Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What key trait distinguishes Apple Apologists from normal adults?
11 views
Skip to first unread message
arlen holder
Mar 19, 2019, 10:53:20 AM3/19/19
to
*What key trait distinguishes Apple Apologists from normal adults?*
FACT + LOGIC
FACT:
Here's what happens, IMHO, to most threads that say something factual about
Apple products that the apologists just don't like:
1. The fact is stated
2. The apologists deny that fact (without even _clicking_ on the cites!)
3. The fact is repeated (often with more cites)
4. The apologists deny those facts
5. The fact is repeated (ad infinitum)
6. The apologists deny those factgs (ad infinitum)
LOGIC:
I think I finally understand WHY apologists deny all facts out of hand.
I think apologists filibuster on the facts (ad infinitum) they don't like...
o So that the logical assessment of those facts will never proceed.
FACT:
Today, astoundingly, an Apple Apologists actually _agreed_ on public
obvious well known well cited reputable reports of fact.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/bZcxGt3lBQAJ>
LOGIC:
To me, that was just a "wow" moment for an apologist to accept a fact.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/QrgybfEABgAJ>
Why is the mere acceptance of fact a "wow" moment for an apologist?
o Mainly because apologists habitually deny all fact that they don't like
I think I know why.
Because, once adults agree on the obvious facts, only then can anyone
logically proceed to the much harder dialogue of how to logically assess
those obvious facts.
Apple marketing is VERY GOOD (one of the best on the planet!)
o Marketing is in the business of _creating_ imaginary belief systems
It's marketing's job to create imaginary belief systems in people's minds
o Where we've long ago proven the apologists own those imaginary beliefs
Notice that the apologists' imaginary belief system is not based on fact
o Hence, facts literally _threaten_ the apologists' imaginary belief system
Notice most threads on this newsgroup never get to the stage of adult
discourse simply because the apologists generally flatly and brazenly deny
all facts they don't like (even facts that Apple themselves publicly
reported, such as in the case of throttling software on the iPhone X).
Only _after_ adults agree on the obvious facts...
o Can _any_ discussion proceed to the stage of adult discourse
FACT + LOGIC
When I see someone like Alan Baker suddenly, and unexpectedly actually
agreeing on what, to normal adults, is obvious public fact, then I realize
WHY many threads on this newsgroup can never get to the stage of civil
adult discourse of the logical assessment of those public facts.
I was shocked that an apologist suddenly agreed on a public fact.
o Only _then_ can adults even _begin_ to assess the logical ramifications.
In summary, I think I finally understand WHY apologists deny all facts out
of hand.
I think apologists filibuster on the facts, so that the logical assessment
will never proceed.
FACT + LOGIC
FACT:
Here's what happens, IMHO, to most threads that say something factual about
Apple products that the apologists just don't like:
1. The fact is stated
2. The apologists deny that fact (without even _clicking_ on the cites!)
3. The fact is repeated (often with more cites)
4. The apologists deny those facts
5. The fact is repeated (ad infinitum)
6. The apologists deny those factgs (ad infinitum)
LOGIC:
I think I finally understand WHY apologists deny all facts out of hand.
I think apologists filibuster on the facts (ad infinitum) they don't like...
o So that the logical assessment of those facts will never proceed.
FACT:
Today, astoundingly, an Apple Apologists actually _agreed_ on public
obvious well known well cited reputable reports of fact.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/bZcxGt3lBQAJ>
LOGIC:
To me, that was just a "wow" moment for an apologist to accept a fact.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/QrgybfEABgAJ>
Why is the mere acceptance of fact a "wow" moment for an apologist?
o Mainly because apologists habitually deny all fact that they don't like
I think I know why.
Because, once adults agree on the obvious facts, only then can anyone
logically proceed to the much harder dialogue of how to logically assess
those obvious facts.
Apple marketing is VERY GOOD (one of the best on the planet!)
o Marketing is in the business of _creating_ imaginary belief systems
It's marketing's job to create imaginary belief systems in people's minds
o Where we've long ago proven the apologists own those imaginary beliefs
Notice that the apologists' imaginary belief system is not based on fact
o Hence, facts literally _threaten_ the apologists' imaginary belief system
Notice most threads on this newsgroup never get to the stage of adult
discourse simply because the apologists generally flatly and brazenly deny
all facts they don't like (even facts that Apple themselves publicly
reported, such as in the case of throttling software on the iPhone X).
Only _after_ adults agree on the obvious facts...
o Can _any_ discussion proceed to the stage of adult discourse
FACT + LOGIC
When I see someone like Alan Baker suddenly, and unexpectedly actually
agreeing on what, to normal adults, is obvious public fact, then I realize
WHY many threads on this newsgroup can never get to the stage of civil
adult discourse of the logical assessment of those public facts.
I was shocked that an apologist suddenly agreed on a public fact.
o Only _then_ can adults even _begin_ to assess the logical ramifications.
In summary, I think I finally understand WHY apologists deny all facts out
of hand.
I think apologists filibuster on the facts, so that the logical assessment
will never proceed.
arlen holder
Mar 20, 2019, 11:59:16 AM3/20/19
to
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:53:19 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
> FACT:
> Here's what happens, IMHO, to most threads that say something factual about
> Apple products that the apologists just don't like:
> 1. The fact is stated
> 2. The apologists deny that fact (without even _clicking_ on the cites!)
> 3. The fact is repeated (often with more cites)
> 4. The apologists deny those facts
> 5. The fact is repeated (ad infinitum)
> 6. The apologists deny those factgs (ad infinitum)
Apologists don't seem to realize these are different things, in series:
> FACT:
> Here's what happens, IMHO, to most threads that say something factual about
> Apple products that the apologists just don't like:
> 1. The fact is stated
> 2. The apologists deny that fact (without even _clicking_ on the cites!)
> 3. The fact is repeated (often with more cites)
> 4. The apologists deny those facts
> 5. The fact is repeated (ad infinitum)
> 6. The apologists deny those factgs (ad infinitum)
o FACT + LOGIC
Normally you have to treat apologists as children, because they don't
comprehend facts so they argue incessantly about facts that were never
wrong in the first place (and then they confuse facts with logic).
FACT and LOGIC are different things
o But not to apologists who can't distinguish between the two things.
This 16-post offshoot is a _classic_ example of this key apologists' trait!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/fKPqec6dAwAJ>
1st post: Facts posted by a "normal adult" (who distinguishes fact from logic):
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/WBHqbJrZBQAJ>
Response to facts: By an "apologist"
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/_5P3Mb_dBQAJ>
..Sixteen idiotic posts later arguing over facts known from the start...
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/py7D4C6dAwAJ>
And then, in the end, the apologist _still_ confuses fact from logic!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/vvRwl-6dAwAJ>
It's exasperating because these apologists are not like normal adults:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/-u7L3hmfAwAJ>
They spend all their time first disputing facts that were never wrong...
o And then the rest of the time confusing facts with the logical assessment
Apologists don't seem to realize these are different things, in series:
o FACT + LOGIC
0 new messages