Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?

[Arlen Holder]

Q: Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to the basic
skills that the rest of us would presume any normal adult would have on the
Internet?

Perhaps somewhat like how Dunning & Kruger studied the strange brain of the
lemon-juice bank robber, I've studied the strange brain of apologists for
years, where I've noted they're fantastically immune to the most basic of
facultative cognitive skills which should be common to adults on the
Internet.

For example, moments ago, Alan Baker complained about a sig delimiter
missing space, which is something I enter by hand, so an inadvertent typo
happens from time to time...
o *Samsung patches 0-click vulnerability impacting all smartphones sold since 2014*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/lry_-LUtso0>

Where this is his verbatim complaint:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/lry_-LUtso0/YddZkokkAAAJ>
"And you still don't know how a sig delimiter works!"

To which, with humility & grace, I responded with thanks, verbatim:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/lry_-LUtso0/l9fpf6omAAAJ>
"Thanks for letting me know about the inadvertent typo
on the sig delimiter... I hope I fixed it when I made my next post...
Check it out - thanks!"

To which the apologist claimed I was "too stupid", ending his childish
taunt with the copycat remark:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/lry_-LUtso0/K1Q757MnAAAJ>
"Check it out!"

Given in that post, Alan Baker _also_ resorted to his classic technique of
claiming "liar liar pants on fire", which means I will not respond to his
taunts in that thread to spare adults the indignity of having to defend his
always wrong brazen claim that all facts he doesn't like must be wrong...

... My apropos timely question for adults on this newsgroup is...

Q: Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to the basic
skills that the rest of us would presume any normal adult would have on the
Internet?
--
The most consistent thing about apologists is they're unlike normal adults.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-06 9:21 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Q: Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to the basic
> skills that the rest of us would presume any normal adult would have on the
> Internet?

Better question:

Why must you lie?

We can both agree you're a liar now, right?

'I don't use a newsreader, as my newsreader is "vim" & "telnet",'

You agree that you wrote that, don't you?

Before you answer (yes or no only, please), I'd like you to check this link:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.mobile.android/lry_-LUtso0/l9fpf6omAAAJ>

All done? Good.

Now, where do you suppose the following text came from:

'User agent NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)'

Well? Give up?

The post to which I'm replying...

...as well as the post where you wrote:

'I don't use a newsreader, as my newsreader is "vim" & "telnet",'

So you're a liar, aren't you?

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-06 9:21 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

Interesting that you left the lie you told out:

[гость]

Vim is an editor. Telnet is a terminal link. Neither are a news reader. The
idiot might be confusing Vim and Telnet with SLRN, which can use Vim as its
message composer.

--
Я гость в отеле

[Alan Baker]

He's flat out lying.

When he said he used vim and telnet (which you probably COULD use to
compose Usenet messages and post if you were ingenious enough), he was
actually using NewsTap for iOS.

But don't worry, he's run away from this thread now.

:-)

[mGhost]

I happen to be a fan of SLRN, and VIM. See the user-agent this time.

[mGhost]

No genius needed. And if he owns a Mac, he can do it directly on the
Mac, or he can use an SSH terminal on the iPad to link to a Linux server
and run slrn and vim from there. That is why my posting agent now says
slrn and Linux. I'm actually typing this on a magic keyboard on the iPad
Pro.

> But don't worry, he's run away from this thread now.
>
>:-)

the guy is an idiot. A waste of your time.

[Alan Baker]

Nothing wrong with being a fan of either.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

Oh, come on!

He's fun!

;-)

[гость]

Not much action in here it seems. Seems like the crack-pot is the primary
poster. Someone has got to kick some life into this place.

[Arlen Holder]

To spare adults on this ng the indignity of any responses to posters
claiming that everything obviously & clearly don't even understand...
o ... is a "*lie by liars*" ...

... I will not respond to anyone in this thread who claims, sans even the
slightest display of nary a shred of adult cognitive abilities, that simple
facts they clearly can't & certainly don't understand must therefore be...
o ... "*lies by liars*" ...

Apparently, to apologists, what they don't like, or can't understand...
o ... must be ... in their strange brains... *a lie by liars*.

Perhaps this is why it's nearly impossible to have an adult conversation on
this ng such as this attempt at an erudite factual discussion on R&D spend:
o *Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D (proportionate to revenue)*
*than similar tech companies?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/STrAkx09VYk>
--
Apple apologists are like the Dunning-Kruger bank robber in that they
prove, in every post, to not posess even the most basic of the simplest
adult cognitive skills that we would expect any "normal" adult to own.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-07 8:29 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> To spare adults on this ng the indignity of any responses to posters
> claiming that everything obviously & clearly don't even understand...
> o ... is a "*lie by liars*" ...
>
> ... I will not respond to anyone in this thread who claims, sans even the
> slightest display of nary a shred of adult cognitive abilities, that simple
> facts they clearly can't & certainly don't understand must therefore be...
> o ... "*lies by liars*" ...
>
> Apparently, to apologists, what they don't like, or can't understand...
> o ... must be ... in their strange brains... *a lie by liars*.
>
> Perhaps this is why it's nearly impossible to have an adult conversation on
> this ng such as this attempt at an erudite factual discussion on R&D spend:
> o *Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D (proportionate to
> revenue)*
>  *than similar tech companies?*
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/STrAkx09VYk>
>

And yet, this reply was clearly a response, Liar.

And here's a crazy idea.

If you don't want to be called a liar..

...then don't claim to be using vim and telnet to post to Usenet...

...when you're clearly using NewsTap for iOS.

:-)

[гость]

Arlen Holder <arlen...@any1example.com> wrote:

> I will not respond to anyone in this thread who claims, sans even the

> slightest display of nary a shred of adult cognitive abilities.

Sounds to me like the moron decided to stop talking to himself. We’ll see.

[Arlen Holder]

Any adult is aware the _value_ in a Usenet article is _not_ the header
o The _value_ is in the BODY of the message (& perhaps, the subject line).

The value of a Usenet article isn't in the time zone, or the email addy...
o Nor is the value of an article in the Usenet Newsreader for Christs sake!

Sadly, there are people, like Alan Baker, who can't figure that out.
o But what is so very sad about Alan Baker is he _always_ proves me right.

As do many other clueless Apple Apologists...
o *Apple apologists are unfathomably ignorant of even very basic concepts.*

It's rather scary that people like Alan Baker are even allowed to vote!
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics*
*skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

What's petrifying is that people like Alan Baker apparently actually exist...
o They prove in every post they don't own basic adult facultative cognition.

Anyway, as always, headers aren't where the _value_ of a Usenet post lies.
o Headers allow others to _track_ you perhaps - but not the value therein.

I do think it's sadly instructive though Alan Baker _still_ is flummoxed
o By something so trivial that it literally scares me he's _that_ stupid.

*The horrifying thought is that people like Alan Baker actually do exist.*
--
They simply don't own even the very most basic of adult facultative skills.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-07 1:29 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Any adult is aware the _value_ in a Usenet article is _not_ the header
> o The _value_ is in the BODY of the message (& perhaps, the subject line).

Better topic:

Why must you lie?

We can both agree you're a liar now, right?

'I don't use a newsreader, as my newsreader is "vim" & "telnet",'

You agree that you wrote that, don't you?

Before you answer (yes or no only, please), I'd like you to check this link:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.mobile.android/lry_-LUtso0/l9fpf6omAAAJ>

All done? Good.

Now, where do you suppose the following text came from:

'User agent NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)'

Well? Give up?

The post to which I'm replying...

...as well as the post where you wrote:

'I don't use a newsreader, as my newsreader is "vim" & "telnet",'

So you're a liar, aren't you?



>

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> ...when you're clearly using NewsTap for iOS.

So much faith and misinterpretation in a meaningless header line is what
truly scares me about people like Alan Baker always proves to be.

Like flat earthers...
o *I never actually thought it was possible that they actually existed*.

It's petrifying people actually exist who are as ignorant as Alan Baker.
--
Apologists almost always prove to be unfathamably immune to basic facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-07 3:30 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> ...when you're clearly using NewsTap for iOS.
>
> So much faith and misinterpretation in a meaningless header line is what
> truly scares me about people like Alan Baker always proves to be.

Are you now trying the lie that the header line just inserted itself?

>
> Like flat earthers... o *I never actually thought it was possible that
> they actually existed*.
>
> It's petrifying people actually exist who are as ignorant as Alan Baker.

Please... ...gives us a few more lies about how that header has been all
of your posts for months...

...Liar.


Do I even need to discuss how lame it is that you've now tried to prove
something by adding new headers...

...Liar?

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> Please... ...gives us a few more lies about how that header has been all
> of your posts for months...

Alan Baker,

This thread is proof of what I've been claiming about apologists like you.
o You desperately cling to a belief system which is completely imaginary!

You & people like you petrify me that you apparently actually do exist.
o Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK, roctb, Joerg Lornz, Your Name, et al.

None of you have even the most basic of adult facultative skills.
o Yet, you're so very sure of your (dead wrong) conclusions.

Worse, you're literally _immune_ to all possible facts.
o Such as the fact it's always been randomized

It's horrifying to realize people like you actually exist.
o What you do is _cling_ to your completely imaginary belief system.

Unlike nospam, who doesn't believe a word he, himself, ever says...
o You apologists apparently actually _believe_ what you write.

Sans even a _single_ shred of evidence supporting your belief system.
o It's _completely_ (and shockingly totally) imaginary.
--
It's petrifying that people like you are even allowed to vote.

[Arlen Holder]

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 7:20 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Alan Baker,
>
> This thread is proof of what I've been claiming about apologists like you.
> o You desperately cling to a belief system which is completely imaginary!

It's imaginary that you're now lying, Liar?

Nope.

>
> You & people like you petrify me that you apparently actually do exist.
> o Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK, roctb, Joerg Lornz, Your Name, et al.
>
> None of you have even the most basic of adult facultative skills.
> o Yet, you're so very sure of your (dead wrong) conclusions.
>
> Worse, you're literally _immune_ to all possible facts.
> o Such as the fact it's always been randomized

"It"?

I'm sorry, but you've snipped so much of this conversation that you lost
the referent for that pronoun, Liar.

But if by "it" you mean the User agent...

...you're lying...

...Liar.

>
> It's horrifying to realize people like you actually exist.
> o What you do is _cling_ to your completely imaginary belief system.
>
> Unlike nospam, who doesn't believe a word he, himself, ever says...
> o You apologists apparently actually _believe_ what you write.
>
> Sans even a _single_ shred of evidence supporting your belief system.
> o It's _completely_ (and shockingly totally) imaginary.

I know you're lying.

You know you're lying.

Get over it.

[Alan Baker]

I know you're lying.

Everyone else knows you're lying.

You know you're lying.

Get over it.

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> I know you're lying.
>
> Everyone else knows you're lying.
>
> You know you're lying.

*This is a crucial concept for _understanding_ the mind of the apologist!*

What's amazingly apropos is how _desperately_ the apologists cling to what
is trivially easily shown to be a purely imaginary belief system.

1. Alan apparently took umbrage that I mentioned a custom newsreader setup
2. Alan apparently & shockingly actually _believed_ the randomized headers
3. Even long _after_ we provided facts proving they're easily randomized

It's not shocking that apologists prove to lack even basic adult skills
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basic*

*skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

What's more _revealing_ about these apologists though...
o Is how _desperately_ they _cling_ to their wholly imaginary beliefs!

Alan is desperately struggling to find a set of circumstances that _fit_
into his purely imaginary belief system (sort of how a young child still
clings to the idea of Santa Claus after first finding out the truth).

This is telling about apologists - so it's an _important_ observation.
o For if I were MARKETING, I'd be happy to provide those very circumstances

Which is exactly what Apple MARKETING feeds to apologists ...
o Every single day of their lives.
--
Note: This thread, since it's about me, and since it proves my point
perfectly, breaks the rule on me not responding to those, like Alan Baker,
who can only maintain their imaginary belief system by claiming all facts
that don't fit into their belief system, are...
o Lies by Liars

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 10:23 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> I know you're lying.
>>
>> Everyone else knows you're lying.
>>
>> You know you're lying.
>
> *This is a crucial concept for _understanding_ the mind of the apologist!*
>
> What's amazingly apropos is how _desperately_ the apologists cling to what
> is trivially easily shown to be a purely imaginary belief system.
>
> 1. Alan apparently took umbrage that I mentioned a custom newsreader setup

I took no umbrage.

I noted that you were lying, Liar.

> 2. Alan apparently & shockingly actually _believed_ the randomized headers

You're now lying about your headers having been randomized, Liar.

> 3. Even long _after_ we provided facts proving they're easily randomized

Randomizing them after the fact doesn't change the past, Liar.

Quick:

Point to the previous post where you last "randomized" this header, Liar.

