From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Update:

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

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

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


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

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

Nonetheless, the post we _both_ are referring to is, I think, here:
o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/LK9yTmciAQAJ>

Where you said, and I quote, verbatim:
"That you say "as can the news server" and "as can any of the headers"
(note: any) shows that you do *not* (fully) know what you're talking about."

The point is that any line that isn't _injected_ by the news server can be spoofed:
o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/puHKs3kqAQAJ>

Hi Frank,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the end, we were perhaps both correct in that we were ascribing
different meanings to the word "any", and where I'm man enough to admit
your interpretation of what I said is perhaps more correct than I had
loosely intended to say when I first made that comment years ago in a
casual Usenet post to which you responded (and we're still discussing):
o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/LK9yTmciAQAJ>
--
BTW, while I only briefly experimented with changing the PATH:, which, in
some cases, can be "modified" but not wholly controlled (AFAICT).
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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

Update:

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

:-)
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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

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

Hi Frank Slootweg,

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

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

This is, verbatim, what I said, which you know, Frank, but others don't:
"Hi Joerg Lorenz,
What's impressive is that you are so low on the DK scale that you don't
even seem to know enough about NNTP protocol to realize that these
meaningless headers can be changed on a whim, as can the news server, as
can any of the headers, including the time and date."

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

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

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

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

The _next_ related post was from Frank Slootweg, who accurately said:
o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/LK9yTmciAQAJ>
"That you say 'as can the news server' and 'as can any of the headers'
(note: any) shows that you do *not* (fully) know what you're talking about"

To which I responded by clarifying that I was scolding the moron apologists
o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/puHKs3kqAQAJ>
"Hi Frank Slootweg,
You're not a childish Apple Apologists like Joerg Lorenz and BK@OnRamp
are, so I'll look at your objections with more than just the energy it
takes to swat away an annoying brainless fly (which is all the effort I
expended on the Apple Apologists who never have any intention to be
helpful).

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

But I did clarify, in my response to Frank, exactly which headers I meant:
"Frank,
Do you think we can't change our news servers at will?
Do you think we can't change the date line?
Do you think we can't change the newsreader line?
Do you think we can't change the subject line?
Do you think we can't change the MIME encoding line?
DO you think we can't change the Message-ID line?
DO you think we can't change the Newsgroup line?
Do you think we can't change the Content-Transfer-Encoding line?
Which of those lines do you want me to change in my next post?"

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

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

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

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

Of the three types of apologists, it is a waste of effort to clarify the
"any" versus the "any one not injected by the newsreader" with Type III apologists; only the Type I apologist (nospam) can comprehend such facts.
--
Note: All the adults on the adult OS newsgroup can comprehend these facts.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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

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

Hi Frank,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, the Path header is the only other 'debatable' header.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. Headers not injected by the News server are under our full control:
e.g., from your own headers:
From: Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: iOS exclusive app
Date: 29 Nov 2020 12:08:49 GMT
Organization: NOYB
Message-ID: <rq06dg.reg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
References: <rpmpgb$9il$1@gioia.aioe.org>
X-stuff: (some NNTP servers seem to add their own X-stuff)
User-Agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-6.3-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2
--
Adults always agree on facts and accept rational reasonable logic.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2020-11-29 4:55 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

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

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

Hi Frank Slootweg,

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

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

This is, verbatim, what I said, which you know, Frank, but others don't:
"Hi Joerg Lorenz,
What's impressive is that you are so low on the DK scale that you don't
even seem to know enough about NNTP protocol to realize that these
meaningless headers can be changed on a whim, as can the news server, as
can any of the headers, including the time and date."

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

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

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

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

The _next_ related post was from Frank Slootweg, who accurately said:
o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/LK9yTmciAQAJ>
"That you say 'as can the news server' and 'as can any of the headers'
(note: any) shows that you do *not* (fully) know what you're talking about"

To which I responded by clarifying that I was scolding the moron apologists
o <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/sgzGVamjKU0/m/puHKs3kqAQAJ>
"Hi Frank Slootweg,
You're not a childish Apple Apologists like Joerg Lorenz and BK@OnRamp
are, so I'll look at your objections with more than just the energy it
takes to swat away an annoying brainless fly (which is all the effort I
expended on the Apple Apologists who never have any intention to be
helpful).

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

But I did clarify, in my response to Frank, exactly which headers I meant:
"Frank,
Do you think we can't change our news servers at will?
Do you think we can't change the date line?
Do you think we can't change the newsreader line?
Do you think we can't change the subject line?
Do you think we can't change the MIME encoding line?
DO you think we can't change the Message-ID line?
DO you think we can't change the Newsgroup line?
Do you think we can't change the Content-Transfer-Encoding line?
Which of those lines do you want me to change in my next post?"

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

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

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

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

Of the three types of apologists, it is a waste of effort to clarify the "any" versus the "any one not injected by the newsreader" with Type III apologists; only the Type I apologist (nospam) can comprehend such facts.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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

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

Well Arlen, I think you can rest easy tonight knowing the problem isn't
in your system. After opening the newsreader again your Author name
has corrected itself. See screenshot. https://ibb.co/sbMtTfY

Maybe it's the font I use or the encoding, but messages from you that
haven't been read have the extra spaces in your name, whereas messages
that have been read and the newsreader restarted show up properly. It
looks like my newsreader client has a minor bug although it only shows
up with your name. Maybe it's allergic to you or something.

In any case it doesn't bother me and the other features of the client
make up for it so it will remain the same. Just ignore the monthly statistics or know that I didn't read your messages which have the
extra spaces.

Hi badgolferman,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary, don't worry about it, as I'm not worried for me; I was simply worried that your scripts had a problem, which it turned out, they didn't.
--
See also:
o Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups -
is simply that apologists exist <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/mQsBECSbICw/m/lgI46TXtBwAJ>
Type I (nospam)
Type II (sms, Alan Browne, Chris, Savageduck, et al.)
Type III (Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et
al.)


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

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

Hi badgolferman,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In terms of your "newsgroup statistics" report, the same thing happened
when Alan Baker proclaimed I was using NewsTap, when he saw that in the header.
o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These apologists, particularly the Type I and Type III, are who ruin Apple newsgroups (IMHO), and I've posted plenty of factual evidence to back up
that assessment.
--
If the apologists simply didn't exist - Apple newsgroups would be civil.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113