnusen", an old fart who constantly uses news services
favored by Usenet trolls and switches nyms and other headers like
there's no tomorrow, spends numerous hours every single day of every
week of many years posting idiotic and laborious long-winded troll posts
to the Apple news groups where he lies about Apple functionality and
berates any complete stranger who dares to correct or object to his lies
and insults. His record stands for itself. Here's an incomplete list of
his recent previous nyms for anyone interested in researching his record
for themselves (which can be easily verified by recognizing his
childish conversational style):

Paul B. Andersen
Adair Bordon
Liam O'Connor
Juan Camilo Blanco
Alphonse Arnaud
Danny D.
Vinny Perado
Whitney Ryan
Tony Cito
Adam H. Kerman
Werner Obermeier
Steven Bornfeld
Winston_Smith
Mitch Kaufmann
Paul M. Cook
E. Robinson
Alice J.
P. Ng
Tam Nguyen
VPN user
Joe Clock
Marob Katon
Chris Rangoon
AArdvarks
Conradt
Gustl Hoffmann
Henry Jones
Tatsuki Takahashi
AL
Horace Algier
Karl Schultz
Arthur Conan Doyle
Algeria Horan
Raymond Spruance III
Martin Chuzzlewit II
John Harmon
Yanis Bernard
Stijn De Jong
Abe Swanson
Misha Vasiliev
Tomos Davies
Chaya Eve
Lionel Muller
Roy Tremblay
Frank S
Chaya Eve
Blake Snyder
harry newton
Harold Newton
ultred ragnusen
Ragnusen Ultred
Wilf

> Meanwhile, the on-topic question remains:
> Q: Do you know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?

A: Still irrelevant. Troll you boat if you must.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 24.03.18 um 23:38 schrieb nospam:

You think, we should inform the FBI? Just in case?
That was my first thought too.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 25.03.18 um 00:38 schrieb Jolly Roger:

> On 2018-03-24, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <p96kl8$1c42$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ragnusen Ultred
>> <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:
>>
>>> However, if I do get a fact wrong, then I'm *HAPPY*, nay, I'm *ECSTATIC* if
>>> someone shows me to be wrong,
>>
>> bullshit.
>
> Yup, the record shows the *exact* opposite.
>

I couldn't agree more.

[Jolly Roger]

...and now he'll label you a "childish Apple-Apologist" too... : D

The guy is a true sicko.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 25.03.18 um 01:57 schrieb Jolly Roger:

> On 2018-03-25, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 25.03.18 um 00:38 schrieb Jolly Roger:
>>> On 2018-03-24, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <p96kl8$1c42$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ragnusen Ultred
>>>> <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> However, if I do get a fact wrong, then I'm *HAPPY*, nay, I'm *ECSTATIC* if
>>>>> someone shows me to be wrong,
>>>>
>>>> bullshit.
>>>
>>> Yup, the record shows the *exact* opposite.
>>>
>> I couldn't agree more.
>

> ....and now he'll label you a "childish Apple-Apologist" too... : D

He did already this ridiculous "Harry Newton" alias "Ragnusen Ultred"

> The guy is a true sicko.

Yep: A case for the professionals.

[Frank Slootweg]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2018-03-24, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <p96kl8$1c42$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ragnusen Ultred
> ><rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:
> >
> >> However, if I do get a fact wrong, then I'm *HAPPY*, nay, I'm *ECSTATIC* if
> >> someone shows me to be wrong,
> >
> > bullshit.
>
> Yup, the record shows the *exact* opposite.

Well, by calling being-proven-wrong to be "fifth-grade silly semantic
games", he apparently manages quite happily to fool himself.

So we can add this to our 'Mr. EMAK drivel to English' dictionary:

"fifth-grade silly semantic games" -> "You caught me with my pants down!"

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Sun, 25 Mar 2018 01:39:44 +0100, schrieb Joerg Lorenz:

> You think, we should inform the FBI? Just in case?
> That was my first thought too.

Notice how Joerg Lorenz proves the point in every post that he's utterly
incapable of adding adult technical value to any technical thread.

Why?
I don't know why.

All I know is that it's a fact that Joerg Lorenz is incapable of acting
like an adult and contributing technical fact to even the /simplest/ of
technical questions.

