Dear badgolferman ... how does one deal with people that incredibly ignorant?

[arlen holder]

Dear badgolferman,

How does an _adult_ deal with people that incredibly ignorant?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wTAPRuSJoaw/sdgfE8iWAAAJ>

[arlen holder]

Dear badgolferman,

From Alan Baker:
> Adult question for you (whoever you are; afraid to use your real name):

How do you wish me to respond to someone who says this?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1V5tFA1OQ0w/ggFbNeeUAAAJ>

Or this?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1V5tFA1OQ0w/CUd3pdmRAAAJ>

Or this?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/mlgjUXvn4Jw/k5KkZoZ2GgAJ>

*EVERY APOLOGIST DOES THIS SILLY STUPID DENY FACTS OUT OF IGNORANCE GAME.*

They deny facts out of hand - and yet - they don't even know the most basic
of what's been reported in the mainstream news for a very long time!

*How does any adult deal with Apologists who prove to be _that_ ignorant?*

It's ok that they're ignorant - but then they shouldn't deny facts out of hand.
o When you put those two things together - they deny ALL facts you write.

If they didn't deny all facts out of hand, then their ignorance wouldn't be a problem.
o But they deny everything that they don't like - all the while being
completely ignorant of even the most basic of the most basic of facts.

Dear badgolferman,

Since I care about facts...
o *How do you wish me to respond to someone who does that?*

[Andreas Rutishauser]

In article <q3lrui$fp7$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

why does it have to be an _adult_?

--
MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch>
EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk
Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung
<mailto:and...@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47

[badgolferman]

State your case and let others decide for themselves. If someone disagrees
with your facts they are also entitled to their opinion. You will never
convince people who are on the opposite side. The best you can do is allow
more openminded (adult) people come to their own conclusions. That is the
audience you should be targeting. Constant bickering and name calling turns
this audience off. You can see it in the political world today.

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2019 09:16:12 +0200, Andreas Rutishauser wrote:

> why does it have to be an _adult_?

Hi Andreas Rutishauser,

Simple Answer = FACTS + LOGIC
o *Adults own adult comprehensive skills that children do not own.*

More specifically:
o Adults comprehend facts (adults don't dismiss facts out of hand)
o Adults comprehend the logical implication of those facts

More to your question:
o Children often deny facts out of hand (and out of ignorance)
o Children do not yet possess the cognitive skills to comprehend complexity

You, Andreas Rutishauser, _always_ prove to own the mind of a child.
o That is _not_ an ad hominem attack (it's simply a verifiable fact)
o However ... I comprehend why you _think_ it's an ad hominem attack

Hence I will supply proof that you, Andreas Rutishauser, own the mind of a
child, in _all_ your posts, as does Lewis, Alan Baker, et al. (where,
unlike nospam, I don't think I've _ever_ seen you prove otherwise).

Proof via a simple fact, i.e., your very own words, Andreas Rutishauser:
o Privacy leaks reported to Apple in Expedia, Hollister, & Hotels.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/8HfdPOQVNVk/aOcpqvKYAAAJ>
"why do you need so many words to write nothing of interest? "

You don't comprend two things as an adult does, Andreas Rutishauser:
o FACTS
o LOGIC

In that thread, adult FACTUAL concepts & adult LOGIC were outlined:
o Privacy leaks were found outside of Apple testing in those apps
o Apple as a result sent cease-&-desist letters to the affected parties
And
o This is yet another indication that Apple doesn't sufficiently test apps

Notice that an adult concept contains two things...
o FACTS (i.e., they're well cited, which children dismiss out of hand)
o LOGIC (i.e., the logical implications of facts may be too complex for
children to comprehend)

You, Andreas Rutishauser, _always_ prove two things in your posts:
o You can't comprehend even the simplest of facts, and,
o Discussing logical implications of facts is "too much" for your brain

Again, I comprehend why you may think that an ad hominem attack
o But it's simply a fact

Here is the proof of that fact.
o It's your very own words, which you wrote yourself, today:
"all of the many words you wrote don't answer Alan's question.
Do you have an untderstandong [sic] comprehension problem?"

Notice that I answerd Alan's question in the past, and in that thread, and
that Alan Baker simply refuses facts out of hand, so, the fact I was trying
to _explain_ things to Alan Baker is completely lost on you.