>
> It's not shocking that apologists prove to lack even basic adult skills
> o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basic*
>  *skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>
>
>
> What's more _revealing_ about these apologists though...
> o Is how _desperately_ they _cling_ to their wholly imaginary beliefs!
>
> Alan is desperately struggling to find a set of circumstances that _fit_
> into his purely imaginary belief system (sort of how a young child still
> clings to the idea of Santa Claus after first finding out the truth).
>
> This is telling about apologists - so it's an _important_ observation.
> o For if I were MARKETING, I'd be happy to provide those very circumstances
>
> Which is exactly what Apple MARKETING feeds to apologists ... o Every
> single day of their lives.

I know you're lying.

Everyone else knows you're lying.

You know you're lying.

Get over it.

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> Liar, Liar, Liar...
>
> ...this is just sad.

>
>
> I know you're lying.
>
> Everyone else knows you're lying.
>
> You know you're lying.

For the permanent Usenet record... (see also proof in my header above)...
o And for Dunning-Kruger-like researchers studying apologists in the future

*This is a crucial thread for _understanding_ the mind of the apologist!*
o From: Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no>
o Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.system
o Subject: Re: Why must Arlen lie?
o Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 10:32:32 -0700
o Message-ID: <r9453g$vks$2...@dont-email.me>
etc.

What's amazingly revealing is how _desperate_ apologists are to cling to
what is trivially easily shown to be purely imaginary belief systems.

1. Alan apparently took umbrage that I mentioned a custom newsreader setup

2. Alan apparently & shockingly actually _believed_ the randomized headers

3. Even well _after_ we provided facts proving they're easily randomized

In order to maintain, for himself, his completely imaginary belief system:
4. Now Alan is simply incessantly claiming all the facts are lies by liars!

Simply because _he_ was and still is, unable to process basic facts.
o Such as the fact that the headers can be and are easily randomized.

Yet, just as a certain kind of child, when told Santa Claus isn't real
o Incessantly screams out in a tantrum: "Liar liar pants on fire!"

Alan Baker _continues_ to claim even these, the simplest of facts that
don't fit into his purely imaginary belief system, must be lies by liars.

It's not shocking that apologists prove to lack even basic adult skills
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basic*
*skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

What's more _revealing_ about these apologists though...
o Is how _desperately_ they _cling_ to their wholly imaginary beliefs!

Alan is desperately struggling to find a set of circumstances that _fit_
into his purely imaginary belief system (sort of how a young child still
clings to the idea of Santa Claus after first finding out the truth).

This is telling about apologists - so it's an _important_ observation.
o For if I were MARKETING, I'd be happy to provide those very circumstances

Which is exactly what Apple MARKETING feeds to apologists ...
o Every single day of their lives.

--
MARKETING is aware apologists are desperate to maintain imaginary beliefs!

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 10:48 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> Liar, Liar, Liar...
>>
>> ...this is just sad.
>>
>>
>> I know you're lying.
>>
>> Everyone else knows you're lying.
>>
>> You know you're lying.
>
> For the permanent Usenet record... (see also proof in my header above)...

...you need to learn to accept when you're caught, Liar.

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> On 2020-05-08 10:23 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

[...]

> > 2. Alan apparently & shockingly actually _believed_ the randomized headers
>
> You're now lying about your headers having been randomized, Liar.
>
> > 3. Even long _after_ we provided facts proving they're easily randomized
>
> Randomizing them after the fact doesn't change the past, Liar.

I see your Holder to English translator is broken! :-) "long _after_"
means just that, but you weren't/aren't to know. Lucky you!

> Quick:
>
> Point to the previous post where you last "randomized" this header, Liar.

I can't be bothered to search for them, but trust me, he did
"randomize" - FSVSVO "random" - it (and other headers). I already
mentioned this in:

Message-ID: <r91nvp...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>

There's no point getting all worked up about this. This stuff is
trivial to fake/forge, so there's no point trying to prove he
didn't/doesn't, because he did/does.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote :

> There's no point getting all worked up about this. This stuff is
> trivial to fake/forge, so there's no point trying to prove he
> didn't/doesn't, because he did/does.

Hi Frank Slootweg,

I've studied these strange apologists for years...

While this all started over a 1-character typo in the hand-typed sig...
o The strange working of an apologists' brain is always readily apparent.

Given I've studied these strange apologists for years, and I've even
contrasted them with you, Frank Slootweg, e.g., when you fell hook line and
sinker for Snit's fabricated claim that iOS could do something as simple as
graph WiFi signal strength over time (proving none of you even know what a
decibel is)...
o *Why do iOS apologists incessantly fabricate fictional iOS functionality?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/K_yBNZiPFYo>

The world notes that there's no love lost between us Frank, when you can't
even look at the Y-Axis of a graph for Christ's sake before you & the
apologists declared you found something that simply doesn't even exist!
o *It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/rX-L9xbYAQAJ>

All the apologists desperately _cling_ to their completely fact-free wholly
imaginary belief systems, even after their imaginary beliefs have
completely (and instantly) been destroyed by simple facts.
o *What freeware graphical Wi-Fi debugging tools do you use on Android*
*& iOS to graph signal strength for available APs over time?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QlDr3oeZExA/96yrweHYDAAJ>

Like an adult who desperately _clings_ to the notion that Santa Claus is
real, these apologists will try to cram _anything_ into their belief system
to bolster it up (e.g., they'll claim that presents show up at the
fireplace after Christmas Eve as "proof" of Santa Claus).
o *What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0/e5J-nW0hBAAJ>

When told that Santa Claus doesn't actually exist, they'll _still_
desperately cling to their fact-free beliefs, simply by claim that it's a
"lie by liars", which I suspect is what enables them to be immune to facts.
o *Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they*
*don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nVzWBU2otC4/obuCXB1nAgAJ>

Rest assured I've studied these apologists for years, where my main goal is
to figure out why MARKETING is so effective toying with their brains.

Apparently these apologists desperately want to believe in what MARKETING
is perfectly happy to incessantly feed them about their beloved product.

And yet, it's all merely the _illusion_ of product, as I've proved so many
times before, using simple facts (e.g., Android is far more functional than
iOS will ever be, and yet, iOS is incapable of doing the simplest things).

Given that the apologists' BRAIN is what interests me, it's INSTRUCTIVE to
note how desperate Alan Baker is to _cling_ to his belief system...

Even after it's shown his belief system is purely imaginary!
o His belief system isn't backed up by even a _single_ fact!

And yet, he's desperate to formulate conditions which satisfy his beliefs.
o Where, in the case of MARKETING, they'd be happy to feed him.

Which is my point.

All propaganda begins with the big often repeated lie...
o Which the hoi polloi fall for, in droves...
o Because they're completely unable to process even the simplest facts...

Alan Baker is one of the worst offenders in what he believes...
o And Apple is the best of the best at handing him what to believe.

Which is, in the end, EXACTLY what Alan Bakers _wants_ to believe.
--
Apple MARKETING is brilliantly feeding apologists EXACTLY what apologists
desperately want to believe!

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 1:11 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote :
>
>>   There's no point getting all worked up about this. This stuff is
>> trivial to fake/forge, so there's no point trying to prove he
>> didn't/doesn't, because he did/does.
>
> Hi Frank Slootweg,

Liar,

Why all that rather than just explaining how you can be tracked by a
"User agent" string that is completely the same has millions of other
people...

...Liar?

You lied.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

Now just learn to deal with it.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

I'm not worked up about it; not in the slightest.

I'm sure he's randomized headers. Discovering that a liar lies isn't
really a revelation.

What I'm saying is that he didn't randomize this header and his excuse
that it was to prevent "tracking" proves that.

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> Why all that rather than just explaining how you can be tracked by a
> "User agent" string that is completely the same has millions of other
> people...

Alan Baker,

Again, you prove my point you apologists don't own adult cognitive skills!
a. You're clueless that tracking is being done by our headers
b. You're clueless that it's the sum total of the headers that matter

Your brain, Alan Baker, is interesting because it's that of someone who
doesn't realize how vastly stupid every one of his thoughts turn out to be.

I have never met, in my entire life, someone as ignorant as you, Alan Baker
o And I'm not a young man!

You're _immune_ to facts that EVERYONE on the planet knows, Alan Baker.
o Nobody is that stupid. Nobody.

Yet, apparently...
o You _are_ that incredibly stupid.

How can that be?

This is a tracking of _you_ for example, and all your posts to this ng:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.sys.mac.system/AtXiuMEJBAAJ>

What's strange about apologists like you, Alan Baker, is you don't own even
the most basic of the simplest of the most obvious adult facultative skills
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to*
*basic skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/_50ZqBhcbYs>

Mainly you're clueless of even the most utter fantastically obvious facts!
o ... It's petrifyingly scary people like you actually do exist....

EVERYONE knows, for example, that badgolferman is tracking us by our
headers, which is just about the simplest example I can give you.
o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 12/2019
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ioNWDzKLUVA/uwizkuEfBgAJ>
o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 12/2018
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6RAVZk0KkGM/XZToWWbuFQAJ>
o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 04/2020
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mV8ahRw2lSc/adaLNnkwAAAJ>
etc.

Everyone knows psychopaths like "Good Guy" are tracking every post in the
Windows newsgroups by their headers (he even tells us that he does that
because he calls out all the new posters and posts their header information
for the archives!) Alan Baker (it's hard to search for a specific keyword
on the Windows ngs because Windows 10 isn't archived by Google - but
everyone knows this anyway so I don't need to prove the obvious to a moron
like you, Alan).

And everyone knows that Google Groups tracks _all_ your posts (who knows
what header information they use), e.g., here are _your_ posts to this ng!
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.sys.mac.system/AtXiuMEJBAAJ>

That's just three that EVERYONE already knows about, Alan Baker...
o The ones to worry about are the ones you do not know about

Who may have been tracking us for decades, Alan Baker.
o Simply because we made it easy, in our headers, for them to do so.
--
An intelligent person is first & foremost, able to properly process facts.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> Why all that rather than just explaining how you can be tracked by a
> "User agent" string that is completely the same has millions of other
> people...

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 4:49 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> Why all that rather than just explaining how you can be tracked by a
>> "User agent" string that is completely the same has millions of other
>> people...
>
> Alan Baker,
>
> Again, you prove my point

...

And you prove mine:

You'll do anything rather than explain how using the User agent that is
normally added by your Usenet client software...

...and is thus used by millions of other people...

...can somehow play a role in someone tracking you?

You lie.

I know it.

You know it.

Everybody knows it.

Deal with it.

:-)

you apologists don't own adult cognitive skills!
> a. You're clueless that tracking is being done by our headers
> b. You're clueless that it's the sum total of the headers that matter
>
> Your brain, Alan Baker, is interesting because it's that of someone who
> doesn't realize how vastly stupid every one of his thoughts turn out to be.
>
> I have never met, in my entire life, someone as ignorant as you, Alan Baker
> o And I'm not a young man!
>
> You're _immune_ to facts that EVERYONE on the planet knows, Alan Baker.
> o Nobody is that stupid. Nobody.
>
> Yet, apparently... o You _are_ that incredibly stupid.
>
> How can that be?
>
> This is a tracking of _you_ for example, and all your posts to this ng:
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.sys.mac.system/AtXiuMEJBAAJ>

But it doesn't involve the "User agent" header in any way.

And for something that supposedly tracks me, it ends rather abruptly
just two months ago?

Ooops.

That's two fails in one just one link, Liar!

>
>
> What's strange about apologists like you, Alan Baker, is you don't own even
> the most basic of the simplest of the most obvious adult facultative skills
> o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to*
> *basic skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/_50ZqBhcbYs>
>
> Mainly you're clueless of even the most utter fantastically obvious facts!
> o ... It's petrifyingly scary people like you actually do exist....
>
> EVERYONE knows, for example, that badgolferman is tracking us by our
> headers, which is just about the simplest example I can give you.
> o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 12/2019
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ioNWDzKLUVA/uwizkuEfBgAJ>

And how does a "User agent" string shared by many people let him do
that, Liar?

This is a common thing you run; conflating something that IS relevant
with something that ISN'T by the fact that they share something in common.

The "From" header can be used to track people...

...because most people don't change it much and it is typically unique
to each person.

The "User agent" header can't; not because it changes, but rather
because there are only a few different packages that people use these
days, so the information is the same across many people...

...Liar.

>
> o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 12/2018
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6RAVZk0KkGM/XZToWWbuFQAJ>
>
> o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 04/2020
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mV8ahRw2lSc/adaLNnkwAAAJ>

Presenting more evidence to support a fallacious claim doesn't do a thing.

You are REALLY bad at this stuff, Liar.