Just watch...

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 25 Mar 2018 00:10:19 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:

> Hold your breath, please.

Hehhehheh ...

Notice all that I prove every fact, since I only speak facts.

Meanwhile, Jolly Roger can never prove any of his statements.

That's why I love you so much Jolly Roger.

You're a typical iOS user for whom, facts are anathema.

Your entire belief system is a religious fantasy which is *threatened* by
facts.

You prove my point in every post.
Just watch.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:39:18 +0200, schrieb Joerg Lorenz:

> Yep: A case for the professionals.

It's always interesting to see how you Apple posters post drivel.

Some day you should look at what adults post.

Just look at the difference in these threads, all recent, all using the
same nyms, all asking inconvenient questions, but only on the Apple
newsgroups are the responses filled to the brim with your childish style of
purposefully being unhelpful.

*alt.comp.os.windows-10*
What is this strange new Windows file-system beast (wuaueng.dll)?
<http://www.pcbanter.net/showthread.php?t=1103450>

*alt.os.linux*
What's a good way to back up Gmail when you've reached the size limit?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/6YHdHFcpGxs>

*comp.sys.mac.system*
Can a Mac edit an iOS file over WiFi without iTunes existing on the Mac?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/qjSmqEa-P8k/khhfEbzBAAAJ>

*comp.sys.mac.apps*
Apple Macs Have Yet Another Password-Bypassing Bug
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.apps/LkRCT6S5rZE/lC7GBlQVAQAJ>

*misc.phone.mobile.iphone*
How to transfer iPad photos/videos to/from Linux/Windows over Wi-Fi LAN?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/YtpKpDhWm_s/1z7AO3jQCAAJ>

*comp.mobile.ipad*
Why does Apple (blue) "Mail" require iCloud backup just to send email?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/mHPakcqadMA/csgSjESfBAAJ>

*comp.mobile.android*
When you plug in your phone to usb on your computer, does your file system mount on Windows 10?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/qxztHvQevDY/UBjlL-pGAAAJ>

I realize that reading even the first link is beyond your comprehensive
capabilities, but anyone who is an adult will instantly realize that it's a
fact that only on the Apple newsgroups are the responses always filled to
the brim with purposefully unhelpful childish drivel.

I only speak facts.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 25 Mar 2018 00:22:15 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:

> Notice that "ragnusen", an old fart who constantly uses news services
> favored by Usenet trolls and switches nyms and other headers like
> there's no tomorrow, spends numerous hours every single day of every
> week of many years posting idiotic and laborious long-winded troll posts
> to the Apple news groups where he lies about Apple functionality and
> berates any complete stranger who dares to correct or object to his lies
> and insults. His record stands for itself. Here's an incomplete list of
> his recent previous nyms for anyone interested in researching his record
> for themselves (which can be easily verified by recognizing his
> childish conversational style):

*Why only on the Apple newsgroup, is a meaningless nym all they can talk about?*

HINT: Look at the Windows 10 thread below where we proved Microsoft pulled
a fast sneaky trick on us in the latest February 2018 release.

Notice that only on the Apple newsgroups is my nym a bone of contention for
the children who frequent the Apple newsgroups - and - who have absolutely
zero facts to back up their contentions.

For example, I use the exact same nyms on all the adult platform
newsgroups, but only on the child-like Apple newsgroups are the nyms
something for people like Jolly ROger to marvel about.

*alt.comp.os.windows-10*
What is this strange new Windows file-system beast (wuaueng.dll)?
<http://www.pcbanter.net/showthread.php?t=1103450>

*alt.os.linux*
What's a good way to back up Gmail when you've reached the size limit?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/6YHdHFcpGxs>

*comp.sys.mac.system*
Can a Mac edit an iOS file over WiFi without iTunes existing on the Mac?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/qjSmqEa-P8k/khhfEbzBAAAJ>

*comp.sys.mac.apps*
Apple Macs Have Yet Another Password-Bypassing Bug
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.apps/LkRCT6S5rZE/lC7GBlQVAQAJ>

*misc.phone.mobile.iphone*
How to transfer iPad photos/videos to/from Linux/Windows over Wi-Fi LAN?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/YtpKpDhWm_s/1z7AO3jQCAAJ>

*comp.mobile.ipad*
Why does Apple (blue) "Mail" require iCloud backup just to send email?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/mHPakcqadMA/csgSjESfBAAJ>

*comp.mobile.android*
When you plug in your phone to usb on your computer, does your file system mount on Windows 10?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/qxztHvQevDY/UBjlL-pGAAAJ>

Proof positive, I only speak fact.
Same nyms. Same posting style. Same time frame. Same inconvenient facts.