To you, with your clearly child-like mind...
o Those words are "too many words"

FACT + LOGIC

This proves you don't own the comprehensive skills of an adult
o And adult does not deny facts out of hands
o Expecially facts he's clearly ignorant of
But there's more...
o Adults comprehend the complexities of logical thought processes

You don't, Andreas Rutishauser, comprehend even the _simplest_ things
o Hence, having a discussion with you, Andreas Rutishauser
o Is, by your very own statements

If you're not at all interested in the topic, Andreas, why write this?
o "why do you need so many words to write nothing of interest? "

If you actually comprehended the response, Andreas, why write this?
o "all of the many words you wrote don't answer Alan's question.
o Do you have an untderstandong [sic] comprehension problem?"

Remember, I _never_ do ad hominem attacks.
o I simply point to your own words
o And I explain that those are the words of a child-like mind

Given your fixation on "number of words" alone, Andreas Rutishauser,
and your inability to comprehend an answer provided to Alan already...

FACT + LOGIC:

Your own words, Andreas Rutishauser...
o Are not the words of a comprehensive adult mind

I posit to badgolferman that _all_ the nastiness he perceives, is due to
that one reason, which is that the Apple Apologists
o Do not own the mind of an adult
o They deny facts out of hand
o And yet, they're completely ignorant of even the most basic facts
o Worse, they can't comprehend logical outcomes of those basic facts.

I've explained a lot about you, Andreas Rutishauser.
o I hope my many sincere, honest, apt, and appropriate words
o Are not lost on you when you respond as an "adult" would respond

[badgolferman]

Adults don’t badger people and keep insisting they are ignorant.

This will be my last message on this subject.

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 11:45:43 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> State your case and let others decide for themselves. If someone disagrees
> with your facts they are also entitled to their opinion.

Hi Badgolferman,

I wish _more_ adults like you existed on this ng because I _learn_ from you!

FACTS + LOGIC.
o That's how I distinguish the adults, from the children.

The problem is complex, so I apologize for the lengthy explanation.
As Samuel Clemens said, you want a short answer - that will take more time.

I fully comprehend _everything_ you say, badgolferman.
o But that means I also comprehend where you continue to err.

Yet, I have been attempting to deal with the dozen Apologists as adults,
even when ,as you see today, this is the response from our previously
discussed canonical friend Lewis, just now, in this weighty topic of:
o Apple's delay may indicate QA found long-standing super-serious facetime flaws
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/mlgjUXvn4Jw>

This is Lewis' sole contribution to that topic, responding to Andreas:
"Just a stupidity problem.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/mlgjUXvn4Jw/GtDPnoR9GgAJ>

Please note, badgolferman, that the ad hominem attacks you decry _never_
come from me; I simply point out what they say, and I always say it's two
things:
o Childish
o Ignorant

That's it.
o I don't call them a "girl"
o I don't insult their heritage
o I don't bring "Trump" into the equation
etc.

Bear in mind badgolferman that there is no concept you can discuss on this
newsgroup where I can't comprehend your point. None. And I assume the same
for you. You know why I can say that?
Q: Why can I say you can comprehend me and I can comprehend you?
A: Because we are adults.

1. We comprehend facts (facts are funny that way)
2. We comprehend logical implication of facts (adults are funny that way)

FACTS + LOGIC.
o That's how I distinguish the adults, from the children.

Given that, you must note that I _never_ do ad hominem attacks.
o I simply speak facts and the logical implications of them.

BTW, I fully comprehend why you _think_ I perform ad hominem attacks - but
the proof is ample that this is just not the case. Look at what Andreas
Rutishausser wrote in that same thread where Lewis threw his ad hominem
attacks, for example, where you _must_ understand that the TOPIC of that
thread REQUIRES ADULT LOGIC to comprehend - since the thread (accurately)
predicted what was going to happen (note that it DID happen!):

This is the topic (which adults understand requires comprehensive skills):
o Apple's delay may indicate QA found long-standing super-serious facetime flaws

This is Andreas' sole contribution to _that_ topic:

"all of the many words you wrote don't answer Alan's question.

Do you have an understanding comprehension problem? "

NOTE: In this case, Alan Baker was many times provided the answer so much
that I'm sick of Alan's silly games of denying even the most basic of facts
which would require him to simply click on the links provided or google the
well-reported results, and, where Alan plays his semantic games that he
plays which are merely childish in approach since Alan denies EVERYTHING
out of hand, even when well proven - so you can imagine the field day Alan
has on topics that require adult comprehensive skills to underscore what is
implied.

Andreas + Alan + Lewis === all exactly the same type of person

It's _not_ an ad hominem attack to point to their very words, which are
facts, and then to posit that those words are the words of a child (which
is adult implication which requires comprehensive skills to infer).

Back to your advice:
o State your case and let others decide for themselves.

How do you deal with those, like the above, who
o Deny all facts outright (without even clicking on the links!)
o Argue incessantly as a child about the logical implications of those facts?