>
> etc.
>
> Everyone knows psychopaths like "Good Guy" are tracking every post in the
> Windows newsgroups by their headers (he even tells us that he does that
> because he calls out all the new posters and posts their header information
> for the archives!) Alan Baker (it's hard to search for a specific keyword
> on the Windows ngs because Windows 10 isn't archived by Google - but
> everyone knows this anyway so I don't need to prove the obvious to a moron
> like you, Alan).

They're not tracking people by "User agent"...

...because you can't use something that isn't unique to each person to
track people.

>
> And everyone knows that Google Groups tracks _all_ your posts (who knows
> what header information they use), e.g., here are _your_ posts to this ng!
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.sys.mac.system/AtXiuMEJBAAJ>

I know that you can't use information isn't unique to each person to
track people.

>
>
> That's just three that EVERYONE already knows about, Alan Baker...
> o The ones to worry about are the ones you do not know about
>
> Who may have been tracking us for decades, Alan Baker.
> o Simply because we made it easy, in our headers, for them to do so.

See above.

Same answer...

...Liar.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 4:49 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> Why all that rather than just explaining how you can be tracked by a
"User agent" string that is completely the same has millions of other
people...
>
> Alan Baker,
>
> Again, you prove my point

...

And you prove mine:

You'll do anything rather than explain how using the User agent that is
normally added by your Usenet client software...

...and is thus used by millions of other people...

...can somehow play a role in someone tracking you?

You lie.

I know it.

You know it.

Everybody knows it.

Deal with it.

you apologists don't own adult cognitive skills!
> a. You're clueless that tracking is being done by our headers
> b. You're clueless that it's the sum total of the headers that matter
>
> Your brain, Alan Baker, is interesting because it's that of someone who
> doesn't realize how vastly stupid every one of his thoughts turn out
to be.
>
> I have never met, in my entire life, someone as ignorant as you, Alan
Baker
> o And I'm not a young man!
>
> You're _immune_ to facts that EVERYONE on the planet knows, Alan Baker.
> o Nobody is that stupid. Nobody.
>
> Yet, apparently... o You _are_ that incredibly stupid.
>
> How can that be?
>
> This is a tracking of _you_ for example, and all your posts to this ng:
>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.sys.mac.system/AtXiuMEJBAAJ>

But it doesn't involve the "User agent" header in any way.

And for something that supposedly tracks me, it ends rather abruptly
just two months ago?

Ooops.

That's two fails in one just one link, Liar!

>
>

> What's strange about apologists like you, Alan Baker, is you don't
own even
> the most basic of the simplest of the most obvious adult facultative
skills
> o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to*
*basic skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/_50ZqBhcbYs>
>
> Mainly you're clueless of even the most utter fantastically obvious
facts!
> o ... It's petrifyingly scary people like you actually do exist....
>
> EVERYONE knows, for example, that badgolferman is tracking us by our
> headers, which is just about the simplest example I can give you.
> o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 12/2019
>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ioNWDzKLUVA/uwizkuEfBgAJ>

And how does a "User agent" string shared by many people let him do
that, Liar?

This is a common thing you run; conflating something that IS relevant
with something that ISN'T by the fact that they share something in common.

The "From" header can be used to track people...

...because most people don't change it much and it is typically unique
to each person.

The "User agent" header can't; not because it changes, but rather
because there are only a few different packages that people use these
days, so the information is the same across many people...

...Liar.

>

> o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 12/2018
>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6RAVZk0KkGM/XZToWWbuFQAJ>
> o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 04/2020
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mV8ahRw2lSc/adaLNnkwAAAJ>

Presenting more evidence to support a fallacious claim doesn't do a thing.

You are REALLY bad at this stuff, Liar.

>

> etc.
>
> Everyone knows psychopaths like "Good Guy" are tracking every post in the
> Windows newsgroups by their headers (he even tells us that he does that
> because he calls out all the new posters and posts their header
information
> for the archives!) Alan Baker (it's hard to search for a specific keyword
> on the Windows ngs because Windows 10 isn't archived by Google - but
> everyone knows this anyway so I don't need to prove the obvious to a
moron
> like you, Alan).

They're not tracking people by "User agent"...

...because you can't use something that isn't unique to each person to
track people.

>

> And everyone knows that Google Groups tracks _all_ your posts (who knows
> what header information they use), e.g., here are _your_ posts to
this ng!
>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.sys.mac.system/AtXiuMEJBAAJ>

I know that you can't use information isn't unique to each person to
track people.

>
>

> That's just three that EVERYONE already knows about, Alan Baker...
> o The ones to worry about are the ones you do not know about
>
> Who may have been tracking us for decades, Alan Baker.
> o Simply because we made it easy, in our headers, for them to do so.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> What I'm saying is that he didn't randomize this header and his excuse
> that it was to prevent "tracking" proves that.

For the permanent Usenet record to record for posterity...

As everyone knows, I've studied the apologists, not because they interest
me as human beings, but because I have never _met_ anyone as stupid as the
apologists always prove to be.

Specifically, I'm interested in how Apple MARKETING toys with their brain,
where, well, anyone here see's how trivially simple it is.

Dealing with apologists like Alan Baker is like taking candy from a baby...
o Apologists' brains clearly aren't capable of processing even basic facts.

Exactly like Snit...
1. Alan initially chastised me for a single-character typo in a sig
2. To which I admitted fault since it's hand typed using vim as my editor
3. To which Alan claimed (numerous times) that I was "lying"
(as if that's even something I'd need to lie about for Christ sake)

a. When I patiently explained to Alan the headers are dictionary lookups
b. Alan further claimed I was a liar because my header said "Newstap".
c. In fact, Alan called me all sorts of names for being "too stupid"
(in his mind) to know that my header contained the User-Agent line.

Even after Frank Slootweg told Alan _multiple times_ that he and I had for
years, on and off, discussed that _every_ header (or almost every one) can
be changed, and even Frank duplicated his User-Agent for Alan Baker as
proof of fact ... even after that proof ... Alan Baker _continued_ to claim
that he was smarter and he caught me in a lie where he was so smart that he
knew what was in my headers better than I did (essentially).

What's strange is that when I simply changed my User Agent strings to the
exact one Frank used, and the exact one Alan used, and another one or two,
that _still_ wasn't enough proof for Alan Baker that it was trivial to do.

Alan then claimed I looked up how on the Internet, even _after_ Frank told
Alan very clearly that Frank & I have discussed changing all the headers
multiple times in the past (and even as recently as only about a month
ago).

Nonetheless, Alan Baker _still_ claims that he's smarter (which, you have
to admit, with a bit of sad realization, is a classical Dunning
Kruger'esque thing for Alan to claim), and that he caught me in a lie that
I must have been using NewsTap as my User-Agent.

It doesn't even occur to Alan Baker, what Frank Slootweg told him numerous
times, that not only have Frank & I discussed changing all the headers in
the past, but Frank is well aware of my numerous randomizations, which
isn't limited in the least to something as trivially simple as the
newsreader line for God's sake.

And yet, apologists brains cling, desperately, beyond hope, to their
completely imaginary belief system.

What's petrifyingly scary about apologists like Alan Baker (Jolly Roger,
BK, Lewis, Your Name, et al.), is that this belief system they cling to so
desperately is based on literally exactly zero (0) actual facts.

The fact these people are allowed to vote is scary in and of itself...
o Where I have never, in my long life, met anyone this incredibly stupid.
--
No wonder they gravitate to highly marketed products such as Apple is.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> You'll do anything rather than explain how using the User agent that is
> normally added by your Usenet client software...
>
> ...and is thus used by millions of other people...
>
> ...can somehow play a role in someone tracking you?

Can someone else explain to Alan Baker the obvious basics of headers?

Even I'm tired of patiently explaining it's the sum total of the headers.

Apologists like Alan can't fathom something even _that_ incredibly simple.
--
It's petrifying apologists that incredibly ignorant of facts really exist!

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 5:14 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> What I'm saying is that he didn't randomize this header and his excuse
>> that it was to prevent "tracking" proves that.
>
> For the permanent Usenet record to record for posterity...
> As everyone knows, I've studied the apologists, not because they interest
> me as human beings, but because I have never _met_ anyone as stupid as the
> apologists always prove to be.

You lie.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

Learn to deal with it.

>
> Specifically, I'm interested in how Apple MARKETING toys with their brain,
> where, well, anyone here see's how trivially simple it is.
>
> Dealing with apologists like Alan Baker is like taking candy from a
> baby... o Apologists' brains clearly aren't capable of processing even
> basic facts.
>
> Exactly like Snit...
> 1. Alan initially chastised me for a single-character typo in a sig
> 2. To which I admitted fault since it's hand typed using vim as my editor
> 3. To which Alan claimed (numerous times) that I was "lying"
>   (as if that's even something I'd need to lie about for Christ sake)
>
> a. When I patiently explained to Alan the headers are dictionary lookups
> b. Alan further claimed I was a liar because my header said "Newstap".
> c. In fact, Alan called me all sorts of names for being "too stupid"
> (in his mind) to know that my header contained the User-Agent line.
>
> Even after Frank Slootweg told Alan _multiple times_ that he and I had for
> years, on and off, discussed that _every_ header (or almost every one) can
> be changed, and even Frank duplicated his User-Agent for Alan Baker as
> proof of fact ... even after that proof ... Alan Baker _continued_ to claim
> that he was smarter and he caught me in a lie where he was so smart that he
> knew what was in my headers better than I did (essentially).
>
> What's strange is that when I simply changed my User Agent strings to the
> exact one Frank used, and the exact one Alan used, and another one or two,
> that _still_ wasn't enough proof for Alan Baker that it was trivial to do.

Except I never claimed it couldn't be done or wasn't trivial, Liar.

>
> Alan then claimed I looked up how on the Internet, even _after_ Frank told
> Alan very clearly that Frank & I have discussed changing all the headers
> multiple times in the past (and even as recently as only about a month
> ago).

Nope. You're lying again.

>
> Nonetheless, Alan Baker _still_ claims that he's smarter (which, you have
> to admit, with a bit of sad realization, is a classical Dunning
> Kruger'esque thing for Alan to claim), and that he caught me in a lie that
> I must have been using NewsTap as my User-Agent.

I am smarter than you, Liar.

>
> It doesn't even occur to Alan Baker, what Frank Slootweg told him numerous
> times, that not only have Frank & I discussed changing all the headers in
> the past, but Frank is well aware of my numerous randomizations, which
> isn't limited in the least to something as trivially simple as the
> newsreader line for God's sake.
>
> And yet, apologists brains cling, desperately, beyond hope, to their
> completely imaginary belief system.
>
> What's petrifyingly scary about apologists like Alan Baker (Jolly Roger,
> BK, Lewis, Your Name, et al.), is that this belief system they cling to so
> desperately is based on literally exactly zero (0) actual facts.
>
> The fact these people are allowed to vote is scary in and of itself...
> o Where I have never, in my long life, met anyone this incredibly stupid.

All this is delightful, but...

...you haven't yet explained how randomizing a header shared by millions
of people prevents tracking...

...Liar.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 5:25 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> You'll do anything rather than explain how using the User agent that
>> is normally added by your Usenet client software...
>>
>> ...and is thus used by millions of other people...
>>
>> ...can somehow play a role in someone tracking you?
>
> Can someone else explain to Alan Baker the obvious basics of headers?
>
> Even I'm tired of patiently explaining it's the sum total of the headers.
>
> Apologists like Alan can't fathom something even _that_ incredibly simple.

You'll go on endlessly, answering everything except the obvious question:

How does randomizing the "User agent" string...

...which is shared by millions of people...

...prevent tracking?

You lie.

I know it.

You know it.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> ...you need to learn to accept when you're caught, Liar.

What's incredible is how _sure_ Alan Baker is of his cognitive skills!
o Apologists like Alan Baker are utterly convinced they are correct...

Even after being shown by multiple people their entire belief system
o Wasn't based on even a single fact!

In fact, their entire belief system is based on exactly _zero_ (0) facts!
o And yet, they desperately cling to their belief system

Calling every obvious fact they simply can't process, a "lie by liars".

Would someone used to dealing with small children please explain to Alan
Baker how "telnet" scripts work?
telnet nntp.aioe.org 119
telnet news.eternal-september.org 119
telnet news.albasani.net 119
etc.

For example...
$ telnet news.aioe.org 119 (wait for response)
> POST (command to post)
> From: any...@anydomain.com (1st line)
> Newsgroups: misc.test (2nd line)
> Subject: Test (3rd line)
> Message-ID: <what...@wherever.com> (4th line)
> (fifth line)
> This is a test. (sixth line)
> . (command to end post)
> GROUP misc.test (see if the article posted)
> ARTICLE 12345 (see the article you posted)
> quit (quit out of the session)

Also maybe someone can explain to him the basics of remailers too?
Subject: Anything you like
To: mail2news_nospam-y...@m2n.mixmin.net
Author-Supplied-Address: anyt...@anydomain.com
From: Your Name/Email
Newsgroups:news.software.readers,alt.comp.freeware,alt.free.newsservers
{ BODY }
.

