On 15 Aug 2018 12:39:54 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:
> Nope. Let's start with a claim IN THIS THREAD.
Hi Alan Baker,
Your entire response is *perfect* to prove my point that you Apple
Apologists are different from normal adults on Usenet.
I need to let the world know that you are a well-known classic Apple
Apologist (on the Mac side) who incessantly plays 5th-grade childish silly
semantic games - and - since I only speak facts - if you dispute that - I
welcome the invitation you prove for me to prove I've told you that plenty
of times before.
You think I forgot who you are?
You are a classic Apple Apologist, Alan Baker, - hence - all you *can* do -
is incessantly play your silly childish semantic games.
*The world will witness the silly semantic games you play below...*
> There were no links in the post to which I replied.
The mere fact you respond so quickly, coupled with the fact that the post
you responded to contains a link that links to more than a *dozen* factual
examples, again proves that you Apple Apologists have no need for facts.
The fact is that you didn't even *look* as the link in the post you
responded to, which contains *plenty* of links, as shown below:
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/ooCFANY5CAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/7Qqc3f1dCAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/SGhljjBYCAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/VqzlcQ0hCAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/C78-NjwnCAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/Cf3bIIcQCAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/1YHAnJEnCAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/jsxtlTchCAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/3naulH4cCAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/yk6sP4I2CAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/HZYE3iscCAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/7rHAL_QXCAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/u21p0MMaCAAJ>
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/z3kVVoc-CAAJ>
etc.
I'm not even going to *count* all those links that you didn't see, since
you said there were zero - where - as always - you Apple Apologists simply
play your silly childish 5th-grade semantic games.
> There were no references in the post to which I replied.
Again, the very words of the Apple Apologists themselves proves the
veracity of my statements that all they *can* do, is play their silly
childish 5th-grade semantic games.
Had they actually *read* the post their responding to and clicked on the
supplied reference, all the facts above would have been plain to them.
Why are the Apple Apologists all so childish?
I don't know why.
Based on the fact their childish behavior is repeated umpteen times over
the decades, I have often wondered what is so very different about Apple
Apple Apologists since they are clearly not interested in any fact that
doesn't fit into their imaginary belief system.
What are common well-verified psychological traits of Apple Apologists
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/2BJ0i7LtngQ>
> So start providing some facts:
You mean, in *addition* to the dozen or more facts provided in the links
you didn't even see?
And, in addition to the two additional links in the two threads I provided
in the very post you're responding to?
a. WiFi
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2F_24NrIU3Q/t7_jS4zyAgAJ>
b. Cellular
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2F_24NrIU3Q/t7_jS4zyAgAJ>
*What's interesting is how you Apple Apologists are immune to facts!*
Really?
You're really _that_ dumb?
Nobody is _that_ dumb - not even you Apple Apologists.
Apparently facts are just a childish silly *game* to you Apple Apologists.
In this one post, you deny *all* the facts, and yet, like all Apple
Apologists, you supply not only incorrect facts (e.g., that you saw zero
references when that is false), but you supply, in toto, ZERO facts.
> What claim of functionality has been made that you now claim is
> non-existent?
To the world at large ... if this statement alone doesn't prove my facts
100% correct that the Apple Apologists will deny anything - nothing else
will.
In the very post that Alan Baker (a well known Apple Apologist on the Mac
groups) are facts that have been validaed and proved with references
galore.
And yet, Alan Baker responded to this post in shorter time than it would
take to read those two referenced threads ... asking "what claims" are
made!
a. WiFi
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2F_24NrIU3Q/t7_jS4zyAgAJ>
b. Cellular
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2F_24NrIU3Q/t7_jS4zyAgAJ>
Can you believe how utterly fantastically _dumb_ these Apple Apologists
appear to be?
Actually, even they can't be this dumb ... so that's why I ask the question
of why the Apple Apologists are so incredibly _different_ from normal
adults.
Why do Apple Apologists immune to facts?
I don't know why.
I think it could be simply that Apple Apologists vehemently deny anything
and everything that doesn't fit neatly into their imaginary belief system.
For example.. they even deny what Apple already admitted for heaven's sake!
What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0[51-75]>
> That's not a quote. I don't read through
More silly semantic games from the Apple Apologists, which seems to be a
skill they're extremely good at.
> Sorry, but that isn't a claim in this thread.
Notice that the Apple Apologists are not only vehemently allergic to facts,
but that they deny facts even when patently obvious.
The question isn't whether they do this incessantly. They do.
The question is why.
Why are Apple Apologists so very _different_ from normal adults?
For example:
Why do the Apple Apologists deny facts & habitually fabricate imaginary content?
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eRTC23FyVDY/fDk0k8KAAwAJ>
> And your link takes me to a post where you CLAIM people have claimed
> this functionality, but which provides no actual quote and reference of
> them having done so.
Hehhehheh... classic. Very classic. Intensely classic.
Play your silly semantic games Apple Apologists.
Play.
The facts were provided in those two threads.
Those facts are clear.
Nobody disputes the facts other than the Apple Apologists - who - it should
be noted - provide absolutely zero evidence of their claims of non-existent
functionality.
This is the classic scenario:
a. Fact is presented which doesn't fit the Apple Apologist belief system
b. Apple Apologists says the fact is wrong (providing zero evidence)
c. Evidence is provided proving the fact (facts are funny that way)
b. Apple Apologists says the fact is wrong (providing zero evidence)
e. More evidence is provided proving the facts (facts are easy to prove)
b. Apple Apologists says the fact is wrong (providing zero evidence)
(where this goes on forever)
Usually the Apple Apologist is able to divert the thread playing silly
semantic games and changing the goal posts, as the Apple Apologists
recently did here for example.
How does one upload voice memo recording to a web site directly from an iPhone?
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lXUWgJT-vWc[1-25]>
> Now, back to the current case:
Note that the most common "trick" of the Apple Apologists is to first deny
obvious facts (without even reading them, in fact) and then trying to
divert the conversation by incessantly playing their silly fifth-grade
semantic games.
> What claim of functionality has been made in this thread that you now
> claim is non-existent?
You're kidding right?
There were two clear cases of imaginary functionality claimed by the Apple
Apologists in the very post you're responding to ....
*and you missed that?*
How could you miss it?
HINT: The same way you missed the dozen threads referenced in the post that
you claimed had zero references - that's how you missed it.
The fact that you Apple Apologists are immune to facts is well known.
The only question is *why* are you Apple Apologists immune to facts?
> Provide a QUOTE and a link to the post where the quoted text appears.
To the world - do you see how Alan Baker's response clearly shows that the
Apple Apologists all exhibit one or more of the following traits in almost
every post where they refute facts that don't fit into their imaginary
belief system...
===========================================================================
. They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary app functionality
. They then exclaim that it's been told to us many times how to do it!
...
. They almost never back up statements with actual referenced facts
. They incessantly play childish semantic games when faced with those facts
...
. They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened
. They then wittily respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!
...
. They're never purposefully helpful by helping the OP answer the question
. They post worthless retorts, all of which lack any added technical value
...
. They consistently blame Android for most of Apple's app & hardware faults
. They consistently find the absolute worst price:performance comparisons
...
. They actually believe that a well-documented process is too complex!
. They literally believe elapsed time is proof of actual resolution time.
===========================================================================