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

unread,

Jul 14, 2020, 2:21:22 PM7/14/20

to

On 2020-07-14 11:10 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

unread,

Jul 15, 2020, 1:02:49 PM7/15/20

to

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

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

Hi Frank Slootweg,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arlen Holder

unread,

Jul 19, 2020, 10:36:29 AM7/19/20

to

UPDATE:

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

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

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

More clear evidence that it's these strange apologists who ruin this ng.
o These apologists brazenly deny even the most easily verified facts!

The credibility of the Apple apologists is worthless
o Where the problem is that they don't care about their lack of credibility

Hence, every fact about Apple they don't like, they brazenly refute.
o Even facts which are so well cited, nobody rational would refute them!

Which is a key reason why apologists have ruined this newsgroup for years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?
o I don't know why.

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

Arlen Holder

unread,

Jul 29, 2020, 11:07:50 PM7/29/20

to

Regarding JF Mezei's recent valid query:
o *Wildcard and ls*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/5NiAyL-k79o>

I love when Jolly Roger & Lewis post because they always prove my point
o That what ruins this newsgroup, is simply that these apologists exist.

As did nospam's always childish purposefully unhelpful retorts on JF Mezei.
--
What ruins Apple newsgroups is simply that these cultist apologists exist.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Aug 2, 2020, 12:10:34 PM8/2/20

to

UPDATE:

Just now is more clear evidence that what ruins the Apple newsgroups...
o Are simply that the apologists exist!

Case in point:
o *T-Mobile Sprint Merger: Say goodbye to scam calls*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2bvIhAbgPV0>

1. The topic is clearly something of value, both temporally & functionally.
2. Badgolferman clearly discussed the technical merits of that value added.
3. Alan Browne clearly and obviously proved he's a valueless Apple troll.

All I need to do to prove the point that nothing the apologist troll Alan
Browne ever posted in his entire life ever added even an iota of value, is
to point to EXACTLY what the apologist troll Alan Browne writes.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2bvIhAbgPV0/LVk1NuMBCQAJ>

As with _all_ the apologist trolls, Alan Browne calls everyone who provides
facts that he simply doesn't like, a troll.

And yet, the fact Alan Browne is actually the troll, in every sense, proves
the point of this thread, in spades, simply by pointing to EXACTLY what the
apologist troll Alan Browne posts.

The apologist troll Alan Browne is clear evidence that the real factual
problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups - is simply that apologists exist.
--
Someone needs to bring factual adult truth to infantile Apple newsgroups.

Wolffan

unread,

Aug 3, 2020, 4:57:12 PM8/3/20

to

On 14 Jul 2020, Alan Baker wrote
(in article <rekt32$tc$2...@dont-email.me>):

As he uses sockpuppets all the time, he thinks (using the word loosely) that
everyone else does, too.

He’s not too bright.

Alan Baker

<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/qu_RTwBgsf8>

Which referenced this one cite:
o Want your iPhone 12 to come with a charger? Go to Brazil
<https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2020/12/03/want-your-iphone-12-to-come-with-a-charger-go-to-brazil/>

Which only referenced the French requirement in the last sentence:
"Due to a French law mandating handset makers must ship their devices with
hands-free solutions, the company had to include earpods with the iPhone
in the country"

Notice this doesn't mention anything but "hands free", but I should have
doublechecked my facts, where a quick check shows
<https://www.macrumors.com/2020/10/15/apple-france-earpods-in-box-iphone/>
"The inclusion of earphones is likely due to legislation in France
that requires all smartphones to include a handsfree kit to protect
children under 14 from the potential risk of electromagnetic radio waves"

I'll post followup details in the appropriate technical threads, but one
thing you'll notice, as will the very few adults on this newsgroup
(e.g., badgolferman, JF Mezei, Ant, et al.) that the apologists are
_incapable_ of comprehending what you seemingly immediately understood.

*Thank you for being the _only_ one who understood the French requirement!*
o I apologize to you, Matt, for lumping you in with the moron apologists!
--
One bug.... and the entire untested core iOS house of cards falls down.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/7Mc1sX9XISA>

nospam

unread,

Dec 9, 2020, 3:27:05 PM12/9/20

to

In article <rqrb2g$rrt$3...@dont-email.me>, Matt <ma...@lv426.eu.invalid>
wrote:

>
> > Which using a speaker phone does.
>

> Under certain circumstances, usage of speakers isn't allowed when
> calling someone,

hold the phone to your head, which is what most people do.

not only are headphones *not* needed, but they would cause an
unnecessary delay while the person retrieved them, untangled the cord,
inserted the buds in their ears and connected it to the phone.

> it's why bundling headphones are still mandatory for
> phone manufacturers.

it's not mandatory nor has it ever been.

flip phones going back several decades do not include headphones, many
of which do not even have a headphone jack, and the ones that do use an
uncommon 2.5mm jack or a proprietary connector, both of which require
an adapter to use standard headphones.

badgolferman

unread,

Dec 9, 2020, 3:44:07 PM12/9/20

to

nospam wrote:

>In article <rqrb2g$rrt$3...@dont-email.me>, Matt <ma...@lv426.eu.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> > Which using a speaker phone does.
>>
>> Under certain circumstances, usage of speakers isn't allowed when
>> calling someone,
>
>hold the phone to your head, which is what most people do.
>

>not only are headphones not needed, but they would cause an

>unnecessary delay while the person retrieved them, untangled the cord,
>inserted the buds in their ears and connected it to the phone.

Ah, "not needed"... My favorite quote from you!

>> it's why bundling headphones are still mandatory for
>> phone manufacturers.
>
>it's not mandatory nor has it ever been.
>

How well do you know French law? Did you read the reference he cited?

nospam

unread,

Dec 9, 2020, 3:49:21 PM12/9/20

to

In article <xn0mmg8le...@nntp.aioe.org>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > Which using a speaker phone does.
> >>
> >> Under certain circumstances, usage of speakers isn't allowed when
> >> calling someone,
> >
> >hold the phone to your head, which is what most people do.
> >
> >not only are headphones not needed, but they would cause an
> >unnecessary delay while the person retrieved them, untangled the cord,
> >inserted the buds in their ears and connected it to the phone.
>
> Ah, "not needed"... My favorite quote from you!

there are multiple speakers in the phone, for both holding up to one's
head or as a speakerphone, which also works for music, podcasts,
videos, etc.

> >> it's why bundling headphones are still mandatory for
> >> phone manufacturers.
> >
> >it's not mandatory nor has it ever been.
> >
>
> How well do you know French law? Did you read the reference he cited?

tell that to all the companies making flip phones that do not include
headphones and samsung who won't be going forward.

also, french law only applies in france, not the rest of the world.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 9, 2020, 3:52:55 PM12/9/20

to

On Wed, 09 Dec 2020 15:27:02 -0500, nospam wrote:

> not only are headphones *not* needed, but they would cause an
> unnecessary delay while the person retrieved them, untangled the cord,
> inserted the buds in their ears and connected it to the phone.

See this thread on what the apologists _always_ lack in comprehension:
o Clarification of French law requiring Apple to provide basic accessories in the iPhone 12 box to avoid injuring people
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/9m8EA_AavNA>

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 9, 2020, 4:01:00 PM12/9/20

to

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 20:44:02 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Ah, "not needed"... My favorite quote from you!

Hi badgolferman,

Thank God people exist on this ng who are _not_ apologists.
o It's only, oh, roughly, you, Ant & JF Mezei as far as I can tell offhand.
(And this new "Matt" guy seems to also own adult comprehensive skills.)

The reason for the Brazilian law on the charger is the "warranty" (AFAICT).

o Apparently Apple _refuses_ to honor their iPhone 12 warranty
if you use an old charger (and if that charger damages the iPhone).

> How well do you know French law?
> Did you read the reference he cited?

By now you know the apologists _never_ read the cites provided.
o I provided the cite to the French law in this recent thread though:

o Clarification of French law requiring Apple to provide basic accessories in the iPhone 12 box to avoid injuring people
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/9m8EA_AavNA>

Bear in mind the 3 types of apologists will handle that data differently:
o Type I (nospam) will simply blame everyone but Apple for Apple's choices
o Type II (sms) are normal people who just don't comprehend the facts
o Type III (Alan Baker) will deny every fact they hate - without even clicking on the cite!

Luckily, Matt _does_ have adult comprehensive skills!
o He clued us in to the reason for the French law, which, summarized, is:

"Any object containing radio equipment cannot be distributed for
payment or free of charge without a wired, solid and reliable headset."
<https://www.senat.fr/rap/l08-552-1/l08-552-1102.html>

In summary, the _adults_ on this newsgroup (few as they may be) will have
read (and comprehended) the relevant cites. Meanwhile, true to the point of
this thread, _apologists_ will deny, distort, fabricate, & blame everyone
but Apple for decisions Apple themselves willfully made for profit.

It's yet more clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet
newsgroups - is simply that apologists exist.

--
One bug.... and the entire untested core iOS house of cards falls down.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/7Mc1sX9XISA>

Google asked "Was it really that easy?", to which the answer was "Yes".

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 9, 2020, 4:16:59 PM12/9/20

to

On Wed, 09 Dec 2020 15:49:18 -0500, nospam wrote:

> there are multiple speakers in the phone, for both holding up to one's
> head or as a speakerphone, which also works for music, podcasts,
> videos, etc.

To the point of this thread proving the apologists _are_ the problem...
o The apologist nospam shows absolutely _zero_ comprehension of the facts.

The facts, as Matt so insightfully clued us in on, are documented here:

o Clarification of French law requiring Apple to provide basic accessories

<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/9m8EA_AavNA>

>> How well do you know French law? Did you read the reference he cited?
>
> tell that to all the companies making flip phones that do not include
> headphones and samsung who won't be going forward.

Notice that nospam will defend Apple MARKETING decisions to the death
o Even he, himself, doesn't believe a single word of what he claims

It's the TYPE III apologists (e.g., Alan Baker) who believe what they say
o Which is petrifyingly scary indeed.

This is, apparently, the French law, summarized into an English sentence:

"Any object containing radio equipment cannot be distributed for payment
or free of charge without a wired, solid and reliable headset."
<https://www.senat.fr/rap/l08-552-1/l08-552-1102.html>

--

Google asked "Was it really that easy?", to which the answer was "Yes".

<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/7Mc1sX9XISA>
HINT: iOS code dates to 1985 and Google proved it has never been tested.

unread,

Dec 9, 2020, 6:40:48 PM12/9/20

to

In message <091220201527028194%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <rqrb2g$rrt$3...@dont-email.me>, Matt <ma...@lv426.eu.invalid>
> wrote:

>>
>> > Which using a speaker phone does.
>>
>> Under certain circumstances, usage of speakers isn't allowed when
>> calling someone,

> hold the phone to your head, which is what most people do.

Evidently some moron in France decided that holding a phone to your ear
was dangerous and would mutate you on Spider-man or something. Based on
a total lack of proof, science, knowledge, or facts, of course.

>> it's why bundling headphones are still mandatory for
>> phone manufacturers.

> it's not mandatory nor has it ever been.

It evidently is in France. To "protect the children."

Honestly, if I were Tim Cook, I'd just have said, "Fine. No more iPhone
in France" and watched the government fall.

--
Up the airy mountains, down the rushy glen... From ghosties and
bogles and long-leggity beasties... My mother said I never
should... We dare not go a-hunting for fear... And things that go
bump... Play with the fairies in the wood... --Lords and Ladies

Alan Baker

unread,

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.