(For example: mail2news-20200508-n...@m2n.mixmin.net)

What's amazing about the apologists Alan Baker, Lewis, Jolly Roger, BK,
Your Name, et al., is how incredibly confident they are that every fact
they can't process, must be a lie.
--
MARKETING must have a field day feeding apologists what they want to hear.

[Arlen Holder]

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

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

WTF?

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

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

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

That again _proves_ Steve is a moron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 5:58 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote :
>
>> Clearly he doesn't understand how User Agent strings work. He's
>> incorrect, but he probably just doesn't understand the technology.
>
> WTF?
>
> A user agent string is a string. o There's nothing more or less to it.
>
> It's just a string for God's sake.
> o Apologists like Alan Baker & Steve Scharf have no concept of "strings".

It IS just a string.

It's just that it isn't a string that you need to change to prevent
people from tracking you.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> But he fails to understand so much, so...

To the apologists Alan Baker & Steve Scharf...
o Both of whom appear to be incomprehensibly ignorant of mere strings...

What you apologists all fail to comprehend, which even Frank Slootweg
I'm sure _probably_ understands, is that a User-Agent (aka X-Newsreader)
string can be almost any string you want it to be.

It doesn't have any inherent meaning in and of itself for God's sake.

For example,
set %User-Agent% = 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.41
set %User-Agent% = 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.41 (b55bd473.101.271)
set %User-Agent% = 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.84
set %User-Agent% = ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
set %User-Agent% = ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
set %User-Agent% = G2/1.0
set %User-Agent% = Hogwasher/5.18
set %User-Agent% = MacSOUP/2.8.6b1 (ed136d9b90) (Mac OS 10.12.3)
set %User-Agent% = MacSOUP/2.8.6b1 (ed136d9b90) (Mac OS 10.14.6)
set %User-Agent% = MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/99.9.9
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0a2
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.7.1
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.0.14) Gecko/20071210 Thunderbird/1.5.0.14
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.2.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Icedove/45.5.1
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.2
set %User-Agent% = NewsTap/3.2 (iPad)
set %User-Agent% = NewsTap/4.0.1 (iPad)
set %User-Agent% = NewsTap/5.2.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
set %User-Agent% = NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
set %User-Agent% = Ratcatcher/2.0.0.25 (Windows/20130802)
set %User-Agent% = Snitbuster (Multics version)
set %User-Agent% = Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
set %User-Agent% = XPN/1.2.6 (Street Spirit ; Linux)
set %User-Agent% = Xnews/2006.08.24
set %User-Agent% = Xnews/2009.05.01 Mime-proxy/2.0.c.1 (Win32)
set %User-Agent% = Xnews/5.04.25
set %User-Agent% = Xnews/??.01.30
set %User-Agent% = flnews/0.14 (for AIX)
set %User-Agent% = flnews/0.14 (for GNU/Linux)
set %User-Agent% = flnews/0.18pre13 (for NetBSD)'#1310 + 'Mime-Version: 1.0
set %User-Agent% = slrn/0.9.8.1 (FreeBSD)
set %User-Agent% = slrn/1.0.2 (Darwin)
set %User-Agent% = slrn/1.0.2 (Linux)
set %User-Agent% = tin/1.4.5-20010409 ("One More Nightmare") (UNIX)
(SunOS/5.10 (i86pc))
set %User-Agent% = tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX)
(CYGWIN_NT-6.3-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2
set %User-Agent% = tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX)
(Linux/4.9.0-0.bpo.5-amd64 (x86_64))
set %User-Agent% = tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX)
(Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64 (x86_64))
set %User-Agent% = tin/2.4.0-20160823 ("Octomore") (UNIX)
(Linux/4.7.9-100.fc23.x86_64 (x86_64))
set %User-Agent% = tin/2.4.1-20161224 ("Daill") (UNIX) (OpenBSD/6.1
(amd64))
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 3.0/32.763
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 5.00/32.1171
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
set %X-Newsreader% = MesNews/1.08.06.00-it
set %X-Newsreader% = Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664
set %X-Newsreader% = Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
set %X-Newsreader% = Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1830
set %X-Newsreader% = Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18416
set %X-Newsreader% = PMINews 2.00.1205 For OS/2
set %X-Newsreader% = PiaoHong.Usenet.Client.Free:1.65
etc.
--
What's shocking is that apologists can't process even simple facts.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> I am smarter than you, Liar.

Alan Baker,

I realize you thought I'd never respond when you claim "liar"...
o You're literally _desperate_ to stop this proof of your sheer ignorance.

But there's more...
o Yup.

You fell for the simplest trick in the book, Alan Baker.
o I laid the trap, although don't give me credit because it was trivial.

Do you have _any_ inkling I knew exactly what you'd post to this thread?

o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basic*
*skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

Read it, Alan... yes, read it.
o Look at the keywords I sprinkled in the OP, Alan. Yes look.

You seriously think I wasn't aware you didn't comprehend the headers?
o You seriously think I couldn't change the headers at will, Alan?

You think I can't predict your every response years ahead of time?
o More to the point, do you even realize Apple MARKETING has you pegged?

I don't claim to be smart simply because I easily outwit people like you o
o Since that would be like gloating over taking candy from a baby...

But it is extremely telling how your brain works...
o That you claim to be smarter than you apparently are.

You're perfect for the 1st quadrant of the classical Dunning-Kruger graph.
o You literally have no concept of how fantastically ignorant you are.

And _that_, is what petrifies me.
o I didn't think it was possible for people like you to actually exist.
--
If it's this easy for me to predict apologists' actions years in advance,
Apple MARKETING must have a field day with people this incredibly stupid.

[Arlen Holder]

[Arlen Holder]

I _wish_ you apologists could carry on an _adult_ conversation...
o Sort of like this one moments ago I typed off the top of my head...

Not one of you apologists is capable of even close to this level of thought
o *Life with COVID-19*, by The Real Bev
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/Uwuhlfo4h04>

To wit:

In response to what s|b <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote :

> It's not going to last.

Hi S or b,

I know you from this android newsgroup where you have been shown to be
intelligent, which is vastly appreciated in this sea of the hoi polloi.

You're probably correct that human nature will return to its past, where,
I'm trying to study how this particular virus caused such a disruption to
our normal schedules (and even personal space considerations).

Personally, I feel this virus is going to be with us forever.

However, nobody can predict what will happen simply because a lot depends
on how "leaky" the quarantine is, how completely the antibody blood draw
and/or nasal swabs are, and how soon an "effective" vaccine comes out to
protect those at greatest risk, nor whether the virus, admittedly an RNA
virus (which has fewer replication checks than do DNA viruses) will mutate,
and in what direction immunologically.

I've read many predictions, where the most common seems to be a series of
decreasing amplitude 'waves' of infection over the next decade or five, or
ten, or forever, where we must remember that only a couple coronaviruses
cause from one tenth to up to about a third of all common colds today.

That's pretty damn infectious.

Contrast two coronaviruses causing at least 1/10th of all colds with the
_hundreds_ of rhino and adenoviruses out there that _also_ cause the common
cold, and that gives you a glimpse at just how infectious these zoonotic
coronaviruses have evolved to be.

What's particularly nasty about this SARS-CoV-2 bug is that furin enzyme
cleaves the glycoprotein spike such that it attaches wonderfully to our
ACE2 receptors in our ciliated lung cells allowing our phospholipid cell
membranes to fuse with that of the virus.

This essentially opens the door to the capsid which contains the curled up
RNA of the virus, which our cells replicate outside the nucleus, to form so
many new virus particles that our cells rupture, lending our own
phospholipid envelope to the virus to allow it to shed anew.

The problem is that our humoral (i.e., targeted) immune system is not
acquainted with this particular spike protein, so all we're left with is
our innate (i.e., non specific) immune system, which, unfortunately, tends
to run amok with what is known in the trade as a 'cytokine storm'.

Worse, even if we survive the 'honeycomb lung' scarring of the full-blown
Covid-19 disease, our targeted antibody titre only lasts a handful of years
(based on most, but not all scientific papers I've read to date).

What that means is that even if we come up with a way to create the
glycoprotein antigen and inject it into our bodies to make antibodies
targeted to that antigenic shape, those antibodies don't seem to last all
that long so we're gonna have to be taking the vaccine forever (if that's
the case).

The point is there is no cure other than the normal one, which is that
those who die, die, and those who live, pass their genes on to the future.

Unfortunately, most of us are octogenarians, so, we're the ones who
experience the cytokine storm that ends up, in the end, to be our doom.
--
SARS-CoV-2 spike affinity is orders of magnitude greater than SARS-CoV-1.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> You lie.
>
> I know it.
>
> You know it.
>
> Everybody knows it.

Alan Baker,

*I've proved my point you apologists are fantastically ignorant*.
o *Your entire belief system is based on exactly zero (0) facts*.

Moving on... please ask me _anything_ you want about the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
o Anything.

Yup.
o Anything.

... *Here is just a sample of what you'll learn... off the top of my head*!

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> And here's a crazy idea.
>
> If you don't want to be called a liar..
>
> ...then don't claim to be using vim and telnet to post to Usenet...
>
> ...when you're clearly using NewsTap for iOS.

Alan Baker,

*I've proved my point the apologists are fantastically ignorant*.
o *Their entire belief system is based on exactly zero (0) facts*.

Moving on... please ask me _anything_ you want about the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
o Anything.

Yup.
o Anything.

o *Mobile phones are covered in germs. Disinfecting them daily*
*could help stop diseases spreading*, by BRS
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/BsvN6N1VSZM/D6GZFInHBQAJ>

*Here is just a sample of what you'll learn... off the top of my head*!

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

> That shortage is pretty much over. I have some 70%, 91%, and 99.9% all
> purchased within the last month.

Steve,

More alcohol percentage isn't necessarily better...

While I'm aware you're reasonably well educated, I'm not sure what you know
about disinfectants, so I want to let the proletariat who are on this
thread know that ever higher and higher alcohol percentage isn't
necessarily better for disinfection purposes.

Everyone knows how hard it is to obtain 99.9% alcohol (where if you want,
I'll compare my photo of "pure ethyl alcohol, USP, reagant quality" to
yours, where just tell me what you want in the background to prove I don't
make this shit up) - so why bother with pure ethyl alcohol when lesser
percentages work just fine?

Fact is, in most cases, 70% alcohol is _better_ than 99.9% alcohol for most
bacterial disinfection purposes anyway. And for enveloped viruses such as
the coronavirus, anything great than about 60% works just fine.

The phospholipid viral envelope is amazingly labile.

For the coronavirus, which isn't living in the first place, anything more
than 60% has been proven to be effective in multiple studies, but when we
extend the conversation to bacteria, the percentages flip somewhat, because
the mechanism of action is completely different.

To understand why, you have to have a basic understanding of _how_ alcohol
works when disinfecting "bacteria" (not viruses, but bacteria) on inanimate
objects.

Since the subject is "germs", that includes both viruses & bacteria (and
quote a few other things) where my main point is for the hoi polloi, who
probably may have never taken college-level organic chemistry,
biochemistry, virology, bacteriology, immunology, etc., that the concept of
"more is better" in alcohol percentage for disinfection is not always the
case.

For bacteria, you _need_ appreciable water; and for the enveloped
coronaviruses, any percentage of alcohol over around %60 will work just
fine.

In summary, more isn't necessarily better (for disinfection purposes).
--
Two kinds of people are on Usenet: those adding value... & those who can't.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> ...you need to learn to accept when you're caught, Liar.

Alan,

Let's see if you, or any apologist, whether it's Steve Scharf, or Frank
Slootweg (who is just stupid as he's not an Apple apologist) can carry on
even a _simple_ adult conversation.

OK?
o I'll start.

A key question is why would the affinity of classical SARS (aka SARS-CoV-1)
be literally orders of magnitude _less_ than that of SARS-CoV-2?

Particularly given they both attack the ACE2 receptors of the lung, liver,
and small intestine.

Why do you think that's the case?
--
The problem with apologists is they are incapable of adult conversation.

[ArIen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> I know you're lying.
>

> You know you're lying.
>

> Get over it.

Alan,

Let's see if you, or any apologist, can carry on even a _simple_ adult
conversation, on _any_ current non-political topic whatsoever.

OK?
o I'll start.

Given the entire RNA genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been sequenced, and
given that means the all-important antigenic glycoprotein spike structure
is well known, what do you think about this new synthetic mRNA technique to
fast track the production of the spike proteins _inside_ humans?

Do you think bypassing the normal vaccine techniques of producing pure
viral protein antigens via this synthetic mRNA technique holds promise?
--
Apologists prove to be utterly incapable of erudite adult conversation.