Why is it only on the Apple newsgroups that the respondents are
purposefully unhelpful as they attack simple questions?

*Why only on the Apple newsgroup, is a meaningless nym all they can talk about?*

Meanwhile, on the *adult* platform newsgroups, we have no problem getting
answers to tough questions that are inconvenient to the mother ship,
whether she be Google, or Canonical, or Microsoft.

HINT: Look at the Windows 10 thread above where we proved Microsoft pulled
a fast sneaky trick on us in the latest February 2018 release.

Q: Would that kind of purposefully helpful teamwork ever happen on Apple newsgroups?
A: ?

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 25 Mar 2018 18:47:01 GMT, schrieb Frank Slootweg:

> Well, by calling being-proven-wrong to be "fifth-grade silly semantic
> games", he apparently manages quite happily to fool himself.
>
> So we can add this to our 'Mr. EMAK drivel to English' dictionary:
>
> "fifth-grade silly semantic games" -> "You caught me with my pants down!"

Notice Frank Slootweg that I have often mistaken you for one of the Apple
Apologists, simply because you act as childishly as they do.

You incessantly play what even you admit to be silly semantic games over
Usenet headers, and then when you're consistently proven dead wrong, you
seem to think this is some kind of one-upmanship game.

It's not a silly game Frank.
It's just not.

When you get into you childish head that it's not a silly game, then you
can /begin/ to act like adults act.

Witness, for example, how *adults* acted when I posted, using the same
headers as on this and every thread, to an adult platform newsgroup, when I
noticed, in effect, that Windows did something screwy to the NTFS file
system secretly and privately, in the latest Windows release a month ago.

*alt.comp.os.windows-10*
What is this strange new Windows file-system beast (wuaueng.dll)?
<http://www.pcbanter.net/showthread.php?t=1103450>

Think about this next question Frank, and please think like an adult would.

Q: Would you, Frank, have still played your decidedly unhelpful silly
semantic games if I had asked that simple technical question of you, Frank?
Would you?
A: ?

The answer to that question will prove whether you /can/ provide helpful
content to /any/ question, Frank - so please take that question seriously.

Thank you. From one well-educated adult, to, presumably, another.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-03-25, Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:

> Am 25 Mar 2018 00:10:19 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:
>
>> Hold your breath, please.
>
> Hehhehheh ...

That's not how you do it; but then you've shown you don't know how to do
a whole lot of extremely simple things. Try not speaking, or breathing,
for an extended period of time.

> Notice all that I prove every fact

The only thing you've proved is that you aren't able to discern between
fact and opinion - constantly and consistently.

> since I only speak facts.

You only lie and troll.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-03-25, Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:

> Am 25 Mar 2018 00:22:15 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:
>
>> Notice that "ragnusen", an old fart who constantly uses news services
>> favored by Usenet trolls and switches nyms and other headers like
>> there's no tomorrow, spends numerous hours every single day of every
>> week of many years posting idiotic and laborious long-winded troll posts
>> to the Apple news groups where he lies about Apple functionality and
>> berates any complete stranger who dares to correct or object to his lies
>> and insults. His record stands for itself. Here's an incomplete list of
>> his recent previous nyms for anyone interested in researching his record
>> for themselves (which can be easily verified by recognizing his
>> childish conversational style):
>

> *Why only on the Apple newsgroup, do they treat me this way?

Because you are a useless troll, old fart.