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>

Lewis

unread,

Dec 10, 2020, 7:54:03 AM12/10/20

to

In message <rqt0ff$d8i$1...@dont-email.me> Matt <ma...@lv426.eu.invalid> wrote:
> On jeu. 10 décembre 2020 (03:04),

> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> there is *zero* evidence that 'cellular radiowaves' are harmful.

> You may be involved as a researcher like the ones at CNRS, but unless
> you prove it, let me trust what real researchers are saying...

Put up or shut up. Real researchers are saying there is no evidence that
cellular phones are harmful.

Non-ionizing radiation is not harmful.

<https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/do-cell-phones-pose-health-hazard>

o Cell phones emit low levels of radio frequency energy, a type of
non-ionizing radiation.

o The available scientific data on exposure to radio frequency energy
show no categorical proof of any adverse biological effects other than
tissue heating.

o Public health data show no association between exposure to radio
frequency energy from cell phone use and health problems.

and

As stated by the National Cancer Institute, "there is currently no
consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in
humans. The only consistently recognized biological effect of
radio frequency radiation in humans is heating."

and

The FDA’s physicians, scientists, and engineers regularly analyze
scientific studies and publications for evidence of health effects of
exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones. The weight of
nearly 30 years of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio
frequency energy from use of cell phones to health problems, such as
cancer.

So, claiming cellphones are harmful is bullshit on the levels of
flat-earth, antivax, fake moon landings, and 5G towers causing COVID.

--
And, btw, my face cannot go blue because I have no face, I am not
like that... --Dorayme, in a fit of nonsensical drivel

Lewis

unread,

Dec 10, 2020, 7:55:44 AM12/10/20

to

In message <rqt0ng$d8i$2...@dont-email.me> Matt <ma...@lv426.eu.invalid> wrote:
> On jeu. 10 décembre 2020 (06:06),

> Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

>> First of all, calling someone whose name is Tim and YOU KNOW his name is
>> Tim "Timmy" is not only insulting, but shows you are an immature
>> dipshit.

> I'm doing what Timmy does to customers: treating them as if they were
> immature. Fair thing.

No, you are showing that YOU are immature.

>> If Apple stopped selling iPhones in France, France would definitely
>> notice.

> iPhone's market share in France hardly hits 30%, sure we will notice it

Ah, immature and delusional. Yeah, no one would notice the sudden lack
of a product 20% of people use. Riiiight.

Come back when you rent and/or borrow a clue.

--
Secondly, the Earth's a Libra

nospam

unread,

Dec 10, 2020, 8:04:04 AM12/10/20

to

In article <rqt0ff$d8i$1...@dont-email.me>, Matt <ma...@lv426.eu.invalid>
wrote:

> > there is *zero* evidence that 'cellular radiowaves' are harmful.
>

> You may be involved as a researcher like the ones at CNRS, but unless
> you prove it, let me trust what real researchers are saying...

no effect *is* what real researchers are saying.

only nutjob conspiracy theorists claim cellular is harmful, like the
ridiculous 5g causing covid idiocy.

nospam

unread,

Dec 10, 2020, 8:04:05 AM12/10/20

to

In article <rqt0ng$d8i$2...@dont-email.me>, Matt <ma...@lv426.eu.invalid>
wrote:

> > First of all, calling someone whose name is Tim and YOU KNOW his name is
> > Tim "Timmy" is not only insulting, but shows you are an immature
> > dipshit.
>

> I'm doing what Timmy does to customers: treating them as if they were
> immature. Fair thing.

you're trolling.

> > If Apple stopped selling iPhones in France, France would definitely
> > notice.
>

> iPhone's market share in France hardly hits 30%, sure we will notice it

> :->

it's actually well above that, currently about 35%. not that it matters
since chasing market share is stupid.

the point is that if iphones were to suddenly be banned, it would be
noticed and resulting in a huge smuggling operation.

Chris

unread,

Dec 10, 2020, 8:21:32 AM12/10/20

to

Matt <ma...@lv426.eu.invalid> wrote:
> On jeu. 10 décembre 2020 (03:04),
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>

>> there is *zero* evidence that 'cellular radiowaves' are harmful.
>

> You may be involved as a researcher like the ones at CNRS,

They've come to different conclusions than the rest of the world. Where's
the evidence?

> but unless
> you prove it,

It's impossible to prove a negative. However, evidence supporting any harm
caused by mobile phones is scarce and inconsistent.

> let me trust what real researchers are saying...

And how many people in France only use the headphones? Almost none from
what I see. The policy isn't really working.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 10, 2020, 1:58:02 PM12/10/20

to

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:04:03 -0500, nospam wrote:

> the point is that if iphones were to suddenly be banned, it would be
> noticed and resulting in a huge smuggling operation.

Hi nospam,

The cost of the functionality (to Apple) that they removed from the box
o Isn't something that would matter all that much to Apple's bottom line

Hence, I suspect Apple _already_ has decided to provide the functionality
o Luckily for French people, they get the functionality Apple took away

The rest of us have to buy back functionality Apple removed from the box.
--
It's all part of Apple's strategic MARKETING plan (which is brilliant).

Arlen Holder

unread,

nospam

unread,

Dec 11, 2020, 1:34:39 PM12/11/20

to

In article <rqvsvo$n58$2...@dont-email.me>, Matt <ma...@lv426.eu.invalid>
wrote:

> > it's actually well above that, currently about 35%. not that it matters
> > since chasing market share is stupid.
>

> Not really, but you know what economists are saying: numbers are like
> parrots, you can make them say what you want.

yes really.

apple, with it's 'tiny market share' has the highest market cap of any
company in the world.

> As a side note, barely 30% is based on iOS uses, including iPads...

you're moving the goalposts if you want to include tablets, but if you
insist, ios market share will then be *much* higher because android
tablets are basically non-existent.

also, you must include apple watch and apple tv, both of which run
variants of ios, making its market share even bigger.

nospam

unread,

Dec 11, 2020, 9:46:27 PM12/11/20

to

In article <rr18c3$o64$1...@dont-email.me>, Matt <ma...@lv426.eu.invalid>
wrote:

> > yes really.
>
> > apple, with it's 'tiny market share' has the highest market cap of any
> > company in the world.
>

> We were talking about french market. Sliding to the world market isn't
> really relevant, please stop trying to sell me something ;)

it doesn't matter where.

apple does not chase market share. full stop. to do so is foolish,
other than for parity products, which is not apple's lineup.

> > you're moving the goalposts if you want to include tablets, but if you
> > insist, ios market share will then be *much* higher because android
> > tablets are basically non-existent.
>
> > also, you must include apple watch and apple tv, both of which run
> > variants of ios, making its market share even bigger.
>

> OK... From only iPhone discussion we're leaning toward the whole Apple's
> ecosystem. Again it's irrelevant and we should stop if you can't focus
> on what we were debating: iPhone market share in France...

which as i said, is 35%, a very healthy share.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 11, 2020, 10:49:14 PM12/11/20

to

On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 02:02:43 -0000 (UTC), Matt wrote:

> We were talking about french market. Sliding to the world market isn't
> really relevant, please stop trying to sell me something ;)

Hi Matt,

What you've learned, all on your own, is that which nospam always does
o Type I apologists are always defending Apple MARKETING to the death!

> OK... From only iPhone discussion we're leaning toward the whole Apple's
> ecosystem. Again it's irrelevant and we should stop if you can't focus
> on what we were debating: iPhone market share in France...

I don't think anyone seriously thinks Apple will opt to lose its French
iPhone market share for the cost of putting basic accessories in the box.

The problem on this newsgroup is that apologists make these wild claims
o Simply because they _hate_ what Apple does so they make lame excuses

If the apologists didn't exist - this newsgroup would be rather civil.
--
Apple's strategy is to remove functionality so users have to buy it back.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 12, 2020, 3:10:15 PM12/12/20

to

On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 14:20:52 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

>> Who is this "Troll". He always has a lot to say.
>
> It has a lot to write and virtually nothing to say.

I _love_ that Alan Browne proves me 100% correct every time he posts!
o *Alan Browne has absolutely no _adult_ response.... to mere facts.*

Notice the childish "it" Alan Browne loves to employ...
o Because he, himself, has no _adult_ defense to facts.

*Alan Browne reverts to "instant child" when faced with mere facts.*
o His only defense to facts - is for him to revert to a small child.

*Alan Browne has absolutely no _adult_ response.... to mere facts.*

He claims I have nothing to say, and yet every thread contains a fact he,
himself, hates, about Apple products.

As just one example, I broke the news to this newsgroup about throttling.
o I broke the news to this newsgroup about Brazil's iPhone warranty issues

I've provided this newsgroup with, oh, I don't know, thousands of facts
every year, all of which, apparently (hehhehheh) they absolutely hate.

It turns out that it's not really me that they hate...
o They actually hate that Apple does what Apple does.

So they hate me simply because I tell them facts they simply can't refute
o BECAUSE they're facts.

And, as Alan Browne proved yet again...
o Apologists, who are what ruin this ng, have no adult defense to facts.
--
One bug.... and the entire house of cards built by MARKETING falls down.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/7Mc1sX9XISA>

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 12, 2020, 7:20:11 PM12/12/20

to

On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 23:52:49 +0000, Ďnvalid wrote:

> He's in the pay of an Apple competitor.

Actually, I'm _interested_ in you rather strange Apple apologists...
o Much like Dunning & Kruger were interested in the strange bank robber

I have never met, in my life, personally, people like you strange
apologists, in so much as most people I know own adult facultative skills.

In reality, what happened was that I came to Apple newsgroups,
long ago, for help, where I was used to the adults OS newsgroups.
o Linux
o Windows
o Android

I didn't know, at the time, how child-like these Apple newsgroups were
o All simply because, as you well know, the apologists exist

The apologists don't ever exhibit even basic adult facultative skills.
o Why are apologists so fantastically immune to basic skills an adult should have?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

*The Apple OS-based newsgroups are nothing like the adult OS newsgroups.*
o Simply because these child-like Apple apologists, exist.

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>

Whenever anyone, me included, asked how to do something, they fabricated
functionality that _always_ turns out to simply not even exist.
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>

These sadistic apologists would send scores of innocent people on
wild-goose chases that had absolutely zero chance of being fruitful...
o Simply because apologists can't stand that iOS lacks basic functionality

o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users on wild goose chases?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I>

Whenever a fact came out about Apple, apologists would brazenly deny it
o Simply because apologists _hate_ what Apple is; so they deny what Apple does

o Why do apologists like Alan Baker & nospam desperately try to shift the blame of Apple bugs to Google & Microsoft?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/LOQx1Ok-79c>

o Why do Apple Apologists constantly brazenly fabricate what turns out to be wholly imaginary Apple functionality?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/SZfblCIRc9s>

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

Apologists simply can't handle facts about Apple products, they don't like.
o They cope by their defense mechanism of calling all facts "lies by liars"

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>

They even deny what Apple clearly publicly admitted!

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/m/xOx6A_u6BgAJ>

I used to wonder _why_ apologists are so unlike normal people...
o And then I realized... why...

They're _afraid_ of facts.
o Facts _petrify_ apologists!

The only way apologist can cope with facts...
o Is to deny them, make excuses for them, blame others, & filter them out.

In fact, over the years, it turned out apologists have 7 responses to fact
o None of which are adult.