[Arlin Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> You lie.
>
> I know it.
>
> You know it.
>
> Everyone knows it.
>
> Learn to deal with it.

Hi Alan Baker,

Now that you've established to your heart's content that "I lie" and that
I'll just need to "deal with it", let's rise up to a more adult level of
conversation, if we can.

For example, what value can you add to my response below made off the top
of my head, as to what we should "expect", moving forward, from this
Covid-19 situation?
o Life with COVID-19, by The Real Bev
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/Uwuhlfo4h04>

In response to what John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote :

> The main reason Covid 19 is spreading so bad is because of liberals.
> They don't believe in washing their hands frequently or in most cases
> even after using the restroom.

Ignoring the fact you don't usually get Covid-19 from urinary material;
o And while it "may" be in fecal detritus, that's not a key vector.

Keeping things simple, I think the main reason Covid-19 is spreading so
fast is a combination of factors, not the least of which is that it has an
affinity for our lung tissue that is orders of magnitude higher than other
common respiratory viruses.

In addition, since SARS-CoV-2 is a rather large enveloped virus, it travels
safely on far larger respiratory droplets, and can remain viable for up to
9 days on some surfaces (less in air & on paper, more on some metals &
plastics). ions).

Furthermore, given its zoonotic origin (bats most likely), nobody has an
existing humoral (aka targeted) response to the external spike proteins.

All we have is our innate (i.e., non memory) immune system to battle this
virus, which works just fine in almost all people but which, for a reason
none of us are aware of yet, for some of us, particularly the elderly of
us, which is the vast majority of Usenet, I would assume, our innate system
loses control, and a cytokine storm results.

Luckily, while this is an RNA virus (which has fewer replication checks
than do DNA viruses), SARS-CoV-2 does not appear to mutate any differently
than we would expect, at least based on studies in both China & in Italy,
where there have been, to date, roughly about a hundred mutations (which is
along expected trajectories).

Hence a vaccine is possible, although normally it takes about 10 years for
an effective vaccine. We have an advantage here of an early-on full genome
characterization of this SARS-CoV-2 virus; so we likely will have vaccines
earlier than that - but they likely will not be effective for more than a
few months to a small number of years, given that numerous studies showed
the antibody titre to a full-blown classical SARS disease didn't last more
than 3 to 5 years.

In the end, what kills us is the indiscriminate cytokine storm, in people
who can't control their innate immune response, where nobody knows why the
innate system goes out of control - which - I think - is where the money
needs to be spent.

To John's highly political point, in the end, the systemic damage from that
cytokine storm is like sending out hoards of those "liberals" you speak of
who indiscriminately blow themselves up and everything around them in order
to attack the few "conservatives" John presumes those unsanitary liberals
are after. :)
--
Humor is fine but ignorance is not.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-09 7:58 a.m., Arlin Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> You lie.
>>
>> I know it.
>>
>> You know it.
>>
>> Everyone knows it.
>>
>> Learn to deal with it.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Now that you've established to your heart's content that "I lie" and that
> I'll just need to "deal with it", let's rise up to a more adult level of
> conversation, if we can.

This is just another tactic from you, Liar.

You lie.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

Learn to deal with it.

Here's a hint:

Trying to wave a faux "olive branch" would work better if you didn't
pair it with snide implications.

Happy to help.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 6:41 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> I am smarter than you, Liar.
>
> Alan Baker,
>
> I realize you thought I'd never respond when you claim "liar"...

You claimed you would respond, Liar...

...yet here you are.

> o You're literally _desperate_ to stop this proof of your sheer ignorance.
>
> But there's more...
> o Yup.
>
> You fell for the simplest trick in the book, Alan Baker.
> o I laid the trap, although don't give me credit because it was trivial.
>
> Do you have _any_ inkling I knew exactly what you'd post to this thread?
> o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basic*
>  *skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>
>
>
> Read it, Alan... yes, read it.
> o Look at the keywords I sprinkled in the OP, Alan. Yes look.

Not interested. Sorry.

>
> You seriously think I wasn't aware you didn't comprehend the headers?
> o You seriously think I couldn't change the headers at will, Alan?

I never really thought you couldn't, Liar.

But what I find instructive is that the one question you won't answer is
how your claimed desire not to be tracked is served by changing a string
that isn't unique to you.

Why won't you deal with that, Liar?

>
> You think I can't predict your every response years ahead of time?
> o More to the point, do you even realize Apple MARKETING has you pegged?

And yet more deflections, Liar

>
> I don't claim to be smart simply because I easily outwit people like you o
> o Since that would be like gloating over taking candy from a baby...
> But it is extremely telling how your brain works...
> o That you claim to be smarter than you apparently are.
>
> You're perfect for the 1st quadrant of the classical Dunning-Kruger graph.
> o You literally have no concept of how fantastically ignorant you are.
>
> And _that_, is what petrifies me.
> o I didn't think it was possible for people like you to actually exist.

You lied.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 6:16 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> But he fails to understand so much, so...
>
> To the apologists Alan Baker & Steve Scharf...
> o Both of whom appear to be incomprehensibly ignorant of mere strings...
>
> What you apologists all fail to comprehend, which even Frank Slootweg
> I'm sure _probably_ understands, is that a User-Agent (aka X-Newsreader)
> string can be almost any string you want it to be.
>
> It doesn't have any inherent meaning in and of itself for God's sake.

Exactly.

But it has no utility for tracking anyone, Liar...

...because the same string is used by so many people.

You lie.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

Learn to deal with it.

>

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 7:17 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> You lie.
>>
>> I know it.
>>
>> You know it.
>>
>> Everybody knows it.
>
> Alan Baker,
>
> *I've proved my point you apologists are fantastically ignorant*.
> o *Your entire belief system is based on exactly zero (0) facts*.
>
> Moving on... please ask me _anything_ you want about the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
> o Anything.

Why would I ask a liar about it, Liar? I can Google this stuff just as
easily as you can.

This just another tactic.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> Why would I ask a liar about it, Liar?
> I can Google this stuff just as
> easily as you can.
>
> This just another tactic.

What I wrote was not only based on my educational background...
o But also from reading scores of peer-reviewed papers on the subject.

Your comment that it came from Google just shows how ignorant you are.
o You didn't understand even a single sentence I said in that post.

You could only cut and paste from Google, Alan Baker.
o You'd never be able to synthesize a single _adult_ thought.

Not even one.

However, you're too ignorant to even realize that, Alan Baker.
o Which was my point.

I doubt you will _ever_ carry on an adult conversation.
o About _any_ topic.

However... I'm a believer in mankind, so...
o Let's give you a second chance.

What do you know about quantum mechanics, Alan?
o Or electrical engineering or IC design or physiology?

Ask me anything about any of those subjects, Alan Baker.
--
HINT: Adults are erudite on multiple levels, but not children.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-09 1:11 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> Why would I ask a liar about it, Liar?
>> I can Google this stuff just as
>> easily as you can.
>>
>> This just another tactic.
>
> What I wrote was not only based on my educational background...
> o But also from reading scores of peer-reviewed papers on the subject.

Riiiiiiiight.

And I'd believe that, Liar...

...except for all the lying you do.

>
> Your comment that it came from Google just shows how ignorant you are.
> o You didn't understand even a single sentence I said in that post.

I didn't say it came from Google directly, LIar.

>
> You could only cut and paste from Google, Alan Baker.
> o You'd never be able to synthesize a single _adult_ thought.

LOL

>
> Not even one.
>
> However, you're too ignorant to even realize that, Alan Baker.
> o Which was my point.
>
> I doubt you will _ever_ carry on an adult conversation.
> o About _any_ topic.

Tell me, Liar:

Why do you feel it necessary to add personal insults to the supposedly
"adult" conversations you claim you're holding?

>
> However... I'm a believer in mankind, so...
> o Let's give you a second chance.
>
> What do you know about quantum mechanics, Alan?
> o Or electrical engineering or IC design or physiology?
>
> Ask me anything about any of those subjects, Alan Baker.

So you can do some more Googling, Liar?

Nah.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> I didn't say it came from Google directly, LIar.

Alan,
I'm trying to see if it's possible to have an adult conversation with you.

Do you know anything about history?
o Ask me anything, as everyone knows I'm a history buff.

For example what about "The Great Patriotic War" can you discuss?
o Do you know anything about what we westerners call WWII?

How about building wiring & coding microprocessor controllers?
o Or automotive repair?

What is it that you enjoy discussing with adults?

What is it that you "can" carry on an adult conversation about?
o You name it.

Science. Religion. History. Culture. Astronomy. Chemistry. Politics.
o What?

What topic are you able to carry on an adult conversation upon?
--
To speak to someone at an adult level requires common ground.

[Alan Baker]

I get it, Liar.

You're an expert on absolutely everything!

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> I get it, Liar.
>
> You're an expert on absolutely everything!

Hi Alan Baker,

*Fundamentally, you teach me why Apple MARKETING works so well on you.*

See the examples below of what I learned just in the past few days.
o Simply by being helpful on Usenet - sans calling everyone a "liar".

You apologists assess facts very strangely, where it's only those in the
first quadrant of the Dunning Kruger skills assessment range who might form
such a belief system that they're an "expert on absolutely everything".

I'm well educated for sure - but I never claimed to "know everything".
o The fact you formed your belief system out of nothing, is kind of scary.

However, given your stated belief system was based on exactly zero (0)
facts, I'll ignore your completely imaginary belief system and simply ask
again what you're capable of discussing as an adult.

Can you discuss as an adult, oh, say, Android or iOS mobile apps, perhaps?

As just a trivially simple example, on the Android ng moments ago, I posted
this helpful response to The Real Bev who asked about battery percentage:
o *Battery usage*, by The Real Bev
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/MyMZnpRaQO0>

Notice I didn't immediately claim all her queries were "lies by liars".

Likewise, when Yousuf Khan asked a question, I helped him (as did others):
o *Why doesn't my local contacts sync with my Google Contacts?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/UmART77J9PU>

Notice adults don't claim every fact anyone posts is a "lie by liars"...
o Only apologists do that.

In fact, as an adult, instead of claiming she was a "liar", I tried to
reproduce her results, which I think I did (she hasn't responded yet):
<https://i.postimg.cc/rwLByM5z/battery01.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/k4ZH0mnJ/battery02.jpg>

Likewise, while helping Yousuf Khan, I also didn't simply claim he was a
"liar", where, again, I learned a lot about the contacts apps:
<https://i.postimg.cc/QtTs7bXX/contact01.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/4NFxDg84/contact02.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/8cFn3D7r/contact03.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/DwjbgYWR/contact04.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq4j1tz3/contact05.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/15Y8T82M/contact06.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/3wXk659p/contact07.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/prWb6KNF/contact08.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/hPCzMrFV/contact09.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/c4XKLcXr/contact10.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/63W0q4q9/contact11.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/02swXQH0/contact12.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/1Xj5QvrF/contact13.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/Df1YWxJf/contact14.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/G90FGXd1/contact15.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/K8SZHjbN/contact16.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/QMNCLgWc/contact17.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/d1bJ0GDH/contact18.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/bwJWKsws/contact19.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/X7DQBxnY/contact20.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/cLb12VZN/contact21.jpg>

And, in fact, Frank Slootweg's response prompted me to research an
ancillary topic, where, again, I didn't call Frank a "liar":
o *How do you find the unique app package real name on your Android device?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/4TcwyAcSPqM>

I simply reproduced his results - where - again - I learned a lot.
<https://i.postimg.cc/GhqjyfY5/apk01.jpg>

In summary, instead of calling everyone a "liar", I spent my time helping
them, and, in that process, I learned more myself.

By way of contrast, every second spent with you would be a waste of
everyone's time, where the only reason I spend _any_ time with you, Alan
Baker, is that people like you, Lewis, Jolly Roger, BK, Your Name, et al.,
teach me a lot about how the strange mind of the Apple apologist actually
works.

*Fundamentally, you teach me why Apple MARKETING works so well on you.*
--
What I learn from apologists is that people like they are, actually exist.
o Their _entire_ belief system is based on exactly zero (0) facts.
No wonder Apple doesn't need to spend a high % on R&D product innovation.
o MARKETING need only feed these apologists exactly what they want to hear.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> You lied.
>
> I know it.
>
> You know it.
>
> Everyone knows it.
>
> Now just learn to deal with it.

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> I get it, Liar.
>
> You're an expert on absolutely everything!

Hi Alan Baker,

Ah, but I do learn from you, Alan Baker... quite a lot indeed.
o *Fundamentally, you teach me why Apple MARKETING works so well on you.*

[Arl1n H0lder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> You lie.
>
> I know it.
>
> You know it.
>
> Everyone knows it.
>
> Learn to deal with it.