[trollish diarrhea rightfully ignored]

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2018-03-22 02:39, Ragnusen Ultred wrote:
> In article <news:rdr5bddv7170i46jl...@4ax.com>, micky wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't think it matters. The cell system has to know where every
>> phone is or when someone called you, it would have to send out the ring
>> signal from every cell tower in the world.
>
> Of course, what you're talking about are the 'voice-related' cellular
> signals, where I agree with you that the ability to track the voice part of
> the cellular system is the same for all phones, but what's different is the
> ability of others to track you based on the many different types of
> non-voice-related differences in the cell phones themselves.

No, it is the same thing. Actually, it does not matter, as what you call
"the voice system" is always active and is calibrated to gather this
information automatically and continuously.

And another thing: they can track you days after you were there. Or
years after: the only requirement is that the provider stores the logs
from every tower. Then a court order to obtain the data and calculate
the position.

There is nothing you can do to avoid this, AFAIK.


> There's no sense guessing.
> We'll just have to wait for the phone information to be public knowledge.
>
> What I will say is that anyone who commits a crime while carrying a
> cellphone, is not all that smart, unless they felt an untoward sense of
> security about using that cellphone, especially during and even /after/
> committing the crime.
>
> It's my premise that it's even worse if it's a so-called smartphone.

For that they need access to a different data set. The phone must have
the GPS chip active, some application requesting the exact position, and
the phone sending that information back to somewhere - like Google,
which does that tracking.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 25 Mar 2018 21:34:06 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:

> Because you are a useless troll, old fart.

Notice that Jolly Roger calls any fact he doesn't like, a troll.

It would be interesting to be back in grad school to write a Dunning-Kruger
like thesis on why the half-dozen Apple Apologists hate facts so very much.

Why do Apple Apologists like Jolly Roger hate facts?

I don't know why.

I posit that Jolly Roger is afraid of facts.

Why?
I don't know why.

I posit that facts threaten the underlying religious underpinnings of his
entire belief system.

Jolly Roger's belief system was never built on facts; hence, the mere
presence of facts causes him to call all questions trolls, which is his way
of coping with the ultimate facts that each question reveals.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am 25 Mar 2018 21:31:26 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:

> You only lie and troll.

I only speak fact.

It's clear that the common denominator is that if Jolly Roger doesn't like
the question, he calls it a troll. He has no other response, other than
hate-filled vitriol.

Unlike Jolly Roger, I only speak fact.

Asking questions on the non-Apple platform newsgroups (that Jolly Roger
doesn't frequent) doesn't get anyone called a troll...

*alt.comp.os.windows-10*
What is this strange new Windows file-system beast (wuaueng.dll)?
<http://www.pcbanter.net/showthread.php?t=1103450>

*alt.os.linux*
What's a good way to back up Gmail when you've reached the size limit?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/6YHdHFcpGxs>

*comp.mobile.android*
When you plug in your phone to usb on your computer, does your file system mount on Windows 10?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/qxztHvQevDY/UBjlL-pGAAAJ>

But asking questions on the Apple newsgroups always, predictably, has Jolly
Roger calling every single question below a troll!

*comp.sys.mac.system*
Can a Mac edit an iOS file over WiFi without iTunes existing on the Mac?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/qjSmqEa-P8k/khhfEbzBAAAJ>

*comp.sys.mac.apps*
Apple Macs Have Yet Another Password-Bypassing Bug
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.apps/LkRCT6S5rZE/lC7GBlQVAQAJ>

*misc.phone.mobile.iphone*
How to transfer iPad photos/videos to/from Linux/Windows over Wi-Fi LAN?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/YtpKpDhWm_s/1z7AO3jQCAAJ>

*comp.mobile.ipad*
Why does Apple (blue) "Mail" require iCloud backup just to send email?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/mHPakcqadMA/csgSjESfBAAJ>

It's clear that the common denominator is that if Jolly Roger doesn't like
the question, he calls it a troll.

[Frank Slootweg]

Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:

> Notice Frank Slootweg that I have often mistaken you for one of the Apple
> Apologists, simply because you act as childishly as they do.
>
> You incessantly play what even you admit to be silly semantic games

Yet another of your outright lies! I have never admitted any such
thing, for the simple reason that I was not playing games, but - as
usual - you were.

So - because you *claim* to always speak fact -, for once in your
life, *deliver* the goods and *prove* that I have admitted playing silly
semantic games. I.e. provide a verbatim quote (with News URL). Any other
response is unacceptable and is an implied admission of lying.