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

The weakness of all apologists...
o Are facts.
--
Note every cite above is chock full of evidence supporting the facts.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 12, 2020, 7:20:46 PM12/12/20

to

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 10:09:59 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> Just an anti-Apple know-nothing troll that everybody needs to ignore /
> killfile. The braindead moron crossposts a load of utter crap to
> various newsgroups.

Hehhehheh... it's like dealing with kindergarten kids, this Your Name...

Facts.
o If I'm a "know nothing", how come I know so much more than you do, Your Name?

Why is it, that I'm a "know nothing" troll, and yet, my facts are never wrong?
o Not one of you have ever found my facts to be wrong.

You'd _love_ to find me wrong... at least once...
o But you can't.

And you never will...
o Because you don't know a damn thing about Apple products...

You _hate_ facts about Apple products... of that there is no doubt.
o But if I know nothing about Apple... why can't you ever refute the facts?

Facts such as:

o Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D than _anyone_ in high tech?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/STrAkx09VYk>

o iOS 14 - Linked-In app caught reading the user's clipboard in background
(including from other sources)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2VZ5a3QsvBc>

o How many of the existing Android phones lack headphone jack basic hardware functionality

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/ZjnD2kAf-mI>

o Facts: How does RAM memory management truly compare between Android
& iOS devices (the facts, not unsupported marketing claims)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/cR7GdXT1Nxg>

o Is there any software functionality in the new iPhone 11 that isn't
already in an average 5-year old Android phone?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1D2Sgdlz1-I>

o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities
between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs>

o Do any Android phone manufacturers throttle (CPUs, PD Charging, Modems)
like Apple consistently does?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZTmmGoAndyM>

o DXOMark Mobile Phone Camera Quality of Results (the best known smarphone
camera output QOR known to date)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/VhGjiYFOBXY>

o Facebook warns developers that iOS 14 privacy settings will tank their ad targeting business
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/zPsbXVUioZs>

o iPhone 12, iPhone 12Max, iPhone 12 Pro, & iPhone 12 Pro Max [name, price,
fitment, camera, screen, cpu, ram, & 5G specifications]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/fnjbSqcdZWU>

o Is there an Android manufacturer who employs the customer unfriendly
repair practices that Apple foists upon its loyal customer base?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/lnf8QiyaYr4>

o Yet another set of lawsuits won against Apple's lawyers, admittedly the best on the planet - and yet - they still lose $113M USD (because Apple secretly purposefully shortened the life of iPhones)
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/esbnfB6OSmc>

o Every iPhone CPU from the iPhone 6 to iPhone 7 were throttled, then iPhone 8 to iPhone X were throttled & now the iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max & iPhone XR get throttling software
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/Mzh1IvniDr8/m/BfWe1CP5BwAJ>

o California wins $24.6M from Apple who withheld information that slowed down iPhones while Apple MARKETING duplicitously passed it off as a mere update
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/T9M7hHUpAus>

o Report says Apple 'Powerd' code secretly slows your iOS device down to trick you into buying a new device
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/GdEtzzrc9F0>

o iOS 14.x is on track to be as untested as was the infamously buggy iOS 13.x release (proof, yet again, Apple never tests anything sufficiently)
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/gN-vVJANnzQ>

o A zero-day vulnerability in iCloud and iTunes on Windows PCs allowed hackers to install ransomware undetected.
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware/c/hftPQAEZr_g>

o Yet again, Apple didn't test its Windows software for longstanding common vulnerabilities
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware/c/JVI-6A3ko38>

o Is there any functionality the iTunes abomination does that can't be done, better, WITHOUT iTunes?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/PLzFxNis7jk>

o What functionality does iTunes do for you that you'll need to replicate without iTunes?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/v2jT-sWIKR0/gA45WfO6AAAJ>

o Apple iTunes and iCloud for Windows 0-Day Exploited in Ransomware Attacks
<https://thehackernews.com/2019/10/apple-bonjour-ransomware.html>

o The rise and fall of iTunes, Apple's most hated app
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/3/18650571/apple-itunes-rip-discontinued-macos-10-15-ipod-store-digital-music-wwdc-2019>

o Where can you find the OLD versions of SharePod freeware [any version prior to version 3.9.4]?
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware/c/urk_6-GQM2M>

o How to access iOS media library on Linux or Windows WITHOUT iTunes?
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware/c/jQlXf5Rlreo>

o An elegant solution to managing digital files on ANY iOS, Android, Windows, or Linux device SIMULTANEOUSLY over USB using zero additional software (other than the native OS)
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware/c/H6T7KqzR_ww>
etc.

If I'm a "know nothing", how come I know so much more than you do, Your Name?
--
The problem with this newsgroup is simply that the apologists exist.

Arlen Holder

> I totally agree with you on that (we can see with the COVID-19 most
> governments go against scientific for reasons you mentionned).
>
> Althought in the case of radiofrenquencies the french governement acts
> wisely (we haven't got the same lobbying pressure as some of other
> countries, luckily I have to say).

>
>> If they really wanted to reduce the risks from radio frequency radiation
>> they should ban masts not enforce hands free. That would be truly
>> precautionary.
>

> Well progress has to go on so taking measure to minimize risks is the
> right thing to do.
>

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 16, 2020, 10:40:55 AM12/16/20

to

On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 07:11:31 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> You are a braindead and stupid Troll.
> Same fake news as every day.

Hi Joerg Lorenz,

Thank you for (again) proving me 100% correct about Type III apologists
o That it is solely that apologists exist, who ruin this Apple newsgroup

Reference:
o iOS 12.5, by Chris
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/mv0FX1SZv-U>

Like all Type III apologists, Joerg Lorenz brazenly & instantly calls any &
all well-documented facts he simply doesn't like (& which he has no adult
defense to), trolls (&, in this case, "fake news" because he hates facts.)

This is a perfect example of why it's apologists, alone, who ruin this ng.
o They literally hate facts about Apple products. Lots (and lots) of them.

So they call all bearers of mere facts, "trolls".

Why?
o I don't know why.

I suspect they _hate_ Apple because the facts show Apple isn't what they
were fed to believe it was, which the facts prove beyond any doubt.

So they hate facts because facts aren't in their imaginary belief systems.

Just as often, these Type III apologists call all facts they simply don't
like "lies by liars", again, because they have no adult response to facts.

And yet, not a single fact ever comes out of these Type III apologists.
o Not even one.

More so, they can _never_ show my facts _ever_ to be materially wrong.
o It's like dealing with utter infants, these Type III apologists.
--
The apologists prove me 100% correct about them, every time they post.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 19, 2020, 1:35:26 PM12/19/20

to

Update:
More evidence that the problem with Apple newsgroups...
o Is simply that the apologists exist

o [NEWS] Apple's A14 Outperforms New Snapdragon 888 Chip Coming in Future Android Phones
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/cSnMO5NvOhs>

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:56:49 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> obviously because it's not anti-Apple

All you Type III Apple apologists think alike.
o You think anyone who tells the factual truth, must be anti-Apple.

It happens all the time that these Type III apologist's brains simply can't
fathom that people can speak the truth about _all_ operating systems.

Why?
o I don't know why.

I suspect these TYPE III apologists _only_ read MARKETING shills
o Such that they've _never_ seen nor contemplated actual facts about Apple.

There's an entire thread on these strange people who claim you can only
speak good things about Apple, and even more so, if you say the truth about
Apple, you must be "anti Apple" (even if you own plenty of Apple hardware):
o What to tell Apple Apologists who claim anyone who speaks facts is "down
on Apple" (i.e., they conflict with Apple Marketing)?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/z7HCl4tm71E>

The truth is I speak the truth about all operating systems I use, whether
that's Canonical's Ubuntu which they screwed up with Unity; or if it's
Windows 10 trying to force you to create a Microsoft Account, or if it's
Android where Google grabs your sqlite contacts database without even
giving you the opportunity to stop it (if you use the Google MUA).

Yet, these Type III apologists like Your Name are completely unused to
people who speak facts about all operating systems they use every day.

And then, these Type III apologists attack you (e.g., they attack Gordon
Moore simply for saying facts about Apple that they themselves don't like).

Why?
o I don't know why.

I suspect all these Type III apologists are cultists, who are so weak
minded that they allow MARKETING to set their definition of self worth.

For example, MARKETING tells 'em the camera quality of output is the best
o And yet, iPhones can barely break into the top 10 most of the time

Those are facts which, if you point them to the cites, they'll say that the
test reviewers were "bribed" (true story - from nospam himself), where any
outfit that doesn't put Apple in the top must be, by definition, bribed.

Can you believe what these Apologists actually believe?
o It's why I claim it's apologists who ruin this newsgroup for everyone.

Not the people who speak facts and who have _never_ been wrong on facts!
o Note: People obsess about "assessments" which are different from facts!

Did'ja ever wonder, for example, why TYPE III apologists always attack the
bearer of mere facts? I have. I believe that they have self identified with
Apple's MARKETING messaging (admittedly Apple's brilliant specialty).

So whenever Apple MARKETING messaging is show to be untrue, (e.g., battery
life claims, throttling excuses, hurdles in consumer repair, privacy leaks
galore, security leaps like you can't believe, they're so sophomoric,
etc.), these Type III apologists react with pure hateful vicious vitriol.

Why?
o I don't know why.

I suspect any truthful fact about Apple which conflicts with the MARKETING
messages Apple fed to these Type III apologists, is considered by these
TYPE III apologists as a direct attack against them (i.e., their self
worth).

Since they take all of their self worth from MARKETING, they themselves
can't fathom anyone else who actually looks at the facts, & not the BS.

--
One bug.... and the entire untested core iOS house of cards falls down.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/7Mc1sX9XISA>
Google asked "Was it really that easy?", to which the answer was "Yes".

Google proved iOS core code dating back to 1985 has _never_ been tested!

John Gardner

unread,

Dec 21, 2020, 3:13:31 AM12/21/20

to

Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> On 2020-12-09 1:00 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 20:44:02 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, "not needed"... My favorite quote from you!
>>
>> Hi badgolferman,
>>
>> Thank God people exist on this ng who are _not_ apologists.
>> o It's only, oh, roughly, you, Ant & JF Mezei as far as I can tell offhand.
>> (And this new "Matt" guy seems to also own adult comprehensive skills.)
>>
>> The reason for the Brazilian law on the charger is the "warranty" (AFAICT).
>>
>> o Apparently Apple _refuses_ to honor their iPhone 12 warranty
>> if you use an old charger (and if that charger damages the iPhone).
>
> Oh, look: more unsupported suppositions from the "man" who only speaks
> facts!
>

He has never ever made a mistake in the entire history of Usenet, go read
the “written record”

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 21, 2020, 6:59:42 AM12/21/20

to

On 21 Dec 2020 08:13:29 GMT, John Gardner wrote:

> He has never ever made a mistake in the entire history of Usenet, go read

> the ´written record¡

Hi John Gardner,

Now the question comes up, a very interesting one at that, is _why_.
o Why do the apologists hate facts about Apple so much they deny them outright?

Why?
o I don't know why.

I just know they do.

I suspect you're following up on "Alan Baker", who, well, who is so
fantastically stupid that he's a classic first quadrant far to the left
Dunning Kruger personality.

The reason my facts are never materially wrong, even after decades of
posting scores of posts on Usenet (many with tutorials and most on Apple
telling the truth about Apple products and MARKETING decisions), aren't
because I went to the finest schools in this country.

Nor are my facts always materially correct because I was successful in
Silicon Valley startups for decades, John Gardner.

Nope.
o The reason is simply that I back up all the facts I claim, with cites.