Hi Alan,

*Fundamentally, I learn, from you, how MARKETING feeds your brain.*
o Apologists' _entire_ belief system is based on exactly zero (0) facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-09 7:20 p.m., Arl1n H0lder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> You lie.
>>
>> I know it.
>>
>> You know it.
>>
>> Everyone knows it.
>>
>> Learn to deal with it.
>
> Hi Alan,
>

Hi, Liar!

I'm going to ignore everything you wrote below and repeat:


But a "User agent" has no utility for tracking anyone, Liar...

...because the same string is used by so many people.

You lie.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

Learn to deal with it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-09 7:16 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> You lied.
>>
>> I know it.
>>
>> You know it.
>>
>> Everyone knows it.
>>
>> Now just learn to deal with it.
>
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> I get it, Liar.
>>
>> You're an expert on absolutely everything!
>
> Hi Alan Baker,

Hi, Liar!

I'm going to ignore everything you wrote below and repeat:


But a "User agent" has no utility for tracking anyone, Liar...

...because the same string is used by so many people.

You lie.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

Learn to deal with it.

>

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-09 7:15 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> I get it, Liar.
>>
>> You're an expert on absolutely everything!
>
> Hi Alan Baker,

Hi, Liar!

I'm going to ignore everything you wrote below and repeat:

But a "User agent" has no utility for tracking anyone, Liar...

...because the same string is used by so many people.

You lie.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

Learn to deal with it.

>

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> You lie.
>
> I know it.
>
> You know it.
>

> Everybody knows it.
>
> Deal with it.

Hi Alan,

Being an apologist means you are a special type of human being, but, given
the challenge, is there _anything_ you can talk about on an adult level?

For example, I've been in Great Books for decades where we've read and
discussed over 500 books as a group at our local library (now by Zoom):
o *What is a privacy-aware cross platform free personal*
*video-tele-conference app to host & join meetings*
*of about a dozen participants discussing Great Books?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/DMZxUOMFb7M>

Are there any great books you can discuss as an adult?
--
It's difficult for normal adults to find common ground with apologists.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> But a "User agent" has no utility for tracking anyone, Liar...
>
> ...because the same string is used by so many people.
>
> You lie.
>
> I know it.
>
> You know it.
>
> Everyone knows it.
>
> Learn to deal with it.

[Alan Baker]

Will any of those books contain the answer to the question I posed you:

How does faking a string that is identical across many people help to
prevent you from being tracked...

...Liar?

[Ken Blake]

On 5/9/2020 8:09 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2020-05-09 7:15 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>>
>>> I get it, Liar.
>>>
>>> You're an expert on absolutely everything!
>>
>> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Hi, Liar!

Please, please, please! Stop responding to this troll (and all other
trolls). Responses are what trolls want, since they give them the
opportunity to argue with you. If everyone ignores a troll, eventually
he'll get bored and go away.

The best way to ignore a troll is to killfile him. Please do that, and
the rest of us won't have to see this pointless argument between the two
of you. AH has long been killfiled here. If you don't do the same, and
stop arguing, you'll be giving me no other choice but to killfile you
too. I'd rather not do that, but I will if necessary.


--
Ken

[For Steve Scharf]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 09:53:47 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> How does faking a string that is identical across many people help to
> prevent you from being tracked...

Nobody on this planet, but the two of you, claim that the string itself is
what's tracked - which I've told you numerous times.

You're simply proving my point that you apologists are _immune_ to facts.
o The entire belief system of you & Steve ... is completely imaginary.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-10 10:56 a.m., Ken Blake wrote:
> On 5/9/2020 8:09 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2020-05-09 7:15 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>>> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>>>
>>>> I get it, Liar.
>>>>
>>>> You're an expert on absolutely everything!
>>>
>>> Hi Alan Baker,
>>
>> Hi, Liar!
>
>
> Please, please, please! Stop responding to this troll (and all other
> trolls). Responses are what trolls want, since they give them the
> opportunity to argue with you. If everyone ignores  a troll, eventually
> he'll get bored and go away.

No, Ken.

He won't.

It will never happen.

>
> The best way to ignore a troll is to killfile him. Please do that, and
> the rest of us won't have to see this pointless argument between the two
> of you. AH has long been killfiled here. If you  don't do the same, and
> stop arguing, you'll be giving me no other choice but to killfile you
> too. I'd rather not do that, but I will if necessary.

Why do you think I'm making sure all the subjects contain "Arlen Holder".

Kill file based on that and problem solved.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-10 11:43 a.m., For Steve Scharf wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 09:53:47 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> How does faking a string that is identical across many people help to
>> prevent you from being tracked...
>
> Nobody on this planet, but the two of you, claim that the string itself is
> what's tracked - which I've told you numerous times.

So you admit you're Arlen Holder, and you just lied by posting under a
new name.

You've claimed that you change the string to prevent tracking...

...but you won't explain how it does that, Liar.

Why not?

>
> You're simply proving my point that you apologists are _immune_ to facts.
> o The entire belief system of you & Steve ... is completely imaginary.

If you're writing all these posts "by hand" in vim and telnet...

...why add a "User agent" header at all...

...Liar?

[For Steve Scharf]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> ...why add a "User agent" header at all...

Look at my headers, Alan...
o Look.

You apologists always seem to put so much imaginary "value" in nothing.
o The only reason I talk to you apologists, is to understand your brain.

You are so _desperate_ to find "meaning" in meaningless headers, Alan.
o HINT: The value of a Usenet article... is in the "body" (not headers!)
--
Apologists are fantastically incapable of basic adult facultative skills.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-10 3:04 p.m., For Steve Scharf wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> ...why add a "User agent" header at all...
>
> Look at my headers, Alan...
> o Look.

Why, Liar?

Why can't you just answer my question.

>
> You apologists always seem to put so much imaginary "value" in nothing.
> o The only reason I talk to you apologists, is to understand your brain.
>
> You are so _desperate_ to find "meaning" in meaningless headers, Alan.
> o HINT: The value of a Usenet article... is in the "body" (not headers!)

I never said there was VALUE in the headers, Liar.

But why won't you answer a simple question?

[For Alan Baker]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 15:08:31 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> What reads that table, Liar?

Hi Alan Baker,

Look at my headers in this post, Alan Baker.
o If I didn't let you know who I was in the BODY...

What would you know about me from _just_ the headers alone?
o Can you tell my time zone for example?

Or my IP address (aka NNTP posting host)?
o Or even what my character encoding is (e.g., GB versus EN)?

Then look at _your_ headers Alan...
o Assuming they're not spoofed... what do they tell about you?

Assuming they're not spoofed, do they tell me your platform?
o Or your time zone, just for one minor trivially simple example?

You (and Steve Scharf) are incredibly naive about headers Alan
o Every statement from you proves you clearly don't understand anything.

The only reason I converse with you is that I am _studying_ you.
o You have no meaningful value to anyone, Alan.

Your brain is what I'm interested in.
o Because it is so strange and foreign to me.

For example, we both agree the USERAGENT string is simply a string.
o And yet, you call me a "liar" for what we both agree upon.

You don't even realize _why_ you call facts you can't process lies.
o Steve Scharf did exactly what you do.

Both of you call facts that you simply can't process... lies.

> What is the mechanism you use?

Again, Alan Baker, you prove incredibly immune to facts.
o It's a freaking dictionary lookup for Christs sake.

Do you really think it's "hard" to make a list of strings?
o What planet do you and Steve Scharf come from that you're _that_ dense?

> But this will be like the time I asked for your method for synching your
> contact data across different devices, won't it, Liar?

Alan,
Simply because you can't process the simplest of facts...
o Doesn't mean those facts are lies.

It simply means you're an idiot, Alan.

You are _lucky_ I spend time dealing with you, in fact...
o Since in decades of tech, I've never met an idiot like you.

You _interest_ me because you exist.
o I had never thought people as dumb as you are - could exist.

And yet, you exist.
--
The only reason for dealing with apologists is that they teach us exactly
why Apple is so successful at selling the mere illusion of functionality.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-10 4:10 p.m., For Alan Baker wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 15:08:31 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What reads that table, Liar?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Look at my headers in this post, Alan Baker.
> o If I didn't let you know who I was in the BODY...

That doesn't answer my question, Liar.

Answer my question.

>
> What would you know about me from _just_ the headers alone?
> o Can you tell my time zone for example?

That doesn't answer my question, Liar.

Answer my question.

>
> Or my IP address (aka NNTP posting host)?
> o Or even what my character encoding is (e.g., GB versus EN)?

That doesn't answer my question, Liar.

Answer my question.

>
> Then look at _your_ headers Alan...
> o Assuming they're not spoofed... what do they tell about you?

That doesn't answer my question, Liar.

Answer my question.

>
> Assuming they're not spoofed, do they tell me your platform?
> o Or your time zone, just for one minor trivially simple example?

That doesn't answer my question, Liar.

Answer my question.

>
> You (and Steve Scharf) are incredibly naive about headers Alan
> o Every statement from you proves you clearly don't understand anything.

That doesn't answer my question, Liar.

Answer my question.

>
> The only reason I converse with you is that I am _studying_ you.
> o You have no meaningful value to anyone, Alan.

That doesn't answer my question, Liar.

Answer my question.

>
> Your brain is what I'm interested in.
> o Because it is so strange and foreign to me.

That doesn't answer my question, Liar.

Answer my question.

>
> For example, we both agree the USERAGENT string is simply a string.
> o And yet, you call me a "liar" for what we both agree upon.

Nope. I've never called you liar for that reason, Liar.

And that doesn't answer my question, Liar.

Answer my question.

>
> You don't even realize _why_ you call facts you can't process lies.
> o Steve Scharf did exactly what you do.
>
> Both of you call facts that you simply can't process... lies.

That doesn't answer my question, Liar.

Answer my question.

>
>> What is the mechanism you use?
>
> Again, Alan Baker, you prove incredibly immune to facts.
> o It's a freaking dictionary lookup for Christs sake.

Great, let's see the scripts you claim exist, and your precise process.

>
> Do you really think it's "hard" to make a list of strings?
> o What planet do you and Steve Scharf come from that you're _that_ dense?

That doesn't answer my question, Liar.

Answer my question.

>
>> But this will be like the time I asked for your method for synching your
>> contact data across different devices, won't it, Liar?
>
> Alan,
> Simply because you can't process the simplest of facts...
> o Doesn't mean those facts are lies.

So it's just a coincidence that precisely one day after I started asking
you for your method, you started asking about contact deduplication
software in comp.mobile.android, Liar.

April 28, 2020, I ask:

"Make changes on your phone...

...and ensure they get back onto your computer...

...while making sure that it doesn't overwrite changes you've made on
your computer already.

Explain how you work all this.

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.photo.digital/LXWKM7u7Yg8/DxrQKd6_AQAJ>


April 29, 2020, you start a thread asking:

"Which free contact optimizer duplicate removal contacts merger app do
you like best & why?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/YheUv3Cl5aM/C2VMppZ-AQAJ>


Coincidence, Liar?

[For Alan Baker]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 16:18:10 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> So it's just a coincidence that precisely one day after I started asking
> you for your method, you started asking about contact deduplication
> software in comp.mobile.android, Liar.

Alan,

Everything I do on this ng boils down to understanding Apple owners.
o And that itself boils down to understanding Apple MARKETING.

MARKETING toys with your brain, Alan Baker...
o For their profit.

I poke & prod your tiny child-like brains too, Alan Baker...
o But not for profit.

I test your little brain so that I can better understand how it works.
o Otherwise, you're worthless as a human being...

You (and all apologists) are nothing but worthless pieces of shit.
o (The only one worth anything, is nospam, because he's quite different.)

You have utterly no value as a person; only as a foreign brain to study.
o Understanding your brain helps me understand all apologists.

Understanding apologists helps me understand the average Apple owner.
o You're at the very bottom; David Empson is at the very top.

Everyone else is in between.
o Jolly Roger is close to you at the bottom, as is Lewis or Your Name.
o Ant & JF Mezei and even Steve Scharf are way above you - in the middle.

Very few are at the top, as it's a rarefied hierarchy with few at the top.
o If they were at the top, they wouldn't be believing MARKETING bullshit.

What all of you (save for David Empson) suffer from...
o Is an almost total lack of basic adult facultative skills.

For example, even badgolferman, not an apologist, but an Apple owner...
o Wasn't aware of the slightest of what Android was

And yet, both he and Steve Scharf claimed Android couldn't do...
o What I do, every day, all day, any day, with any Android device.

The point is that you're at the _bottom_ of this heap, Alan Baker.
O That's just a fact. You can't do anything about it.

You're an idiot.
o Essentially.

The chance of you understanding that the method I use entails a MASTER list
in Microsoft Excel is completely unfathomable to people like you, Alan
Baker.