We won't be holding our breath, because we know you won't and can't
deliver.

> over
> Usenet headers, and then when you're consistently proven dead wrong, you
> seem to think this is some kind of one-upmanship game.

Same demand-for-proof of me being proven dead wrong.

The one who was dead wrong, was again *you*, because you claimed you
could change *any* NetNews [1] header and later had to backpeddle and then
even managed to blame *me* for *your* backpeddle.

Bottom line: You are utterly unable to have a sensible, logical
discussion.

[1] You didn't refer to NetNews, but to NNTP, which (also) "shows that
you do *not* (fully) know what you're talking about".

[Jolly Roger]

It’s really pathetic watching him flail around destroying his almost
non-existent credibility over and over again without abandon as if he’s
fooling anyone here. He’s a washed-up old fool with no life who spends his
every waking hour trolling. Sad.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Fri, 23 Mar 2018 01:56:55 +0100, schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> No, it is the same thing. Actually, it does not matter, as what you call
> "the voice system" is always active and is calibrated to gather this
> information automatically and continuously.

Thank you Carlos E. R. for being one of the rare (aka adult) posters to
this thread who comprehended the topic, and, additionally, who is adding
value to the topic!

Yes. I'm not sure what the technical term for the "ping" is that
establishes continual communications with the nearest tower, but we agree
that this is the ping that brought the police to the bomber's doorstep.

AFAIK, you "can" prevent that ping by putting the phone on "airplane" mode,
isn't that correct?

> And another thing: they can track you days after you were there. Or
> years after: the only requirement is that the provider stores the logs
> from every tower. Then a court order to obtain the data and calculate
> the position.

Yes. I was in a court case recently where it mattered where I was during a
certain time while I was tracking some activity in the woods a couple of
years ago.

The police knew about that tracking at the time, so I'm not sure if they
had the cell tower records purposefully saved, but they came up since where
I was at the time that the activity I recorded happening was important.

Who knows how long the cellular companies save this stuff, but you are
correct, which is, in fact, how they knew that the bomber was at the Home
Depot, and the Fryes and at, I think the FedEx.

Interestingly, the bomber thought that the FedEx trip is what killed him,
according to the police characterization of the video the bomber recorded.
But the bomber couldn't have known that they had tracked him a week prior,
based on his Home Depot transactions.

Something must have clued him into the police being called when he mailed
those packages as Kelly Killmore at the FedEx wearing the wig and gloves. I
think it could have been that there was no news, which indicated that the
packages were intercepted. I think one blew up but the other was captured
intact.

Apparently people in line were suspicious by his silly wig and gloves, so
they reported his vehicle which matched the Home Depot vehicle, so that's
when he knew the police were on to him (AFAIK).

> There is nothing you can do to avoid this, AFAIK.

That's why I was saying that the bomber must have /felt/ extremely safe
because it's crazy to /plan/ to commit a crime and use a cell phone while
you're doing things related to the crime.

I can see using the cell phone during an unplanned crime of passion, or, as
a decoy trick to lead the police in the wrong direction, which is what I'd
expect any normal criminal to do ... for exammple to use the cellphone, as
a certain crime boss did with his vacation, to prove you're nowhere near
the crime scene ... but to use the phone during the commission of a crime
is just crazy if you plan on committing a crime.

> For that they need access to a different data set. The phone must have
> the GPS chip active, some application requesting the exact position, and
> the phone sending that information back to somewhere - like Google,

I agree with you that, in addition to the basic cellular "ping", having GPS
turned on is crazy for a criminal to do on a planned crime. We don't know
whether this bomber had his GPS on, nor whether he had Android, and if he
did, whether it was set up to report his location in the background to
Google.

That would seem to be a stupid thing for a criminal to do, where this
criminal prided himself, apparently, on his technical know how (according
to the police characterization of the confession).

If he had an Android phone, it would behoove him to turn off all the
background Google tracking, and if he had an iPhone, it would be just as
sane to turn off any app that does tracking (such as Google maps).