You don't survive in grad school or in a Silicon Valley startup, John
Gardner, by being wrong and by owning wholly imaginary belief systems.

The problem with _all_ the apologists, John Gardner, is that they literally
own completely imaginary belief systems, very strongly held, and yet, based
on exactly _zero_ (0) facts.

It's that simple, John Gardner.
o Every fact I claim is a fact which I back up with cites.

Since the apologists have no adult defense to facts, what these apologists
try to do is attack the assessments of facts.

They don't even realize an assessment is _different_ from a fact.

Here's an example of a fact:

FACT:
Every wrapped-up iOS release since iOS 10 (i.e., 11, 12, & 13) added
throttling to _more_ iPhones (in each iOS release!).

That's a fact nobody but the apologists could or would ever deny.
o Even Apple doesn't deny that fact, John Gardner.

Now what happens is the apologists _hate_ these facts.
o In fact, they hate them so much, nospam even _denied_ this fact.

What fact does nospam use to deny that the iPhone X has throttling
software? He has none. He simply brazenly denies facts he hates.

That's what's wrong with this newsgroup.

Worse, they can't be civil about "assessments" of those facts.

Here is a sample of an assessment of the fact that every iOS release (which
wrapped up) from iOS 10 to iOS 13 added more iPhones to throttling
software:

ASSESSMENET: Apple is on track to be adding throttling in iOS 14.

Notice the difference between a fact and an assessment of that fact, John?
a. Fact: Throttling was added in iOS 10, 11, 12, and 13
b. Assessment: There's no reason to believe throttling won't be added in 14.

In summary, there are only a small handful of _adults_ on this Apple
newsgroup, as the vast majority of posters (e.g., Jolly Roger, Lewis, Joerg
Lorenz, Chris, sms, Alan Browne, Alan Baker, Tim Streater, Hawk, etc.) are
apologists.

Now the question comes up, a very interesting one at that, is _why_.
o Why do the apologists hate facts about Apple so much they deny them outright?

Why?
o I don't know why.

I just know they do.
--
And that's what's wrong with this newsgroup - the apologists simply exist.

badgolferman

unread,

Dec 21, 2020, 8:18:07 AM12/21/20

to

Arlen Holder wrote:

>Now the question comes up, a very interesting one at that, is why.

>o Why do the apologists hate facts about Apple so much they deny them
>outright?

https://www.simplybible.com/f75c-pques-pilates-question-what-is-truth.htm

--
"The Bible tells us to love our neighbors and also to love our enemies;
probably because generally they are the same people." ~ G. K. Chesterton

unread,

Dec 21, 2020, 10:41:26 PM12/21/20

to

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 17:17:47 -0500, nospam wrote:

>>> How do you explain away the fact Apple paid the criminal fine for the
>>> express crime of intentionally purposefully shortening the life of iPhones?
>>
>> That is a lie. A deliberate false statement.
>
> not only is it a lie, but his automated script is broken, replying to
> the wrong person.

Adults will note the apologists have only 7 responses to fact they hate
o None of which are _adult_ responses

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

Often, apologists simply brazenly deny all facts they simply don't like
o Much like flat earthers when it comes to obvious facts everyone else sees

Thank you Alan Baker (I presume) and nospam for proving me right about you
o What's wrong with Apple newsgroups, is simply that you apologists exist

You brazenly deny Apple paid the criminal fine they publicly admitted to:
o Apple forced to publish on its web site an admission of criminal guilt
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ>

What's wrong with this Apple newsgroup is that you apologists brazenly deny
even what Apple publicly admits to, & which Apple paid a criminal fine for.

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>

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

o I don't know why.

All I know is that these apologists deny all facts they simply don't like
o You call all facts about Apple you don't like to be "lies by liars".

Alan Baker in the past made his _own_ personal transcription of the French
law, a transcript that he hilariously just fabricated out of nothing.

Why are you apologists so _desperate_ to deny simple facts about Apple?

o I don't know why.

All I know is that the problem with the Apple newsgroups, clearly...
o Is that you apologists exist.

o Type I (nospam)
o Type II (sms, Alan Browne, Savageduck, Chris, et al.)
o Type III (Alan Baker, Lewis, Jolly Roger, Joerg Lorenz, Snit, et al.)

Snit

unread,

Dec 22, 2020, 4:27:15 AM12/22/20

to

Amazing how clearly pissed you are I showed things easy to do on iOS that
you could not do with Android. Love it.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

badgolferman

unread,

Dec 22, 2020, 8:57:25 AM12/22/20

to

Arlen Holder wrote:

>I bring TRUTH to the otherwise fact free Apple newsgroups,

>badgolferman. o Nobody has ever found my facts ever to be materially
>wrong, badgolferman.

You asked a rhetorical question of why people don't agree with you.
The point of the link I posted was to say many people consider the
truth to be relative. Your truth may not align with other people's
truth, or in other words how the facts are interpreted. We have seen
that in very clear terms over this past election cycle.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 22, 2020, 2:04:02 PM12/22/20

to

On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:57:22 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> You asked a rhetorical question of why people don't agree with you.

Hi badgolferman,

To clarify, I never even once ever in my life have asked what you just
"assumed" I asked; so please let's both just forget you said that, because
I would _never_ ask what you apparently (incorrectly) "assumed" I asked.

I simply ask, rhetorically, why apologists can't process basic obvious
facts that any "normal" adult has no problems comprehending as facts.

Note I _know_ that apologists can't process basic obvious well-cited simple
facts; I just ask _why_ they themselves can't comprehend those simple
facts.

That's a completely different question than what you "assumed" I asked.
o Adults never disagree on facts (facts are funny that way).

Apologists do disagree on facts - which is proof they're just not adults.
o It's really that simple, badgolferman.

The only time people disagree on facts is when they have an agenda
o For example, nospam will disagree on any fact he simple doesn't like.

But a normal person would never disagree with facts, e.g., the fact that
Apple paid a criminal fine for the criminal offense. Only apologists
disagree with that fact - which is evidence of why I claim that it's the
apologists who ruin this newsgroup. Not those speaking facts.

I must admit that there's almost nobody on this newsgroup at my
intellectual level, so I hope you can understand the wisdom I impart below.

Actually, I consider the apologists very strange people, much like flat
earthers and the Dunning Kruger Quadrant 1 bank robber are strange people.

These very strange apologists are almost always wrong...
o Simply because they exhibit no adult comprehensive abilities toward facts

The apologists, as you well know, will _never_ agree on basic facts:

o Type I apologists (nospam) will defend Apple MARKETING to the death
(e.g., nospam _still_ claims iPhone X phones do not have throttling s/w)

NOTE: Of all the apologists, only nospam _comprehends_ the facts;
he simply doesn't care about his credibility as he will _always_
defend any and all Apple MARKETING decisions to the death.

o Type II apologists never seem to be able to doublecheck their facts
(e.g., Alan Browne actually _believes_ the missing functionality is
expressly so that Apple can be "green"; and Steve Scharf still believes
Qualcomm royalties went down!).

NOTE: Type II apologists aren't malicious per se; they're just not
very good with facts. I presume _none_ of them could possibly attain
engineering or science degrees such as I have, simply because people
like Steve Scharf, Alan Browne, Savageduck, Chris, et al., are completely
bamboozled the instant the facts _start_ to begin to approach complexity.

o Type III apologists are a completely different offshoot of strange
people, where the closest characterization I can find is of the far to
the left of Quadrant 1 Dunning Kruger bank robber. They own an IQ that
is arguably roughly half of average (e.g., Jolly Roger, Lewis, Joerg
Lorenz, and, of course, Snit & Alan Baker, et al.) for sure.

These people literally attain their entire self worth from Apple
MARKETING mantra, such that they are like a Jim Jones' cult, in that
they imbibe everything Apple MARKETING can feed them to believe.

Yet, they're shockingly stupid, as when Joerg told us flatly that
he doesn't believe anything in the BBC - he only believes what he
can find in the German media, or when Alan Baker insisted that I
was "lying" when I told him the User-Agent header was spoofed or
when Snit posted that video proving he's an utter idiot because he
claimed in over 200 posts that he found an app in the App Store
that graphed signal strength over time, or when Jolly Roger and
Lewis both claimed Apple told us clearly they were secretly
throttling iPhones, etc.

In the case of Joerg, even the other apologists told him the BBC
was correct; in the case of Alan Baker, he apparently _still_ believes
the User-Agent header cannot possibly be spoofed; in the case of Snit,
he never even once looked at the Y axis of the app whose virtues he
extolled; in the case of Lewis & Jolly Roger, it didn't occur to them
that Apple paid millions to settle the criminal case in the USA that
they secretly modified the release notes well _after_ the fact!

> The point of the link I posted was to say many people consider the
> truth to be relative.

It's going to be difficult to get it into your head that facts are not
relative. Assessments of facts are relative - but facts are not.

As you well know, I have higher degrees in very difficult subjects, where
some facts (e.g., quantum mechanics) will drive you nuts trying to
understand them, but people agree on facts when facts are shown to be
facts.

That's because facts are funny that way.
o As an example of facts, think about quantum entanglement.

It's really difficult to wrap our heads around "spooky action at a
distance", but it is a fact that very few scientists will disagree on.

Why?
o Because it _is_ a fact, that's why.

Likewise, with the result of Young's double-slit experiment
o <https://www.thescienceloop.com/2020/10/what-is-youngs-double-slit-experiment.html>

Nobody disagrees with the facts.
o They simply try to make sense out of the facts.

So people "can" disagree with the "assessment" of those facts
o e.g., is light a particle or a wave or both at the same time, etc.

My point about apologists ruining this newsgroup is that they would
disagree with the _fact_ of the results of Young's double-slit experiment.

They brazenly deny that fact, without even bothering to run the experiment.
o They're not normal people, badgolferman.

Which is why I claim they, alone, are who ruin this newsgroup for adults.

> Your truth may not align with other people's
> truth, or in other words how the facts are interpreted.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong badgolferman. Wrong.
o You need to comprehend what a "fact" is, badgolferman.

I can tell you do not have a science or engineering degree, badgolferman.
o Because you can't figure out what a fact is.

NOBODY disagrees on facts.
o Whether or not they _like_ the fact - nobody disagrees on facts.

Take the fact that black holes exist, badgolferman.
o It's a fact, right?

Nobody (who is an adult) disagrees with the fact that black holes exist.
o But apologists do disagree with facts.

In fact, apologists disagree with any fact that they _hate_ about Apple!

In essence, apologists disagree that black holes exist.
o Lord help us if we tried to explain Hawking Radiation to the apologists.

You do not seem to be well educated in the factual fields badgolerman.
o I repeat emphatically, no adult ever disagrees on facts.

Facts are funny that way.

You don't have to like the fact that Gravitational Waves exist
o But the fact is a fact whether or not you happen to _like_ that fact.

On these child-like Apple newsgroups, only apologists disagree on facts.

Why?
o I don't know why.

I suspect they _hate_ facts about Apple so they disagree with all facts
about Apple they simply do not like - which - helps them maintain their
completely imaginary belief systems intact... much like a child ignores the
fact that Santa Claus doesn't really exist - he's just a figment of the
MARKETING mantra surrounding Christmas.

> We have seen that in very clear terms over this past election cycle.

While I can wax eloquently on topics from electrical engineering to the
immunologic response to the cytokine storm, rest assured I can discuss
politics with you far better than most people you've ever known in your
life, badgolferman... however....

The infantile politics of most people on this newsgroup is such that it
wouldn't be worth my while to discuss that, so I will ignore your point on
politics (as I have strong opinions which are based on actual facts).