> The best you can do is allow
> more openminded (adult) people come to their own conclusions.

Hi badgolferman,

Since you speak logically, I have to agree with you.
o Adults are funny that way.

You used an excellent term, which is "open minded".
o That's a fantastic term to describe what I've been terming "adults".

What I've been terming "children" or "Apologists", is really, as you noted,
closed-minded people.

THANK YOU for that observation.
o Notice that adults always use FACTS + LOGIC

The fact is that these people don't act "normal".
o The logical implication is that they're closed minded.

I AGREE with you that the folks I've been calling children simply have a
mind that is almost completely devoid of facts, and which is almost always
completely closed to anything other than Apple Marketing Propaganda.

*Thank you for that adult comprehensive logical observation of fact!*
o I wish _more_ adults like you existed on this ng because I _learn_ from you!

> That is the audience you should be targeting.

Hi badgolferman,
I wish _more_ adults like you existed on this ng because I _learn_ from you!

Yours is an astute observation, which is that I should spend more time with
those who are not closed minded, such as sms, or JF Mezei, or Ant, or David
Empson, or you, and, as a result, less time with the closed minded such as
Alan Baker, Andreas Rutishauser, Lewis, nospam, Jolly Roger, et al.
Who are the Apple Apologists on this ng?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mehGxIGcoa8/MoxCZ8XcAwAJ>

Having agreed with you, I hope you do realize that the proven closed-minded
posters vastly outnumber the open-minded ones. :)

The good news is that dealing only with the open-minded posters should
vastly shorten factual threads, because we would just ignore the
closed-minded score of posters who deny all facts they don't like out of
hand and who can't possibly then come to any logical comprehensive
conclusion based on the implications of those facts.

I wish _more_ open-minded people like you existed on this ng!

> Constant bickering and name calling turns
> this audience off. You can see it in the political world today.

Hi badgolferman,

FACTS + LOGIC.

I appreciate that you can assemble the facts into a comprehensive
prediction (much as I did when Apple delayed something as simple as the
original facetime bug
o Apple's delay may indicate QA found long-standing serious facetime flaws
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/mlgjUXvn4Jw>

And as I predicted when I comprehensively analyzed Tim Cook's interview:
o What Tim Cook actually said (when you analyze his clever wording)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/oulJsYSmDDM>

And as the open-minded folks discussed brilliant marketing moves:
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>

And so on.
o All of these cases require an open mind that can _assess_ fact
o And all utilize an open mind that can _predict_ future actions

FACTS + LOGIC === an open mind

I learned a lot from you, badgolferman, in that:
o We both comprehend the facts, and,
o We both can formulate logical implications based on those facts.

But you assessed and formulated the facts into logic I wasn't using prior!
o I assumed their inability to process facts with logic was due to
child-like minds
o You assume their inability to process facts with logic is due to their
closed minds.

I will have to _think_ more about this ... but ... I can't disagree.
o I can't disagree with your facts, and,
o I can't disagree with your logic.

I used to say, in response:
o (Adults are funny that way.)

But, what you taught me is that the more correct response is:
o (Open-minded people are funny that way.)

FACTS + LOGIC === an open mind
LACK OF FACTS + LACK OF LOGIC === a closed mind

I do agree with you that the "constant bickering" and "name calling" turns
the open-minded people off, and, conversely, it seems to turn the
closed-minded people on. :(

THANK YOU FOR TEACHING ME THAT I WAS WRONG for calling the closed-minded
people children simply because they clearly couldn't process facts into
logic.

*It's not that they're children ... they're simply closed minded.*

I agree with you, simply because I am an open-minded person of at least
average (if that) comprehensive skills, and hence, I comprehend your point,
and accept it as logical.

*If you have other advice for me, I welcome your suggestions!*

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 16:13:52 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Adults don┤ badger people and keep insisting they are ignorant.

>
> This will be my last message on this subject.

I just posted to your other post that I _learned_ from you, badgolferman.

Two things you suggested:
1. Consider that the closed-minded people cannot be open minded.
2. Ignore closed-minded people to concentrate on the open-minded.

I agree with you.
o Open-minded people are funny that way

Moving forward, let me know if you see a change in my responses.
o Thanks for being one of the few open-minded people on this ng.

--
I will only further respond to open-minded people in this thread.

[Andreas Rutishauser]

In article <q3ms9k$6hj$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

from here on you start to repeating yourself in slightly different
wording: too many words of no interest. qed

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 08:36:09 +0200, Andreas Rutishauser wrote:

> from here on you start to repeating yourself in slightly different
> wording: too many words of no interest. qed

Thank you Andreas Rutishauser for pointing that out, as you are correct.