You can't comprehend my methods - you can't even comprehend simpler methods
such as these extremely simple facts:
a. We have no problem importing/exporting contacts
b. We have no problem copying those files across our LAN
c. We have no problem optimizing the resulting contacts

The methods I use are different, in that I use Excel to optimize my
contacts, but I don't expect _others_ to use the methods that I use.

Most people are stupid, Alan Baker.
o They use the cloud to do this

You're an idiot - so you can't figure this stuff out.
o Most people aren't as dumb as you are - but they're still pretty stupid.

Otherwise they wouldn't be using the cloud to do something that's so
trivially done without the cloud, using two fundamentally different
approaches, that anyone with a few synapses can figure out.

The problem with you and me, Alan Baker, is you'll never be able to
understand how vastly more intelligent I am than you are....

But more importantly, I never thought there existed people as stupid as you
are.

Frankly - I didn't even think it was possible.
o That's why you're so _interesting_ to me.

You're like this super dumb animal that has absolutely no right to exist.
o And yet, you exist.

You can't figure out the _simplest_ of things.
o You can't figure out a Qualcomm payment schedule
o You can't figure out how to synchronize contacts
o You can't figure out how a freaking header works.

Until I met you apologists, I never knew people as dumb as you prove to be
o Even existed.

Admittedly, I went to the best schools in the country, and worked at some
of the finest high tech companies on the planet here in the Silicon Valley.

So I've never had the opportunity to meet someone as stone cold stupid...
o As you are.

You (and Steve Scharf) prove to be so fantastically dumb
o that you can't even figure out that a header line is meaningless.
--
The key question is how does the apologists' brain relate to Apple
MARKETING in that they know far better than I do how to feed you exactly
what you want to believe.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-10 5:34 p.m., For Alan Baker wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 16:18:10 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> So it's just a coincidence that precisely one day after I started asking
>> you for your method, you started asking about contact deduplication
>> software in comp.mobile.android, Liar.
>
> Alan,

My, my, my, Liar.

That's a lot of words to avoid answering a couple of simple questions
and a couple of observations.

Why won't you just answer, Liar?

Again:

Explain the process, step by step.

You've clearly shown you have no problem with typing long answers.

>
> You can't comprehend my methods - you can't even comprehend simpler methods
> such as these extremely simple facts:
> a. We have no problem importing/exporting contacts
> b. We have no problem copying those files across our LAN
> c. We have no problem optimizing the resulting contacts
>
> The methods I use are different, in that I use Excel to optimize my
> contacts, but I don't expect _others_ to use the methods that I use.

So you suddenly started asking about de-duplicating your contacts one
day after I was asking about it is just coincidence, Liar?

>
> Most people are stupid, Alan Baker.
> o They use the cloud to do this
>
> You're an idiot - so you can't figure this stuff out.
> o Most people aren't as dumb as you are - but they're still pretty stupid.
>
> Otherwise they wouldn't be using the cloud to do something that's so
> trivially done without the cloud, using two fundamentally different
> approaches, that anyone with a few synapses can figure out.
>
> The problem with you and me, Alan Baker, is you'll never be able to
> understand how vastly more intelligent I am than you are....
>
> But more importantly, I never thought there existed people as stupid as you
> are.
>
> Frankly - I didn't even think it was possible.
> o That's why you're so _interesting_ to me.
>
> You're like this super dumb animal that has absolutely no right to exist.
> o And yet, you exist.
>
> You can't figure out the _simplest_ of things.
> o You can't figure out a Qualcomm payment schedule
> o You can't figure out how to synchronize contacts
> o You can't figure out how a freaking header works.

Wrong on all three counts, but the FACT is:

You won't explain how YOU synchronize contacts.

You won't explain how a header you DON'T randomize helps you avoid being
tracked.

>
> Until I met you apologists, I never knew people as dumb as you prove to be
> o Even existed.
>
> Admittedly, I went to the best schools in the country, and worked at some
> of the finest high tech companies on the planet here in the Silicon Valley.
>
> So I've never had the opportunity to meet someone as stone cold stupid...
> o As you are.
>
> You (and Steve Scharf) prove to be so fantastically dumb
> o that you can't even figure out that a header line is meaningless.

Straw man, Liar.

>

[For Alan Baker]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 19:10:34 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Straw man, Liar.

Alan Baker,
Do you even realize you mindlessly copy everything I say?
o Are you ever gonna be capable of a single independent thought process?
--
Apologists are the strangest child-like people I've ever run across.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-11 2:57 a.m., For Alan Baker wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 19:10:34 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Straw man, Liar.
>
> Alan Baker,
> Do you even realize you mindlessly copy everything I say?

I realize that you snipped the thing to which "straw man" was an
appropriate reply, Liar.

> o Are you ever gonna be capable of a single independent thought process?
>

I also realize that where you had used it (also conveniently snipped) it
didn't apply. In fact, precisely the reverse, Liar.

[Arlen Holder]

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

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

Jesus Christ, Alan Baker...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-21 2:36 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 09:48:08 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> How about when you insisted on calling a notice in the Location Services
>> settings for iOS "Apple's Privacy Policy"...
>>
>> ...when that note itself provided a link to Apple's ACTUAL Privacy Policy?
>
> Jesus Christ, Alan Baker...

Jesus Christ, Arlen!

Posting the same bullshit over and over won't make your earlier
statement of material fact any less wrong.

[Arlen Holder]

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

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

Hi Thomas E.,

Regarding what the Type III apologist Alan Baker wrote in this thread:
o Amazing what Windows still doesn't do well.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/7BV04N_AAEI>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-29 3:15 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:36:44 -0700 (PDT), Thomas E. wrote:
>
>> He just wants to bitch, not look for solutions that are dead easy to find
>
> Hi Thomas E.,
>
> Regarding what the Type III apologist Alan Baker wrote in this thread:
> o Amazing what Windows still doesn't do well.
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/7BV04N_AAEI>

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

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

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

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

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

[Arlen Holder]

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

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

Hi Paul,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basic
skills an adult should have on the Internet?

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/4AdaprOPM-g>

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

[Arlen Holder]

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

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

Hi Alan Baker (aka Sandman),

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where the original post contained (verbatim) quotes from this cite:
o *Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera*
<https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/10/apple-macbook-camera-cover-warning/>

There are 36 responses by 9 authors, only one of which is from an adult:
o *Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/7IqoAq8fURo>

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

And, in relation to apologists claiming all facts are lies by liars:
o *Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?*

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nVzWBU2otC4>

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

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

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-07-14 11:07 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 14 Jul 2020 11:32:38 GMT, Sandman wrote:
>
>> He is so afraid of this that his only course of action is to SNIP OUT his
>> lies in every single post, and try to ignore them outright. Go ahead little
>> liar, snip it again and run away with your tail between your legs, it is
>> after all what you do best. Far be it from you to actually acknowledge the
>> lie you told and admit to it. No, snip little boy, snip and run!
>
> Hi Alan Baker (aka Sandman),

Oh, look!

Another lie!

[Arlen Holder]

Yet another concrete example of how incredibly stupid apologists are.
o Apologists literally believe anything without ever checking the facts!

On 22 Oct 2020 14:25:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> As I said - and you as usual dishonestly snipped - you didn't
> understand my response at the time and still don't.

Frank,

I do not bullshit - so don't try to bullshit me with your utter bullshit.
o Just stop it.

You claim you "just now" found the URL?
o WTF?

It was always there, Frank.
o Always.

All you're doing is attempting to weasel your way out of the facts.
o Just like the unprepossessing apologists incessantly always do.

You can easily bullshit the Apple apologists - but you can't bullshit me.
o The reason you can't bullshit me, Frank, is that I point to the facts.

I went to some of the oldest & best schools in this country, Frank.
o I worked in Silicon Valley startups next to the brightest people, Frank.

People like you who incessantly bullshit - wouldn't last a week, Frank.
o Some of you, like nospam, couldn't last a single day.

Nobody on this newsgroup compares in the least to those intelligent people.
o All the apologists are nothing but bullshitters par excellence, Frank.

I succeeded with these intelligent people, Frank, because I speak facts.

Anyone can read _exactly_ what you wrote, Frank.
o they can read the entire thread, Frank.

I'm not afraid of the facts, Frank.
o I cited your exact post I'm referring to, Frank.

And I cite it yet again:
o <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/VGtq9RzpBgAJ>
"But *my* point is that you've indeed proven that iOS can do what
'harry' claims it can't, but - IMO - you've not proven that Android
can't do what you show in your video. (Nice video, BTW!)"

Frank: Is that verbatim what you wrote to Snit or not?
o HINT: Yes.

For those who aren't aware, the apologists _hate_ that iOS lacks even the
most basic functionality such that the apologists will "claim" wholly
imaginary functionality, as Snit (and most of the apologists did):
o iOS showing Wi-Fi over time, by Snit (aka Snit Cola)
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>

I took a single glance at Snit's infamous video, and literally laughed.
o *Apologists are incredibly stupid - they didn't even LOOK at the Y axis*

Even Frank, who is NOT an apologist, applauded that infamous video!
o Not one of these morons knows the difference between a decibel & megabit

Even now, nospam still touts this completely imaginary iOS functionality!

Why?
o I don't know why.

I suspect apologists actually _hate_ that iOS lacks even the most basic
functionality that they believed, from MARKETING alone, that it had.

To wit:
o *It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0>
--
The apologists are incredibly ignorant of even the most basic iOS facts.

[Arlen Holder]

Update:

This conversation today shows how an adult responds to headers
o As contrasted with the utter morons known as Type III apologists

Note the apologist are so incredibly stupid...
o That even when told a fact - they claim it's a "lie by liars"

Simply because they can't comprehend even the _simplest_ of known facts.
o HINT: It's why they gravitate to extremely well MARKETED products


From: Arlen Holder <arlen_...@newmachines.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: iOS exclusive app
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:53:47 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <rpukdr$31l$1...@news.mixmin.net>

On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:27:03 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Nonetheless, the post we _both_ are referring to is, I think, here:
> o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/LK9yTmciAQAJ>
>
> Where you said, and I quote, verbatim:
> "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."
>
> The point is that any line that isn't _injected_ by the news server can be spoofed:
> o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/puHKs3kqAQAJ>

Hi Frank,

Let's get this long-standing (dis)agreement from March 23, 2018 over with.
o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/LK9yTmciAQAJ>

I'm man enough to admit you are technically correct with what I think may
be your interpretation of "any", which is, I think, to mean "every".

I'm correct (I believe) in how I had casually used "any" in an ad hoc
Usenet post, which was to mean any header not injected by the news server
(and, by extension, by the series of news servers as is the case with
PATH:, although see the sig below for how to modify even the PATH: header).

I had never intended my casual "any" to mean your "every", so to speak, but
I can definitely see where you could easily have assumed I had meant
"every" when I casually said I could change my headers (in response to some
infantile idiocy from one of the moronic Apple apologists, as I recall).

Hence I apologize for not being clear in what I had meant (although I did
clarify that at the time, as shown in that conversation between you & me.

What we don't want to do is be like these Type III apologists, where when I
explained that the User-Agent: is spoofed, Alan Baker _insisted_ for post
after post after post after post after post that it was a "lie by liars".

To these type III apologists, they're so utterly immune to facts, that it
was inconceivable that the User-Agent: header line could be spoofed at all,
let alone trivially be spoofed (or removed for that matter).

This thread explains a lot about the psychology of the Type III apologists:
o Any fact Type III apologists can't fathom is, to them, a "lie by liars"
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

Please, Dear God, let's _not_ be like those moron Apple apologists!

I openly admit that you are correct if you assume "any" means "every", that
I can't spoof _every_ header (other than to change news servers which
"changes" them, but whose changes I can't control easily); but that I can
spoof "any" header which is not injected by the news server itself
(e.g., typically, even the date and time zone can easily be spoofed).

In the end, we were perhaps both correct in that we were ascribing
different meanings to the word "any", and where I'm man enough to admit
your interpretation of what I said is perhaps more correct than I had
loosely intended to say when I first made that comment years ago in a
casual Usenet post to which you responded (and we're still discussing):
o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/LK9yTmciAQAJ>
--
BTW, while I only briefly experimented with changing the PATH:, which, in
some cases, can be "modified" but not wholly controlled (AFAICT).

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-28 3:04 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Update:

You're still so butthurt about getting beaten by me on the facts that
you can't help but bring up my name again?

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Nov 2020 11:20:43 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Yes, but *now* (in this thread) your claim is conditional ("any line
> that isn't _injected_ by the news server"), while it *was* unconditional
> ("as can any of the headers" (note "any"). Your original unconditional
> claim was incorrect. Your current conditional claim is mostly correct.
> So - as I said - you/we can put this 'dispute' to rest.