Rest assured, your "assumption" of what I claimed is dead wrong in that
"Truth" is the correct assessment of "fact", where, on this child like
Apple newsgroup, nobody can get past any fact that the apologists don't
like.

1. Steve Scharf will still insist that Qualcomm royalties went down
(despite the fact that the royalties went up 113%)
2. Snit will still insist that his app graphed decibels over time
(despite the fact that it showed megabits per second over time).
3. nospam will still insist that the iPhone X doesn't have throttling s/w
(despite the fact that Apple added throttling s/w on October 31st 2019)
4. Jolly Roger will still insist Apple told us about the secret throttling
(despite the fact Apple paid two criminal fines for not telling us)
etc.

There are precious few adults on this Apple newsgroup, badgolferman
o And even fewer who can process facts with adult cognitive skills.

That is why I claim, with plenty of evidence, that it is the shockingly
ignorant strange apologists themselves who ruin these Apple newsgroups.

Not the extremely well educated people whose facts have never even once in
the history of this newsgroup ever been shown to be wrong (simply because I
don't claim a fact unless it _is_ a fact, and I almost always, if not
always, provide the cite to the fact).

And yet, the apologists brazenly deny any and all facts they simply don't
like, which is further evidence that it is the apologists alone, who ruin
this newsgroup.

badgolferman

unread,

Dec 22, 2020, 6:08:57 PM12/22/20

to

Well, you may be right about all that. But also consider that facts often
change due to more research, and that’s the essence of the scientific
process. And sometimes different sets of facts contradict either which
leads to opposing sides both being correct.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 23, 2020, 9:23:13 AM12/23/20

to

On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 23:08:51 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Well, you may be right about all that.

Hi badgolferman,

You do not need to quote the entire post you know. :)
"One of the cardinal rules boiled down to this: snip your messages.
That meant that if you were quoting other people you cut the quoted
message to just the part to which you were responding."
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/communications-on-the-internet-goes-full-circle/>

The problem with the child-like Apple newsgroups, is apologists exist.

Prove me wrong on these suppositions, badgolferman.
o Type I apologists fabricate _anything_ to support MARKETING.
o Type II apologists never seem to comprehend detailed subject matter.
o Type III apologists are cultists who deny facts sans even reading them.

Prove _those_ three premises wrong badgolferman.
o Or accept them as proven.

> But also consider that facts often
> change due to more research, and that's the essence of the scientific
> process.

Badgolferman,

That's a platitude.

Worthless to someone like me who has written peer-reviewed papers
badgolferman. It's banal utterly useless bromide given you know I have
higher degrees in extremely complex technical subjects, badgolferman.

I know how to process facts, badgolferman.
o My point of this thread is simply proof that the apologists can't.

BTW, given the triteness of your "advice", I conjecture I may even have
more education, per se, than all the apologists combined, badgolferman - so
please cut it with the banal adage that "facts can change".

Of course facts improve over time.
o That's what facts do, badgolferman.

Why do you think I often add "yet another time" to threads proving Apple
has never even once ever sufficiently tested iOS for bugs, badgolferman?

I've said _many_ times that my belief system is based on facts, and, if and
when those facts change, I change my belief system on a dime, badgolferman.

The problem on this newsgroup, IMHO, badgolferman, is that the apologists
outnumber the adults, where the apologists have no adult response to facts:
o Type I (nospam) deny any fact that doesn't fit with MARKETING messaging
o Type II (Alan Browne) simply can't comprehend any topic of complex fact
o Type III (Alan Baker) are literally dunning kruger quadrant 1 cultists

Given my facts have _never_ been materially wrong (where you know that the
apologists would _love_ to catch me in a fib, and yet, they can't), and
given their facts are almost always wrong, lends credence to my supposition
that the apologists, alone, are what ruin this newsgroup for the adults.

> And sometimes different sets of facts contradict either which
> leads to opposing sides both being correct.

Stop it with the trivial generalities, badgolferman.
o Tell us something we don't know, please.

My point, which I will prove until the end of time with facts is simple.
o The sole reason quality of this ng is crap is that the apologists exist.

Prove me wrong on that suppositions, badgolferman.
o Type I apologists fabricate _anything_ to support MARKETING.
o Type II apologists never seem to comprehend detailed subject matter.
o Type III apologists are cultists who deny facts sans even reading them.

Prove _those_ three premises wrong badgolferman.
o Or accept them as proven.

Your choice where I _welcome_ if you could prove me wrong.
--
The problem with the child-like Apple newsgroups, is apologists exist.

badgolferman

unread,

Dec 23, 2020, 10:50:39 AM12/23/20

to

Arlen Holder <arlen_...@newmachines.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 23:08:51 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>
>> Well, you may be right about all that.
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> You do not need to quote the entire post you know. :)
> "One of the cardinal rules boiled down to this: snip your messages.
> That meant that if you were quoting other people you cut the quoted
> message to just the part to which you were responding."
> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/communications-on-the-internet-goes-full-circle/>

Trying to snip on a mobile device is hard. But maybe what you had to say
needed to be said again!

Not sure anyone could prove you wrong even if they were right...

But I’m not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong, merely providing a
possible explanation of why others do.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 23, 2020, 4:26:11 PM12/23/20

to

On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:50:34 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Not sure anyone could prove you wrong even if they were right...

Hi badgolferman,

The key problem with this newsgroup is simply that the apologists exist:
o Type I (nospam) fabricate anything to defend Apple MARKETING to the death
o Type II (sms) simply don't have adult cognitive skills on complex facts
o Type III (Alan Baker) brazenly deny all facts they simply don't like

I am not playing your silly infantile games, badgolferman, so stop it.
o You don't seem to appear to understand in the least what a 'fact' is.

But nobody is as stupid as what you're saying makes you appear to be.
o Not even you.

If you can't tell the difference between a fact and an assessment of a
fact, then you have a lot more adult growing up to do, badgolferman.

A lot.

For example, this is a fact:
o Google said Apple couldn't possibly have tested iOS core code since 1985
(i.e., the core code where Google found the bug that brought the entire
iOS house of cards down as Google recently reported in gory detail).

None of the apologists like that fact, so they play infantile games around
that fact, but all their infantile games don't change the fact that Google
said what Google said and that I pointed to the cite where Google said it.

Here's another fact:
o The BBC reported Apple paid a criminal fine to the Paris prosecutor's
office and said Apple had to publish an admission of guilt which
had to stay for a month on the Apple French language web site.

None of the apologists like that fact, and, in fact, they denied that fact,
even as I cited _numerous_ reports stating the same thing the BBC said, in
addition to the cite to the Apple admission of guilt (in French).

For you to play infantile coy games that these are not facts is
disingenuous, and so patently childish that it's unbecoming of you to play
such kindergarten games with me simply because you can't comprehend a fact.
o Stop it.

> But I not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong, merely providing a

> possible explanation of why others do.

badgolferman,

You're so wrong that it's so trivial to prove you wrong... that it's kind
of sad to have to do so - because you're dead wrong on so many obvious
levels.

You've never found any fact by me to be materially wrong, and you (likely)
never will, simply because I don't say something is a fact unless it is a
fact (and I almost always provide the cite to the fact unless I've already
provided it a hundred and fifty times already and it still didn't sink into
your skull yet).

For example, you know nospam claimed the iPhone X did not get throttling
software months after it certainly did (nospam's claim was in the January
time frame when the throttling software was added the prior October 31st).

Don't blame me, badgolferman, because nospam is a Type I apologist.

For example, you find the apologists disagreeing with any and all facts
they simply don't like, e.g., Steve Scharf _still_ claims Qualcomm
royalties went down.

Don't blame me, badgolferman, because Steve Scharf is a Type II apologist.
o Blame sms for believing that Qualcomm royalties went down when they went up.

You know Alan Baker called me a liar when I told him the User Agent of
NewsTap is spoofed, and yet Alan Baker repeatedly called me a liar because
_he_, Alan Baker, couldn't comprehend that the headers are easily spoofed.

Don't blame me, badgolferman, because Alan Baker is a Type III apologist.

In summary, the apologists are who ruin this newsgroup because they're all
unfathomably immune to facts.

--
One bug.... and the entire untested core iOS house of cards falls down.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/7Mc1sX9XISA>
Google asked "Was it really that easy?", to which the answer was "Yes".
Google proved iOS core code dating back to 1985 has _never_ been tested!

And that's the _second_ time Google proved core iOS code was never tested!
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/nbxvoDgiGT4>

Alan Baker

unread,

Dec 23, 2020, 4:46:27 PM12/23/20

to

On 2020-12-23 1:26 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:50:34 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>
>> Not sure anyone could prove you wrong even if they were right...
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> The key problem with this newsgroup is simply that the apologists exist:
> o Type I (nospam) fabricate anything to defend Apple MARKETING to the death
> o Type II (sms) simply don't have adult cognitive skills on complex facts
> o Type III (Alan Baker) brazenly deny all facts they simply don't like
>
> I am not playing your silly infantile games, badgolferman, so stop it.
> o You don't seem to appear to understand in the least what a 'fact' is.
>
> But nobody is as stupid as what you're saying makes you appear to be.
> o Not even you.
>
> If you can't tell the difference between a fact and an assessment of a
> fact, then you have a lot more adult growing up to do, badgolferman.
>
> A lot.
>
> For example, this is a fact:
> o Google said Apple couldn't possibly have tested iOS core code since 1985
> (i.e., the core code where Google found the bug that brought the entire
> iOS house of cards down as Google recently reported in gory detail).

Google did not say that.

>
> None of the apologists like that fact, so they play infantile games around
> that fact, but all their infantile games don't change the fact that Google
> said what Google said and that I pointed to the cite where Google said it.
>
> Here's another fact:
> o The BBC reported Apple paid a criminal fine to the Paris prosecutor's
> office and said Apple had to publish an admission of guilt which
> had to stay for a month on the Apple French language web site.

The BBC did not report that.

>
> None of the apologists like that fact, and, in fact, they denied that fact,
> even as I cited _numerous_ reports stating the same thing the BBC said, in
> addition to the cite to the Apple admission of guilt (in French).

There was no such admission of guilt.

>
> For you to play infantile coy games that these are not facts is
> disingenuous, and so patently childish that it's unbecoming of you to play
> such kindergarten games with me simply because you can't comprehend a fact.
> o Stop it.
>
>> But I▌ not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong, merely providing a
>> possible explanation of why others do.
>
> badgolferman,
>
> You're so wrong that it's so trivial to prove you wrong... that it's kind
> of sad to have to do so - because you're dead wrong on so many obvious
> levels.
>
> You've never found any fact by me to be materially wrong, and you (likely)
> never will, simply because I don't say something is a fact unless it is a
> fact (and I almost always provide the cite to the fact unless I've already
> provided it a hundred and fifty times already and it still didn't sink into
> your skull yet).

Like you saying that a note referring to Apple's privacy policy was in
fact pointing to itself?

>
> For example, you know nospam claimed the iPhone X did not get throttling
> software months after it certainly did (nospam's claim was in the January
> time frame when the throttling software was added the prior October 31st).
>
> Don't blame me, badgolferman, because nospam is a Type I apologist.
>
> For example, you find the apologists disagreeing with any and all facts
> they simply don't like, e.g., Steve Scharf _still_ claims Qualcomm
> royalties went down.
>
> Don't blame me, badgolferman, because Steve Scharf is a Type II apologist.
> o Blame sms for believing that Qualcomm royalties went down when they went up.
>
> You know Alan Baker called me a liar when I told him the User Agent of
> NewsTap is spoofed, and yet Alan Baker repeatedly called me a liar because
> _he_, Alan Baker, couldn't comprehend that the headers are easily spoofed.