My long-standing goal is to report two things to Apple uses on this ng:
o *FACT*
o *LOGIC*

My purpose on being in the Apple newsgroups is clearly that.
o My goal is strategic
o My purpose is transparent
o My tactics are consistent

I simply report on Apple-related...
o *FACT*
o *LOGIC*

FACT:

My strategy (& tactics to fit that strategy) is based on this fact:
o Apple Apologists own an "imaginary" belief system devoid of fact
o The Apologists' belief system derives from Marketing Propaganda
o Hence, the Apologists' belief system is "immune" to facts

LOGIC:

Since most Apple users are, essentially, "ignorant" of facts...
o My strategy has _always_ been to provide those valid facts
o Using tactics of simply _reporting_ the facts, as they arise
o Then _defending_ against the flat denials of fact, with more fact

All Apple Apologists consistently refute all facts they just don't like
o Why?
o Simple: Facts don't fit in their imaginary belief system

*Clever Marketing Propaganda fits perfectly; but not facts.*
o All Apologists drink colorful Apple Marketing Brilliance coolaid!

When the Apologists flatly refute facts out of hand
o They play right into my hands, since they prove my point

*Endlessly, time & again... the dozen Apple Apologists prove my point.*
o Alan Baker
o Alan Browne
o Andreas Rutishauser
o BK
o Chris
o Hemidactylus
o joe
o Jolly Roger
o Lewis
o nospam
o Savageduck
o Tim Streater
o Wade Garrett
o et al.

The weakness of all the dozen Apple Apologists, are simple:
o Fact
o Logic

You're all the same (with nospam being slightly more complex)
o It's _easy_ to predict _exactly_ what you Apologists will do
o All I need to do is state a fact you don't like

Immediately ... Apologists _flaty_ deny those facts
o Apologists deny facts sans even the slightest shred of evidence

All I ever need to do, is point to your words - to prove that point.
o You incessantly deny facts, out of hand
o That's because facts don't fit into your imaginary belief system

Hence, my goal, as consistent as I can make it, is simply
o Fact
o Logic

[arlen holder]

Dear badgolferman,

How does one respond, as an adult, to the post by bje at ripco.com
o How to Send and Receive Text Messages Without a Phone Plan or SIM Card
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/Gv81H771XwI>

Note to badgolferman:
o Notice the ad hominem attack out of the blue (i.e., "fucking idiot")
o Simply for owning a free SIM card for life
o Especially when the SIM card isn't even _needed_ for the topic.

To badgolferman,
o How does one respond, as adults, to people like this bje at ripco.com?

[badgolferman]

arlen holder wrote:

>Dear badgolferman,
>
>How does one respond, as an adult, to the post by bje at ripco.com
>o How to Send and Receive Text Messages Without a Phone Plan or SIM
>Card
><https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/Gv81H771XwI>
>
>Note to badgolferman:
>o Notice the ad hominem attack out of the blue (i.e., "fucking idiot")
>o Simply for owning a free SIM card for life

>o Especially when the SIM card isn't even needed for the topic.

>
>To badgolferman,
>o How does one respond, as adults, to people like this bje at
>ripco.com?

Allow them to continue making a fool of themselves. What will you gain
by engaging with them -- more unnecessary posts? That is unless you
actually enjoy bantering with people who drag you down to their
level....

--
"I think the bottom-line difference between being single and married is
this: When you're single you're as happy as you are. When you're
married, you can only be as happy as the least happy person in the
house." ~ Tom Hertz

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:38:01 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Allow them to continue making a fool of themselves. What will you gain
> by engaging with them -- more unnecessary posts? That is unless you
> actually enjoy bantering with people who drag you down to their
> level....

Hi badgolferman,

Being a logical reasonable adult, I can't disagree with either point.
1. Additional posts "clog" a thread when people like this Bruce infest it
2. I enjoy pointing this fact out in my responses to Bruce (& Apologists)

You speak logic which I agree with, since I'm an adult:
o Adults are funny that way with facts & logic

As noted, people like Bruce proved to be make my day with every post.

I do agree on both your points, where you are correct:
o Responding to posters like this "Bruce" guy, clogs a thread
o And yet, I enjoy when these posters prove my point for me

Since my main point has been proven many times over already...

I'll try to follow your advice to try to ignore further posts from this
Bruce "bje" at "ripco", unless his posts are of an adult nature.

This, we hope, will make it more pleasurable for adults to post.

[badgolferman]

arlen holder wrote:

>I'll try to follow your advice to try to ignore further posts from
>this Bruce "bje" at "ripco", unless his posts are of an adult nature.