Hi Frank Slootweg,

Regarding this conversation about NNTP header spoofing at:
o iOS exclusive app, by badgolferman
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/vTJ6PVrtyS0>

Since I care about adults on the adult OS newsgroups understanding what
we're talking about, we have to be _clear_ that I was responding to an
utter moronic Apple Type III apologist named Joerg Lorenz when I casually
used the word "any" because these Apple morons believe _every_ header!
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/LK9yTmciAQAJ>

This is, verbatim, what I said, which you know, Frank, but others don't:
"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."

Adults will note that this was a deprecation of the infantile assessment by
the always illogical Apple Type III apologists who believe _every_ header!

Given the infantile apologists were chattering about the easily changed
headers anyway, does anyone really think the apologists would have
understood my insulting words better had I included the minor caveats?

I was insulting the Type III apologists' lack of adult comprehensive skills

What's petrifying is not only that they _believe_ every header...
o But that they based their assessments on that incorrect belief system!

The _next_ related post was from Frank Slootweg, who accurately said:
o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/LK9yTmciAQAJ>

"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"

To which I responded by clarifying that I was scolding the moron apologists
o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/puHKs3kqAQAJ>
"Hi Frank Slootweg,
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).

My point to Frank was I didn't even need to be completely correct with the
infantile apologists because they wouldn't have comprehended facts anyway.

But I did clarify, in my response to Frank, exactly which headers I meant:
"Frank,
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?"

In summary, I apologize to Frank Slootweg because he was fully and
completely correct in challenging my statement of "any" in that we do not
have full control of "every" header.

However, in my defense, I clearly show that I was derisively responding to
the utter moronic child-like apologist Joerg Lorenz, where, clearly, he
(and his compatriots, Alan Baker, BK at onRamp, Jolly Roger, Lewis, et al.)
wouldn't have benefited had I imparted upon them the specific details.

Note there is ample proof of this fact, in fact, since I told Alan Baker
many times that my "NewsTap" in my header (at that time) didn't mean I used
NewsTap; and yet, post after post after post after post (much like Snit
did), the apologist thought he had finally (after all these decades) caught
me in a mis-statement of fact, or, even better, heaven forbid, a "lie".
o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

Even _after_ proving the headers are spoofed (by spoofing them), Alan Baker
(much like all Type III and Type III apologists, e.g., Steve Scharf _still_
thinks Qualcomm royalties went down) still vociferously claimed he caught
me using NewsTap as my newsreader client.

Of the three types of apologists, it is a waste of effort to clarify the
"any" versus the "any one not injected by the newsreader" with Type III
apologists; only the Type I apologist (nospam) can comprehend such facts.
--
Note: All the adults on the adult OS newsgroup can comprehend these facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On 29 Nov 2020 12:08:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> [And yes, "any" (header) means "every" (header).]

Hi Frank,

I am _different_ from most posters on the Apple newsgroups, although not so
much different than most on the adult OS newsgroups are, in that I don't
mind at all admitting when I don't know something, nor do I mind clarifying
what I said and why I had said what I said.

You have to remember that I was responding to the utter moronic Apple
posters (specifically Joerg Lorenz as I recall) who _believed_ every
header, much as the shockingly ignorant Alan Baker apologist did here:
o Nobody but an Apple apologist could possibly be this ignorant of fact
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

You need to realize my "any" was in context to those utter morons.
o Do you think clarifying "any" would have made _any_ difference to them?

There's no fact that anyone could ever say that they'd comprehend
o So I was just trying to tell them that headers can be forged

Which, to this day, Type III apologists _still_ believe is impossible!

In summary, the _instant_ you said "any" (meaning "every") wasn't true, I
instantly explained to you what I had meant.

You and I are not in the same league as the Apple apologists, Frank.
o We have to vastly simplify every fact for them, Frank.

And even then, they _still_ believe all headers, as witnessed by Alan Baker
o Who on earth is _that_ stupid but these Type III Apple apologists, Frank?

>> BTW, while I only briefly experimented with changing the PATH:, which, in
>> some cases, can be "modified" but not wholly controlled (AFAICT).
>

> Yes, the Path header is the only other 'debatable' header.
>
> 'Debatable', because strictly speaking it's not "injected by the news
> server". It is / can be injected by the News client and is modified/
> prepended by the News server. So it does not fall in your category of
> exempted headers, but - as you say - it cannot be "wholly controlled",
> i.e. you cannot put anything you like in it and expect it to appear
> verbatim in the outgoing post.

Yes. We agree. We who are on the adult OS newsgroups have no problem
comprehending facts and therefore agreeing on reasonable sensible logic.

The PATH is a special case where I have been successful, long ago, in
experiments, in modifying the PATH, but as you said, it's not wholly
modifiable as sections are prepended by entities along the final route.

> So now we've covered all headers:
> - headers injected by the News server
> - the odd-one-out Path header
> - all other headers
> EOD.

Agreed where we, on the adult OS newsgroups, agree on sensible logic
o Which is always backed up by an adult comprehension of the facts

a. Headers injected by the News server can only be changed by changing
servers, & even then, they are still injected by the (new) News server

b. The PATH: header is only somewhat modifiable (& it's only additive)

c. Headers not injected by the News server are under our full control:
e.g., from your own headers:
From: Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>

Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: iOS exclusive app

Date: 29 Nov 2020 12:08:49 GMT
Organization: NOYB
Message-ID: <rq06dg...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
References: <rpmpgb$9il$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
X-stuff: (some NNTP servers seem to add their own X-stuff)
User-Agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-6.3-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2
--
Adults always agree on facts and accept rational reasonable logic.

[Alan Baker]

[Arlen Holder]

Factual documentation for this thread about apologists
o Which proves they are so sure of themselves when they are so wrong

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 22:35:39 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Well Arlen, I think you can rest easy tonight knowing the problem isn't
> in your system. After opening the newsreader again your Author name
> has corrected itself. See screenshot. https://ibb.co/sbMtTfY
>
> Maybe it's the font I use or the encoding, but messages from you that
> haven't been read have the extra spaces in your name, whereas messages
> that have been read and the newsreader restarted show up properly. It
> looks like my newsreader client has a minor bug although it only shows
> up with your name. Maybe it's allergic to you or something.
>
> In any case it doesn't bother me and the other features of the client
> make up for it so it will remain the same. Just ignore the monthly
> statistics or know that I didn't read your messages which have the
> extra spaces.

Hi badgolferman,

I think this conversation proves what I've always thought about the folks
on this newsgroup who are not apologists (e.g., you, Ant, JF Mezei, et al.)
o Before reading them: <https://ibb.co/YdWLjkH>
o After reading them: <https://ibb.co/sbMtTfY>

I love facts.
o Anytime someone wants to discuss facts, I'm all for it.

Notice how this discussion ensued, which was civil, and adult throughout:
1. You posted, out of the goodness of your heart, the periodic statistics.
2. I looked at them & I _comprehended_ them, without denying them outright
3. I suggested to you perhaps there was a bug on your side, in your scripts

Note both of us posted with purposefully helpful intent
o Out of the goodness of our hearts.

Then you took the energy to check the facts & to provide that check
o Which I took the energy to check, and agree.

Neither of us called the other a "liar"...
o Both of us have long ago established our credibility.

So you trusted that what I said I believed I saw based on my side
o And I trusted that what you said you believed you saw on your side

We simply agreed on the facts as we saw them, and pondered the "why".
o Both of us resolved to figure out why there was a contradiction

Both of us ran additional tests, where you doublechecked what you saw
o And I doublechecked what I sent (by changing what I easily could change)

Handily, you beat me to the solution, which I very much appreciate
o (As you saved me a lot of time trying to debug on my side)

In summary, _that_ is how an adult conversation proceeds on other ngs
o I'm sure we both wish dialog like that could proceed more often here

In summary, don't worry about it, as I'm not worried for me; I was simply
worried that your scripts had a problem, which it turned out, they didn't.
--
See also:
o Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups -

is simply that apologists exist

<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/mQsBECSbICw/m/lgI46TXtBwAJ>
Type I (nospam)
Type II (sms, Alan Browne, Chris, Savageduck, et al.)
Type III (Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et
al.)


On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:59:37 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Yes, it's unfortunate that there is so much vitriol rampant on
> newsgroups, not just this one. I suspect it mirrors human nature of
> being violent and aggressive toward people who are not like us.

Hi badgolferman,

Notice how neither you nor I turned into "instant child" when confronted
with the facts, even as both of us were claiming, initially, different
things?

You are an adult; so we can agree on facts, and we can perhaps still
disagree, like adults, on assessments of those facts (or agree on them).

The apologists are not capaple of doing what we just did in this thread
o They turn into instant (often hateful) children when confronted with fact

You may need to accept I've _studied_ these strange apologists. For years.
o And I've been on the adult OS newsgroups. For years.

In my humblest of opinions, apologists alone are what ruin this newsgroup.
o On the Android newsgroups, nobody is a die-hard Google flag waver.
o On the Windows newsgroups, nobody is a Microsoft cultist excuser.
o On the Linux newsgroups, nobody backs up RedHat to the death.

There's nobody like these apologists on the adult OS newsgroups.
o Type I (nospam)
o Type II (sms, Alan Browne, Chris, Savageduck, et al.)
o Type III (Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et al.)

It's only on Apple newsgroups that these strange apologists exist.
o The apologists alone are why adult conversations are rare on this ng.

> As for scripts, I'm not proficient in programming language so I don't
> have the knowledge or ability for that. The monthly statistics are a
> feature of my desktop news client Xananews.

Notice how neither you nor I turned into "instant child" when confronted
with the facts, even as both of us were claiming, initially, different
things?

Thank you for clarifying, where my main worry was that your scripts might
be bad, but it turns out it was simply an anomaly of the newsreader itself.

It was good this dialog happened because it proved that the adults on this
newsgroup (the very few that exist, e.g., Ant, JF Mezei, and you are just
about it, off the top of my head) can carry on a conversation that puts the
apologists to shame.

If you just look at how Lewis and nospam are treating "Your Name" in Chris'
recent thread, they prove me right, where each apologist handles facts
differently but consistently so:
o App development, by Chris
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/MShq86Qpn_Y>

o Type I (nospam) take an Apple MARKETING view on everything.
For example, nospam insists that coding for iOS apps is zero dollars
even in light of the fact Your Name easily showed that wasn't true.

o Type II (sms, Alan Browne, Chris, Savageduck, et al.)
These are just normal people, IMHO, who are out of their league
when it comes to facts; they can't handle details.

o Type III (Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et al.)
These are the ones which petrify me, as Lewis, who couldn't comprehend
a single assessment by Your Name, insisted that every assessment he
himself couldn't comprehend, was a "lie by liars", just like Alan Baker
and Jolly Roger do.

Remember, for example, that Alan Baker couldn't believe that Apple was
forced to publish their criminal fine they paid, and yet Alan Baker
insisted that was a "lie by liars"?
o Apple forced to publicly admit the $25M crime of intentionally lowering iPhone lifespan
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ>

Everything these Type III apologists themselves can't understand, is, to
them, a "lie by liars".
o Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/nVzWBU2otC4>

In terms of your "newsgroup statistics" report, the same thing happened
when Alan Baker proclaimed I was using NewsTap, when he saw that in the
header.

o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

This is super instructive, as it's what makes these apologists Dunning
Kruger Quadrant 1, and far to the left of that, in terms of their ability
to make assessments of their own skillsets.
o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/fyL1cQUVCp0>

Alan Baker was so sure of his ability to assess my headers that he loudly
and repeatedly proclaimed it was a "lie by liars" that I didn't use NewsTap
when I told him it's just a meaningless string that I can change at will.
o Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups - is simply that apologists exist
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/mQsBECSbICw>

I repeatedly told Alan Baker that information, and I repeatedly pointed to
the actual headers I used, and I changed the headers right in front of him,
but he _still_ loudly proclaimed that he knew how to interpret headers, and
whatever it said in the headers _must_ be correct, therefore it was a lie
by me that I didn't use NewsTap.

He was so _proud_ of himself, like a cat bringing a dead bird home, that he
had finally caught me in a "lie", that he posted this "lie by liars" to
numerous threads (it started on the Android newsgroups).

What's interesting is _all_ these Type III apologists act this way:
o Lewis, Jolly Roger, Tim Streater, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et al.

1. Anything they, themselves, can't comprehend, must be a "lie by liars".
2. They're completely sure of their ability to "assess" that fact.
3. And yet, they are always dead wrong as a result.

If they weren't so insistent that everything they can't comprehend is a
"lie by liars" it wouldn't be so bad - but what makes it even worse is this
same cast of characters are _always_ the ones throwing the vitriolic
hatred.

You saw both Jolly Roger & Lewis do it in that thread by Chris.
o It happens all the time these TYPE III apologists throw hateful vitriol.

These apologists, particularly the Type I and Type III, are who ruin Apple
newsgroups (IMHO), and I've posted plenty of factual evidence to back up
that assessment.
--
If the apologists simply didn't exist - Apple newsgroups would be civil.