Nope. That's the lie.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 23, 2020, 7:14:18 PM12/23/20

to

On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:32:57 -0800, RocketSurgeon wrote:

> No they didn't! I hate you making up stories! They are all open right
> now. I am typing from there now.

Thank you for the evidence that the key problem on the child-like Apple
newsgroups is simply that the apologists exist.

The apologists brazenly deny all facts they simply don't like.
o Without ever even _clicking_ on the cites which back up the stated facts.

And, worse, the apologists simply fabricate their claims, sans a single
cite, where all this "RocketSurgeon" troll has to do is provide the phone
number or store location of this Apple store he claims is in California
which is open at this moment, and I'll call them myself.

Notice how this RocetSurgeon is a perfect example of what's wrong with the
always child-like Apple newsgroups.

Apple apologists hate facts about Apple, much like flat earthers hate facts
about the spherical nature of the earth, such that they simply deny all
facts which don't fit into their imaginary belief system.

This is yet more evidence that what's wrong with the child-like Apple ngs
o Is simply the fact that these apologists exist

Alan Baker

unread,

Dec 23, 2020, 7:21:13 PM12/23/20

to

On 2020-12-23 4:14 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:32:57 -0800, RocketSurgeon wrote:
>
>> No they didn't! I hate you making up stories! They are all open right
>> now. I am typing from there now.
>
> Thank you for the evidence that the key problem on the child-like Apple
> newsgroups is simply that the apologists exist.
>

<https://www.google.com/search?tbs=lf:1,lf_ui:4&tbm=lcl&q=california+apple+stores&rflfq=1&num=10&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjay52Tq-XtAhUGpp4KHZ5uAbMQjGp6BAgDEDg&biw=1376&bih=909#rlfi=hd:;si:;mv:[[38.9515761,-116.7272585],[32.418555999999995,-123.055499]];tbs:lrf:!1m4!1u3!2m2!3m1!1e1!2m1!1e3!3sIAE,lf:1,lf_ui:4>

All closed.

'All retail locations in California have a notice letting customers know
that the stores are temporarily closed, though some are allowing for
order pickups and genius bar appointments through December 22. There's
no word on when the stores will reopen, but they will remain closed
through the holidays.'

<https://www.macrumors.com/2020/12/20/nearly-100-apple-stores-now-closed/>

'I checked Apple’s complete list of stores to confirm, and sure enough:
every California store, all four in Tennessee, all three in Utah, all
four in Minnesota, two in Oklahoma, and the stores in Portland, Oregon;
Anchorage, Alaska; Omaha, Nebraska; and Albuquerque, New Mexico are all
closed this upcoming week — as well as the 16 additional stores in the
UK, Mexico and Brazil starting tomorrow, December 20th.'

<https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/19/22190895/apple-close-retails-stores-covid-19-london-california-pandemic>

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 23, 2020, 7:48:53 PM12/23/20

to

On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:14:17 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> This is yet more evidence that what's wrong with the child-like Apple ngs
> o Is simply the fact that these apologists exist

For the few adults who may be on these child-like Apple newsgroups...

I forgot to note which thread that evidence arose from, where it was here:
o Apple Temporarily Closes All California Stores as Virus Cases Rise
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/W2sRrpzCor4>

1. Notice that's a PSA informing people that Apple closed CA stores
2. It's _verbatim_ and yet, an apologist _still_ brazenly denied the facts
3. Worse, and very importantly, the apologist _fabricated_ openings
(It's critical to realize he fabricated what simply does not exist.)
4. And, as usual, the apologist didn't provide a single cite of backup
5. Which, since I'm an adult, is a cite that I'd click on and comprehend
(as I did from the non apologist who had also responded with good info)
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/W2sRrpzCor4/m/4Y03yyCEBQAJ>

In summary, this is evidence that the apologists hate facts about Apple...
o Such that they deny the facts they simply hate about Apple...
(without even clicking on the links containing the facts about Apple)

Worse... they fabricate what they _wish_ Apple would have done
o And yet, they can provide zero proof that Apple has done what they wish

Here's the verbatim quote from the apologist who doesn't like the facts:
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/W2sRrpzCor4/m/QIxN-APsBQAJ>

"No they didn't! I hate you making up stories!
They are all open right now.
I am typing from there now.

The real problem with the Apple newsgroups is simply that
mission posters/trolls exist. "

This is further clear evidence that the reason the Apple newsgroups are
filled to the brim with these childish brazen denials of fact are simply
that the apologists exist.

--
One bug.... and the entire untested core iOS house of cards falls down.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/7Mc1sX9XISA>
Google asked "Was it really that easy?", to which the answer was "Yes".

Google proved iOS core code dating back to 1985 has _never_ been tested!

<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/nbxvoDgiGT4>

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 25, 2020, 11:49:40 AM12/25/20

to

On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 14:04:19 -0800, RocketSurgeon wrote:

> Humor and irony impaired are ya'?! (Rhetorical question.)

The problem is deeper than that on these child-like Apple newsgroups
o Since we've run controlled tests with the adult OS newsgroups

Another proof that Apple apologists are not like normal people is the fact
o You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base

You just can't.

I mean who but an idiot would allow the company to remove functionality
o Just so that they can buy it back?

Given Apple R&D spends the lowest in all of high tech, bar none, it's not
products that make Apple so ungodly profitable - it's the sheer gullibility
of its clearly and obviously infantile customer base.

You just can't pull the stunts Apple pulls all the time on an intelligent
consumer, RocketSurgeon.

You just can't.

What's interesting, is that you, "RocketSurgeon", is that it would be
humorous if the apologists also were always "just joking".

But they're actually serious when they prove to be what they prove to be:
o Type I (nospam) excuse & defend Apple MARKETING decisions to the death
o Type II (Alan Browne) gullibly believe everything from Apple MARKETING
o Type III (Alan Baker) cultists attach self-worth with Apple MARKETING

The apologists are a shockingly representative set of the Apple consumer.
o Ignorant beyond human belief.

I, alone, could possibly have more formal education than all the
apologists, combined, where it doesn't appear any _could_ have graduated
from even a two-year baby college, let alone the finest graduate
institutions in this country.

The Apple apologists are all that incredibly shockingly stupid.
o Type I (nospam) _still_ don't know a decibel from a megabit
o Type II (sms) still can't figure out Qualcomm royalties went up
o Type III (Alan Baker) can't even fathom a User-Agent can be spoofed

Who on earth is _that_ shockingly stupid, RocketSurgeon, than apologists?
o I've never personally run into anyone as shockingly stupid as they are.

> The real problem with the Apple newsgroups is simply that mission

> posters/trolls exist. And lack of restraint among a few posters.

The evidence is rampant that the key problem causing Apple newsgroups to be
so shockingly childish is simply that apologists exist.

For example, I've run numerous tests of the adult OS newsgroups, where I
ask the _exact_ question (changing only the operating system) of both the
adult OS newsgroups (i.e., Windows, Linux, and Android) versus the childish
newsgroups (i.e., iOS & Mac).

The difference in responses was utterly _astounding_.
o On the adult OS newsgroups, the responses were technical & helpul.
o On the child-like Apple newsgroups, the responses were all infantile.

In summary, there is no better proof that the reason the Apple newsgroups
are infantile is simply that the infantile apologists exist (given the
exact same questions asked of the adult OS newsgroups were productive).

o Type I (nospam) fabricate anything to defend Apple MARKETING decisions
o Type II (Alan Browne) simply don't own adult cognitive skills on facts
o Type III (Alan Baker) cultist deny facts without even clicking on cites

In summary, the Apple consumer is shockingly stupid, but on this newsgroup,
the three types of Apple apologists encompass the three types of Apple
consumer.

You just can't make those ungodly profits with almost no R&D and never
having made a best in class product in its entire history, and yet, people,
shockingly so, sans a shred of evidence, "believe" what MARKETING feeds
them to believe.

The brilliant one here is Apple MARKETING who knows their infantile
customer perfectly, and feeds that shockingly ignorant customer everything
their infantile brains want to hear.
--
You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 26, 2020, 9:24:28 PM12/26/20

to

On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 09:29:41 +1300, malone wrote:

> I'm not too sure why all these methods are necessary - for me drag and
> drop using a USB lead is far the simplest.

Hi malone,

That's kind of like saying you're not sure why they make anything other
than Converse sneakers, if all you ever use are Converse sneakers.

It's like saying you're not sure why they make both bicycles and motorcycles,
if all you ever need is a bicycle.

It's like saying why people bother making canoes and rowboats,
if all you've ever needed is a canoe.

My point is that it's _obvious_ why all these methods exist.
o Each has inherent advantages & disadvantages over the others.

Choice is good.
o Only on Apple products is choice considered a "very bad thing".

> But, on a related matter - many years ago I bought one of the early
> Apple iPads. I was extremely disappointed to discover I was unable to
> drag and drop (I think it might have been possible for photos, but that
> was about all).

Remember always that nobody in high tech spends _less_ than Apple on R&D:
o Does it surprise you Apple is all MARKETING & very low R&D expenditures?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/STrAkx09VYk>

The trick with Apple products is to _ignore_ Apple MARKETING bullshit.
o Following Apple MARKETING solutions will only keep you inside the prison.

I own _plenty_ of Apple products, including multiple iPods & iPads, malone.
o The trick to get iPods & iPads to do what you want is to use your brain.

For example, my iPads are turned into read _and_ write USB sticks
o Simply by connecting them via USB to a native Ubuntu 18.04 release

I wrote _many_ tutorials on how to read & _write_ to the iOS filesystem
o That anyone who can't do what I do simply isn't reading this newsgroup

o Easily turn an iOS device into a read/write USB stick - for free - in a few minutes
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/GkGHMGnvKkY>

o How to read/write access iOS file systems on Ubuntu/Windows over USB cable
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/IFC52JXBQ1c>

o How to easily archive your iOS device and/or how to use your iOS device as a free USB stick (read & write)?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/5hE4byjF930>

o An elegant solution to managing digital files on ANY iOS, Android, Windows, or Linux device SIMULTANEOUSLY over USB using zero additional software (other than the native OS)
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware/c/H6T7KqzR_ww>

o Simultaneously slide Windows Linux iOS Android files back and forth over USB at 7GB per minute speeds using 100% native devices (no proprietary software needed)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/K0NZ0nb1pWw>

> It appeared that it was necessary to use Apple's
> iTunes(?) software which was quite user-hostile and that still wouldn't
> work for some file types.

Hi malone,

There's a reason I say intelligent people do not follow Apple MARKETING
o If you follow Apple MARKETING, you get _less_ functionality & safety

Apple removes functionality so that you are locked into using their tools:
o Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/WjeGznahZwc/m/ZFLY6U8uEQAJ>

Apple even claims it's "courageous" of them to remove basic functionality
o Just so that you have to buy back that basic functionality Apple removed!

Meanwhile, over 99.5% of all Android phones have this basic functionality:
o Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of Android phones lack headphone jack basic hardware functionality
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/ZjnD2kAf-mI>

Apple even removes basic accessories so that you have to buy them back:
o A Brazilian consumer protection agency declared the "charger in the box" to be an "essential" component.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/vJlfXaBaSFQ>

Notice that Apple essentially told Brazil nobody has a warranty unless
they purchase back the Apple charger Apple _removed_ from the iPhone 12 box!