Please feel free to do as you wish. I don't want to be responsible for
holding you back from what you do best. Everything I have said so far
are merely suggestions.

[Elden]

Pathetic.

--
-=Elden=-

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:55:10 -0600, Elden wrote:
> Pathetic.

FACT + LOGIC

FACT:
*It's the Apologists who spew childish unilateral ad hominem attacks!*

I don't even need to prove that since Elden's own posts prove it for me.
o Just like all of Lewis' posts
o And all of Jolly Roger's posts
o And all of BK's post
etc.

It's a FACT Apologists who spew unilateral childish ad hominem attacks!
o The logic is that their imaginary belief system is _threatened_ by facts.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:55:53 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
> Please feel free to do as you wish.

Hi badgolfeman,

FACT + LOGIC

*I'm completely transparent, honest, and always correct (on facts).*
o Nobody yet has ever found even a _single_ material mistake on facts.

*And trust me, they would _love_ to find my facts wrong at least once!*
o There's a very good reason my strategy is to provide facts + logic.

My main goal & strategy has always been the same, which is to prove:
o Apple Apologists own an imaginary belief system devoid of FACT + LOGIC

If the score of APOLOGISTS didn't exist, you'd barely hear from me.
o All I do is prove APOLOGISTS lack comprehension of FACT + LOGIC

It's my tactics that can always evolve, as needed; hence I APPRECIATE your
suggestions to improve my tactics so as to not alienate the actual adults
on this newsgroup who _can_ comprehend FACT + LOGIC.

The Apologists devoid of fact + logic I wish to alienate are clearly stated.

o Alan Baker
o Alan Browne
o Andreas Rutishauser
o BK
o Chris

o Elden
o Hemidactylus
o joe
o Joerg Lorenz

o Jolly Roger
o Lewis

o Lloyd

o nospam
o Savageduck
o Tim Streater
o Wade Garrett
o et al.

I prove these APOLOGISTS lack comprehension of FACT + LOGIC
o I simply provide real facts + logic their minds can't comprehend.

If _these_ apologists didn't exist, the EXPERIENCE on these ng would be
pleasurable, just as it is, for the most part, on the Android ngs.

FACT + LOGIC
--
Note I completely realize you believe it's me; but the facts prove
otherwise, since all I state are accurate facts + logic, where Ithe
apologists are the ones blatantly refuting those facts out of hand.

[arlen holder]

Dear badgolferman,

Since you took the time to give me advice on how to respond, I ask you to
please _look_ at this post just now from nospam, an Apple Apologist:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/GMFuW--rAgAJ>

I ask you a simple question, badgolferman.

I realize you asked me to NOT respond to their childish drivel, but why
don't you ask _them_ to not post such childish drivel?

There is absolutely no adult way for me to respond to nospam's childish post.

And yet, you chastise me, badgolferman ... and leave posts like that alone.
Why?

Why don't you chastise nospam for incessant worthless posts, badgolferman?

[badgolferman]

arlen holder wrote:

>Dear badgolferman,
>
>Since you took the time to give me advice on how to respond, I ask

>you to please look at this post just now from nospam, an Apple

>Apologist:
><https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/GMFuW--rAgAJ>
>
>I ask you a simple question, badgolferman.
>
>I realize you asked me to NOT respond to their childish drivel, but

>why don't you ask them to not post such childish drivel?

>
>There is absolutely no adult way for me to respond to nospam's
>childish post.
>
>And yet, you chastise me, badgolferman ... and leave posts like that
>alone. Why?
>
>Why don't you chastise nospam for incessant worthless posts,
>badgolferman?

The article you linked to seems to be about a charger and lack of
pictures. I don't see anything other than nospam disagreeing with you.
I didn't notice him attacking your character or intelligence either.

Let's get real Arlen. You know perfectly well what I was pointing out
originally when you say I "chastised" you. I questioned your incessant
need to belittle "Apple Apologists" as you like to call them. No one
likes to be spoken down to and they will naturally retaliate when
called childish, idiotic, liars, ignorant, etc. Some of them will even
become rude and demeaning as well. In defense of nospam, I haven't
noticed him that way although I don't read every single message in this
group. Even though you are the object of many other people's finger
pointing hopefully you can see that you have had some part in their
reactions to you. This is what adults do: they look at themselves and
change their own actions rather than complain about what others are
doing.

As I have said before, my observations are merely my own opinion. You
are a grown man as is everyone else here and this is an unmoderated
newsgroup. Feel free to do what you want, but also expect others to
react accordingly or even unfairly sometimes.