Thanks for your on-topic adding of value to the question of what specific
cellphone technology did in the bomber.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:00:55 +0000 (UTC), schrieb Ragnusen Ultred:

> If/when the news releases the type of phone, please just update this thread
> with that data, as I don't think the information is public knowledge yet.

Same with this guy, who made the news moments ago, where police said he
immediately stopped using his phone the moment he realized the police were
after him.
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/NXIVM-co-founder-Keith-Raniere-charged-in-federal-12782354.php

[Neill Massello]

Ragnusen Ultred <rrag...@ultred.com> wrote:

> Notice, as always, is the well-known cadre of about a half-dozen Apple
> Apologists who can only spout drivel on this newsgroup?
>
> Apple Appologists: BK@onRamp, Jolly Roger, nospam, Joerg Lorenz, Lewis, etc.

Have you added any names to your list of bona fide idiots? I'm getting
lonely.

[Ragnusen Ultred]

Am Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:34:43 +0100, schrieb Joerg Lorenz:

> I only know the idiot who wants to know it ...

Am Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:37:59 +0200, schrieb Joerg Lorenz:

> Nobody said anything like that.
>
> I use more than one server as well but no anonymous servers.
>
> news-out.google.com
> news.netfront.net and
> aioe.org
>
> are responsible for a vast majority of troll postings in the usenet.
>
> Joerg

I've been on the Usenet for decades, where I've interacted with the poster
Joerg quite a few times, where he has often proven he has the stunted
mental acuity of a child.

Hear me out, as I present the facts, where this Joerg /never/ adds
technical on-topic value to /any/ thread he posts to.

All he does is call everyone else a troll.

And what does he base his accusations upon?

He thinks that the mere fact that someone wants privacy means they're a
troll.

I've told him already, in other newsgroups where he trolls his accusations
left and right, that this is like saying all Blacks are criminals, simply
because they're black, all Italians are in the mob, simply because the mob
is comprised of a lot of Italians, all Jews are greedy simply because some
greedy people are Jews, all Germans are racist simply because some Germans
have committed hate crimes, etc.

What Joerg fails to understand is that a troll has to troll to be
considered a troll. That simple fact is compltely lost on Joerg, and he'll
never get it - simply because of two facts he's proven time and again.

1. He can't add technical on-topic value to /any/ thread topic, and,
2. He considers anyone wanting privacy to be a troll,
(where he's the troll, in actuality).

Want proof?

This is Joerg's 1st response to an on-topic question in a newsgroup:
"[I have no answer to the question]
I only know the idiot who wants to know it ..."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/sgzGVamjKU0/bWXHKhH3AAAJ>
Q: Is it on topic? (Answer = ?)
Q: Does it add value? (Answer = ?)
Q: Is it something the mind of a child would say? (Answer = ?)

This is Joerg's 2nd response when responded to by an adult:
"Only anonymous *idiots* are using anonymous news-servers.
Your header: Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/sgzGVamjKU0/xj2X4Wn9AAAJ>

This is Joerg's 3rd response when headers were explained to him:
"you are simply a big mouth. "
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/sgzGVamjKU0/UmK7yflFAQAJ>

Joerg's 4th response responding to the proven troll, Frank Slootweg:
"+1"
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/sgzGVamjKU0/AmUPwr5ZAQAJ>

I can go on proving two points but this should be sufficient for adults:
1. Joerg never adds on-topic technical value to any thread, and,
2. Joerg calls everyone else a troll simply because they desire privacy.

The adults on this newsgroup don't have to believe me ... where all I ask
is for them to ponder whether those verifiable facts above of about a half
dozen posts plus another half dozen responses trying to explain facts to
Joerg Lorenz (all wasted effort, by the way), added /any/ on-topic
technical value to the thread?

So that I'm not guilty of the same childish games that Joerg plays, I've
already proven two points, where I want to once more tell Joerg the
on-topic technical admonition that simply wanting privacy does not make a
person a troll.

In fact, Joerg clearly is guilty of exactly what he accuses everyone else
of being, simply because his posts /never/ add any on-topic value to any
thread.

Just watch...

[Frank Slootweg]

On March 26, I wrote:
[...]

>
> We won't be holding our breath, because we know you won't and can't
> deliver.

QED.