For the stone age functionality it has, Apple _restricts_ what you can do:
o Why does Apple severely restrict what the user can do to set up their homescreen the way they want it to be?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/udNmZK1FdLY>

For example, iTunes literally _reduces_ your available functionality:
o Is there any functionality the iTunes abomination does, for a dual-boot Win/Ubuntu PC that can't be done, better, WITHOUT iTunes?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/F-gWC05h1xQ>

And, installing the iTunes abomination _reduces_ your privacy & security:
o A zero-day vulnerability in iCloud and iTunes on Windows PCs allowed hackers to install ransomware undetected.
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware/c/hftPQAEZr_g>

There's nothing the iTunes abomination does you can't do better without it:
o What functionality does iTunes do for you that you'll need to replicate without iTunes?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/v2jT-sWIKR0/gA45WfO6AAAJ>

Despite nospam insisting how "necessary" iTunes is, you're better off without it:
o Apple iTunes and iCloud for Windows 0-Day Exploited in Ransomware Attacks
<https://thehackernews.com/2019/10/apple-bonjour-ransomware.html>

Even Apple deprecated iTunes' hideous Windows Quicktime & iTunes bloatware:
o The rise and fall of iTunes, Apple's most hated app
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/3/18650571/apple-itunes-rip-discontinued-macos-10-15-ipod-store-digital-music-wwdc-2019>

I stopped using the iTunes abomination in the heyday of the iPod, malone:
o Where can you find the OLD versions of SharePod freeware [any version prior to version 3.9.4]?
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware/c/urk_6-GQM2M>

You're far better off _without_ the iTunes abomination, than with it:
o How to access iOS media library on Linux or Windows WITHOUT iTunes?
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware/c/jQlXf5Rlreo>

Nobody intelligent would stoop so low as to use iTunes on a Windows PC.
o As I said, all iTunes does is _reduce_ your available functionality.

Apple has never even once created a best in class product in its history.
o Which Apple CPUs, bootroms, & SEP secure enclave coprocessors do NOT already have well-known unpatchable fatal design flaws?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6WKS9KpSyJA>

What Apple is best in class in, is MARKETING! (They're utterly brilliant!)
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/wW-fu0jsvAU>

Which is why even Apple admits they don't own a single dominant market:
o Direct public quote from Sr. Apple exec: "Apple does NOT have a dominant position in ANY market"
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/WQpGuZnzp2c>

Apple knows _exactly_ how to play their gullible customer like a fiddle.
o You can't make those ungodly profits off an intelligent consumer base.

> So, I moved to an Android tablet and never looked back. I can drag and
> drop any file I want to and from my pc. That to me seemed to me a huge
> advantage of Android over Apple.

There's a lot more than a filesystem access stuck in the stone age, malone.
o The iOS ecosystem is stuck in the stone age of smartphone functionality

I can name a score of modern functionality on even five year old Android
devices that the most expensive iPhones today can't possibly do.
o Is there any software functionality in the new iPhone 11 that isn't
already in an average 5-year old Android phone?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/1D2Sgdlz1-I>

Meanwhile, nobody has ever found _anything_ on iOS not already on Android:
o What functionality you do on iOS you wish you could do on Android?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/poG62SEefqk>

One of the reasons I own Apple products is I test them for my family
o The less technically inclined _love_ being imprisoned by Apple.

And that's ok for them.

> Although I'm not currently planning to buy an Apple mobile product I'm
> interested to know whether their more recent operating systems allow
> native drag and drop for all files or whether one still needs to use
> extra software?

Suffice to say Apple's ungodly profits are off their gullible customer.
o If you want any sort of functionality, then Apple isn't the way to go.

Bear in mind Apple touts imaginary functionality all the time
o As do the Apple apologists like nospam & Alan Baker

o Why do Apple Apologists constantly brazenly fabricate what turns out to be wholly imaginary Apple functionality?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/SZfblCIRc9s>

Apple apologists like nospam will send you on sadistic wild-goose chases:
o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users on wild goose chases?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I>

In fact, just as this newsgroup sees me taking steps for removing the trolls
like "micky" and "T" and "Bob F", because of how sadistic they are, one of
the reasons I decided to bring FACT to the child like Apple newsgroups was
these same sadistic despicable wholly unprepossessing apologists like nospam
sent _me_ on a series of wild-goose chases when I tried, in the early days,
to get iOS to do what Android does by its very nature.

The three types of Apple apologists you'll run into are:
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.)

They only have 7 responses to fact, none of which are adult, as proved here:

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

o Type I (nospam) defend any & all Apple MARKETING choices to the very death!
o Type II (sms) naively believe everything MARKETING feeds them sans doublechecking facts
o Type III (Alan Baker) are cultists whose very identity is what MARKETING feeds them
(hence they react to facts with hateful vitriol because facts about
Apple are literally an extreme psychological danger to their self worth)
--
Note that every thread referenced above has numerous factual cites easily verified
on the net; but the apologists will deny those factual cites sans even _clicking_
on them because Apologists _hate_ what Apple is; they prefer only to believe in what
Apple "says" it is (not what Apple actually does). I do not bullshit.
Every fact I claim is backed up by the references.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 27, 2020, 1:00:34 PM12/27/20

to

On 27 Dec 2020 17:29:30 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Oh, I don't know... It seems to be working on *you*.
> The rest of us wish you'd just stop.

This is good advice, as it's the apologist who ruin this newsgroup.
o The less the apologists post, the more adult this newsgroup will become.

All the apologists are out of their league with me for different reasons:
o Type I (nospam) can't compete with facts (his credibility is worthless)
o Type II (sms) can't process facts (he still thinks royalties went down)
o Type III (Jolly Roger) realize they utterly lack adult cognitive skills

Despite Jolly Roger being incredibly stupid (if he has a high school GED,
I'd be shocked), at least he understands that he's completely out of his
league with a normally intelligent person such as I assess myself to be.

While all the Type III apologists prove to be shockingly stupid, only Alan
Baker doesn't yet realize how stupid he really is, such that he actually
thinks the mere fact he calls all facts "lies by liars", is believed.

Even Lewis, another unfathomably stupid Type III apologist realizes he's
compoletely outside his league when dealing with any person of even normal
adult comprehension.

Of the Type III apologists, it seems only Alan Baker, and, perhaps the
other moron Joerg Lorenz, don't have the IQ necessary to realize they're so
out of their league with even someone of normal intelligence, that what
Jolly Roger suggests Alan Baker do, is actually good advice.

All the apologists are out of their league with me for different reasons:
o Type I (nospam) can't compete with facts (his credibility is worthless)
o Type II (sms) can't process facts (he still thinks royalties went down)
o Type III (Jolly Roger) realize they utterly lack adult cognitive skills
--
Bringing truth to the child-like Apple newsgroups via application of fact.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 29, 2020, 7:19:32 PM12/29/20

to

To see CLEAR EVIDENCE that the problem on Apple newsgroups is apologists
o Just look at these two threads, with the EXACT same opening post

Notice that the Android users act like adults:
o Best freeware for portable encrypted file containers
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/cas1QJ_j2uI/>

Notice the apologists act like children (fabricating imaginary functionality):
o Best freeware for portable encrypted file containers
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/8GGgFKaW-70/>
--
Someone needs to break the news the problem is that apologists exist.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Dec 30, 2020, 3:22:39 PM12/30/20

to

On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 11:04:47 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Exclusive: Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained -
>
> that claim was debunked.

Regarding how apologists reacted to the fact the iCloud is _NOT_ encrypted:
o Can we list all the ways we've been successful copying Android files &
folders to/from Mac/Windows/Linux desktops & to/from other iOS/Android
mobile devices
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/xulTadhcpb4>

Even Apple admits openly they scan your uploaded files, nospam.
o Which, if you read the cite, you'd know, nospam, and I know you know this

All you Apple apologists simply deny facts without even _reading_ them.
o You apologists deny the facts simply because you don't _like_ them.

It doesn't matter to you apologists that I pointed to a thread replete
with facts, which, in the case of nospam, he actually _knows_ exists.

The apologists simply assume nobody clicks on the cites
o So they deny the reams of known facts (which Apple admitted themselves)

Paul & I pointed to known published facts - but apologists simply deny facts
o Without ever pointing to facts to back up their utterly baseless denials

I'm actually surprised nospam didn't point us to Apple MARKETING bullshit
o As glossy MARKETING brochures are the _only_ things apologists believe

The only difference between the three types of apologists is:
o Type I (nospam) will defend Apple MARKETING brochures to the very death
o Type II (sms) are simply people who believe everything MARKETING says
o Type III (Alan Baker) are the cultists whose very self worth is
(brilliantly) provided to them by Apple MARKETING (oddly enough).

Each type of apologist handles facts differently as their motives differ:
o Type I simply defend Apple MARKETING mantra at all costs no matter what
(That means they will use any means available to them to defend Apple.)

o Type II aren't malicious people; they're just typical gullible people.
(Once they're shown a fact, they almost always "just disappear".)

o Type III are the strange Jim Jones' cultists. They are about as
astonishingly resistant to facts as flat earthers are, in that they're
like religious zealots who "truly believe" in whatever Apple
"says it does"; yet they're astonishingly immune to what Apple
"actually does").

Each type therefore gives you different "references" for their beliefs:
o Type I will actually give you a real reference, since their goal is
to defend Apple MARKETING at all costs. So their game is to blame
Google or Microsoft for Apple's decisions, or to deflect the blame
by saying that Google or Microsoft are worse, or to deflect the blame
by claiming the FBI made them do it (or didn't make them do it, as it
doesn't matter as long as they can deflect people away from Apple).

o Type II will stop their absurd claims the instant you prove them wrong,
which makes them the least persistent since they're otherwise normal
adults (e.g., Steve Scharf is the mayor of Cupertino so he's not
ill educated and yet he loudly claimed Qualcomm royalties went down,
until he was proven wrong - and then he just shut up & went quiet.

o Type III will never stop their absurd claims, as they don't even _read_
the cites, since you can hand them a cite and they'll deny that cite
even existed in the very post that they're responding to. This is so
prevalent that it literally happens with _every_ single denial of theirs.
Alan Baker, for example, will deny a cite existed even if that cite
existed in the very denial of fact that Alan Baker is denying.

Each type of apologist has a completely different adult cognitive IQ:
o Type I, paradoxically, actually are the smartest of the 3 types.
(The best way to not only understand Type I apologists like nospam,
and even to predict their responses years in advance, is simply to
assume, as a thought experiment, that they 3work for Apple MARKETING,
and then ask yourself "How would Apple MARKETING deflect the blame?".)

The point is that Type I apologists like nospam don't care whether what
they claim is correct or if it's not correct, so long as it deflects the
focus of the blame _away_ from Apple.

o Type II, are simply people who tend to believe whatever any MARKETING
organization touts, e.g., if Apple claims to have gotten a "good deal"
when they surrendered to Qualcomm, Steve Scharf will simply _assume_
(without ever checking the facts) that this means the Qualcomm royalties
went down (even as they actually went up 113% on average).

Alan Browne, another Type II apologist, when told by Apple that they
removed the headphone jack (due to Apple's "courage") and they removed
the charger in the box (due to Apple's intense desire to be "green"),
simply _believe_ that MARKETING bullshit - without ever even bothering
to question why over 99.5% of Android phones have a headphone jack, and
without bothering to question why Apple destroys perfectly good iPhones
and why Apple makes iPhones difficult to repair on purpose, and why Apple
openly admitted in a criminal case which they paid a criminal fine for
that the reason they throttle iPhones is to _shorten_ their lifespan,
(where Apple paid another _criminal_ settlement in the USA for when they
purposefully changed the release notes well _after_ the fact).

The Type II apologist is simply unable to process facts at the level
that someone at, oh say, a scientist or engineer level, can process them.

o Type III apologists are completely different than the other types in
that they're inherently of such a low IQ that their arguments are always
that of a small child.

For example, Alan Baker's best argument is to simply deny that facts were
ever cited, but he will also play the game that nospam plays which is to
deny all facts he simply doesn't like - without ever supplying any cite
(save for a picture of an Apple MARKETING glossy brochure).

These Type III apologist, petrifyingly so, actually _believe_ what they
claim; hence nobody of any normal intelligence can communicate with them
because it's shocking that people _that_ incredibly stupid can actually
exist. For example, I estimate Alan Baker's IQ to be no greater than
about 40 or 50 - where I just don't have the tools to deal with people
that shockingly stupid.

But rest assured, lots of people are shockingly stupid (e.g., Rudy Wieser
for example); but that alone doesn't make them a Type III apologist.

What makes Alan Baker a Type III apologist is he actually _believes_ that
Apple is his messiah, his savior, his all and one God whom he reveres,
where he, much in the way of a religious fanatic, believes Apple can do
no wrong.

Well-known examples of facts these apologists deny:
o Type I: You just saw nospam deny that Apple scans iCloud content even as
Apple themselves already admitted they scan uploaded content.

o Type II: Steve Scharf actually believes total cost of ownership for Apple
iPhones is less than that of Android even in the face of all the facts
showing otherwise (where, for example, the mere California Sales Tax on
his beloved iPhone is more than I paid, in total, for my far more
functional Android phone, as just one example), where it's completely
lost on Steve that something like "sales tax" (and plenty of other
calculations such as the ubiquitous availability of free apps like
the encryption apps which don't exist, for free on iOS, is all lost
since Apple MARKETING didn't include these facts in their bogus claims).

o Type III: Alan Baker not only actually claims all facts about Apple
that he simply doesn't like must be "lies by liars", but Alan Baker
will simply ask for cites even after you've handed him on a silver
platter scores of reliable cites. Alan Baker will simply claim the
cites you gave him didn't exist, and then Alan Baker will go right
back to claiming all facts about Apple he doesn't like are all
"lies by liars".

Trust me, I could go on and on as I've studied these peculiar people.
o None of them cares one whit about their utter lack of credibility.

My estimate at their credibility is simple (and accurate):
o Type I will be 100% wrong on facts detrimental to Apple, and yet, nospam
will be roughly around 80% correct on actual facts as long as those facts
have no detrimental impact to Apple MARKETING messaging.

o Type II will be about 50% to 75% accurate on facts, since they don't have
an ax to grind as the other two types have; they just believe the
bullshit, e.g., they're the type to believe Chevron gas is "better" than,
oh, say, Costco Tier I fuels, simply because Chevron advertises
only Chevron has "Techron"... while Costco simply says they have
the exact same chemicals and Tier I certification using the same stuff
in the same quantities (they're simply polyetheramines); but Type II
apologists say Chevron is "better" only because nobody but Chevron
can use the "brand name" of "Techron" for polyetheramines.

o Type III like Alan Baker will simply claim that only high test gas
is "good for your car" (even if your car was designed for the 87AKI
rated fuel) without ever even once comprehending what an "octane rating"
is, and worse, not only without comprehending that there isn't any
"octane" in automotive fuels to speak of (gas is mostly alkenes, with
some alkynes) but even more so, believing that the Apple branded octane
rating is the only good gas anyone can put in their engine.
but very few alkanes) and they'll point you to an Apple/Exxon commercial
"proving" it, where it shows a "tiger running across the road", and that,
in and of itself, proves to them that the Apple-branded gasoline has
"more power" (of course, because they used a tiger, stupid).

If you point these imbeciles like Alan Baker to your organic chemistry
textbook showing him exactly how the anti-knock index is calculated (it's
the average of the research and motor octane numbers in the USA), Alan
Baker will repeatedly scream that those aren't facts and even if they
were facts, they don't exist, and even if they do exist, they must be
"lies by liars" simply because he, himself, can't process facts at the
level of an actual cognitive adult.

See also this constantly updated thread (facts added almost weekly):

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

--
To be fair, none of the apologists, not even nospam, can process facts
at the level of an _intelligent_ adult, simply because they're never
actually interested in the facts; their goal is to defend Apple at all costs.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Jan 6, 2021, 3:38:48 PM1/6/21

to

Update.

Moments ago, a _perfect_ example of the fact it's the apologists
alone who turn these Apple newsgroups into a cesspool, just occurred..

Guess why?
o A space.

Yup.
o A space.

I spent hours writing & testing a summary tutorial on privacy based
browsers, and, in the process, deleted a single space.

A space.
o Yup. A space.

The Type III apologists screamed bloody murder.
o Over a space.

Yup. A space.
o They didn't even _read_ the tutorial (nor could they comprehend it).

What they screamed across three newsgroups was the deletion of a space.
o Yup. A space.

It's yet more evidence of the clear and obvious fact that what turns
the Apple newsgroups into the childish cesspool that it currently is,
is simply that these apologists exist.

Want proof of everything stated?
o See this thread today (reproduced below) for the perfect proof of my claim.

o What free, ad free, account free, free unlimited bandwidth VPN (aka proxy) browsers do you know of?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/Ptd7f_C4MbM>

*** cut here ***
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 08:57:48 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> On 2021-01-06 15:23:20 +0000, Arlen Holder said:
>
>> What free, ad free, account free, free unlimited bandwidth VPN (aka
>> proxy) browsers do you know of?
> <snip>
>
> And the asswipe know-nothing anti-Apple moronic little braindead troll
> changes his posting name yet again. :-\

Hehhehheh... Hey badgolferman,
o *Didn't I tell you "Your Name" would act like a child due to the fix!*

YourName is further evidence what turns these Apple newsgroups into the
childish cesspool that it currently is, is simply that apologists exist.
o <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/Ptd7f_C4MbM/m/ijpajX_iCQAJ>
"And the asswipe know-nothing anti-Apple moronic little braindead
troll changes his posting name yet again."

You have to admit I have these three types of apologists pegged so much
that I 100% correctly publicly predicted morons like "Your Name" would scream
if we fix the double spaces you asked me to fix in this post from you:
o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 12/2020, by badgolferman
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EP2upy3c2_o>

Where you asked me to remove an extraneous space:
o <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EP2upy3c2_o/m/pdjmjevdCQAJ>
"Yes, it appears to be fixed now. Thank you for taking the effort
to [remove the extraneous space]..."

I replied that I would fix it; but that the childish apologists would cry:
o <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EP2upy3c2_o/m/Mrrpkza2CQAJ>
"I'd be glad to _change_ the user name for you if you like.
But the one problem with that is all the morons will scream.
I've [removed a space], but expect the morons to scream."

This post by YourName is yet another proof that it's the apologists
alone who turn this Apple newsgroup into the childish cesspool it is.
1. I spent an hour compiling lots of links of useful value
2. I read a bunch of reviews, so that I would have accurate data
3. And yet, the Type III apologists complain about a single space!

There's no better obvious proof of how utterly worthless these worthless pieces
of shit are, than what Your Name just proved to everyone on this newsgroup!
o He's never in his life _ever_ contributed value to Usenet
Not even once!

And yet, the Type III apologist screams bloody murder when someone else
writes a damn good opening post which contains tons of useful value...
o Where I happened to have removed a single character at the express
request of badgolferman, who compiles newsgroup usage statistics.

You have to admit, I have these three types of apologists 100% pegged:
o Type I (nospam) will defend Apple to the death at all costs
o Type II (sms) believe MARKETING bullshit sans ever checking on facts
o Type III (Your Name) will complain like hell about deletion of a space!

Far be it for _any_ of the Apple apologists to comprehend the topic.
o Worse... it would be against all reason for them to _add_ an iota of value

All they _can_ do, like Rudy Wieser and the other worthless pieces of shit
who infest these newsgroups, is "complain about a deletion of a space".

Every apologist acts like a child when confronted with simple facts.
o Even when, in this case, badgolferman asked me to delete a space!
--
YourName is further evidence what turns the Apple newsgroups into the
childish cesspool that they currently are, is simply that apologists exist.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Jan 6, 2021, 7:32:20 PM1/6/21

to

Update.... and yet, there's more...
o That one space, which badgolferman requested, has thrown the Type III
apologists' life into utter turmoil - as I had 100% openly & publicly
predicted.

One space.
o And Type III apologists' entire lives are thrown into utter turmoil.

They're the reason this newsgroup is what it is.
o Not people who only speak facts.

Here's proof...

*** cut here ***
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:52:27 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> And yet again the asswipe changes his name simply to prove that he's
> nothing but a brainless troll. :-\
>
> Go find something useful to do, like jump off a cliff.

Hey badgolferman,

We need your help.

Would you do us a favor & explain to this Type III apologist moron
that there was _one_ change, & that was to remove a space, at your request.

This Type III apologist, Your Name, is going on and on and on about how
that one space has thrown his entire life into turmoil - just as I had
predicted he would do when you asked me to make that teeny tiny change.

Your Name didn't get it when I already explained to this utter moron Type
III apologist (who is just as dumb as is Alan Baker, Lewis, Joerg Lorenz &
Jolly Roger), so there's no way they're gonna get the "complexity" of the
fact we removed a space.

If you can explain it to them, I'd appreciate it, as whenever any of these
Type III apologists post, I literally become petrified for humanity since
nobody can be _that_ dumb...

And yet... they _are_ literally that stupid.
--
Your Name couldn't comprehend the original post, nor could it add value,
so what it does is wastes two posts (so far) complaining about a space.
o If that's not proof the problem is the apologists, nothing else will be.

Arlen Holder

unread,

Jan 14, 2021, 9:57:15 AM1/14/21

to

UPDATE:
o The problem with this newsgroup is simply that apologists exist

For example, look here for clear evidence from just this week:
o record from phone, by ZOT, Jan 13, 2021
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/EytlOnhwZew>

Note that Joerg Lorenz, a known TYPE III apologist, has been told (many
times, over long periods of time), recording laws vary by jurisdiction.

And yet, this Type III apologist insists the laws are the same everyone on
the planet, which is a _classic_ indicator of Type III apologists' beliefs.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:09:38 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> But ist is not even legal to record calls for any purpose.

The problem with people like Joerg Lorenz is that facts are anathema to
them, e.g., Joerg claims repeatedly the laws on recording voice calls
around the world are the same everywhere, which is yet more proof that
apologists like Joerg Lorenz own the belief systems of small children.
--
The problem with this newsgroup is simply that apologists exist.

Andreas Rutishauser

unread,

Jan 15, 2021, 2:59:44 AM1/15/21

to

In article <rtpm47$12kc$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Arlen Holder <arlen_...@newmachines.com> wrote:

> UPDATE:
> o The problem with this newsgroup is simply that apologists exist

which newsgroup? You are posting to 3 of them.

Peter Köhlmann

unread,

Jan 15, 2021, 6:14:30 AM1/15/21

to

Am 15.01.21 um 08:59 schrieb Andreas Rutishauser:

That idiot is posting in many groups. And in ALL of those it is pure,
unadultered bullshit