From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

UPDATE
More factual evidence it's the apologists who ruin this newsgroup

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>

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 00:32:54 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

I asked a question to get clarification on kernel access to the disk via
secure enclave when phone is asleep. Please explain why this is FUD.

Please restore the context you snipped where you made up shit starting
with "it's my understanding..."

Adults on this newsgroup will note, what appears to be obvious (to me).
o An iOS zero-click radio proximity exploit odyssey, by Ant [sic] <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/gJYr-XnRsr8>

1. Ant opened a thread informing people of the problem set
(which I, as usually, had previously informed folks, in gory detail)
o Yet again (it never ends) hackers exploit iOS insecurities with zero-day remote access to the entire device over Wi-Fi, with no user interaction required at all
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/7Mc1sX9XISA>

HINT: Unlike morons like Alan Baker, I do three things apologists can't:
(1) I _click_ on the links
(2) I read and more importantly, I _comprehend_ what they say
(3) Only then do I make my assessments

In contrast, apologists clearly deny _all_ facts about Apple they hate
o We've proved they can't even _find_ links in that which they refute!

2. Jolly Roger, Lewis, Joerg Lorenz, and I'm sure the moron Alan Baker
chimed in, as always, with brazen denials that a problem even exists.

All of them without ever even _clicking_ on the reports (let alone,
none of them _comprehended_ in the least what the Google blog said!).

They each, to a man, brazenly denied everything they _hate_ about Apple.

(All TYPE III apologists can only maintain imaginary belief systems by
brazenly denying all that they _hate_ about Apple, which is a lot!)

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/_X0pbr1ZBgAJ>

3. Then JF Mezei, who is not an apologist, asked a perfectly valid question:
o Why was it so easy?

The response by these TYPE III apologists to JF Mezei's perfectly valid question was a classic childish vitriolic hate-filled ad hominem attack.

It's always the same story:
a. Apple does something the apologists hate
b. Apologists brazenly deny all facts they hate about Apple products
c. If anyone asks an adult question, apologists attack the bearer of facts

This thread alone is proof posisitve it's the apologists who ruin this ng.
o Two or three posts out of more than a score are adult

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>
--
Apologists brazenly deny facts because they _hate_ what Apple actually is; (they vastly prefer Apple to be what MARKETING fed them to believe it was).
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Below is clear evidence of the types of civil discussions which "can"
happen on the Apple newsgroups, when the apologists are _not_ involved!

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

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Update regarding this recent thread today:
o Want a charger with your iPhone 12? Move to Brazil.
Want Earpods with your iPhone 12? Move to France.
by sms
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/qu_RTwBgsf8>


On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 14:40:47 -0000 (UTC), Matt wrote:

<>> What shocks me is the utter lack of adult comprehension on this ng.

<> Common sense is eluded for some when there are economic reasons.

Hi Matt,

Using my adult comprehensive skills, the topic, as I see it, is:
o Brazil === Apple apparently refuses to abide by basic warranty laws
o France === Apple isn't satisfying hands-free (out of the box) laws

Apologists are consistent in lacking adult comprehensive skills:
o Type I (nospam) always defend MARKETING decisions to the death.
o Type II (sms) don't seem to ever comprehend the details in the cites.
o Type III (Lewis) are DK Quadrant 1 - so sure in their utter ignorance.

Notice all three types of apologists prove me 100% correct in this thread!
1. nospam is desperate to deflect us from the warranty & hands-free laws.
2. Steve (again, sigh) didn't even _comprehend_ the very article he cited!
3. Lewis proved, as always, he's a cultist moron with an IQ of laughable.

Of the three, you have to understand their motives & what they believe:
a. nospam doesn't believe a word he says as his goal is to defend MARKETING
b. Steve actually believes what he said - because he doesn't check facts
c. Lewis is a lost cause - he self identifies with Apple - obtaining his
esteem from MARKETING, such that _any_ threat to Apple MARKETING's
decisions is a very threat to his own existence.

Notice you can _predict_ almost every response from these apologists:
A. nospam will deflect, blame, deny, etc., any fact inconvenient to Apple
His motive, strangely, is to defend Apple decisions to the death.

B. Steve will simply never get what any cite actually says
(Steve _still_ thinks Qualcomm royalties went down!).
His motive isn't malicious; he's just not used to dealing with facts.

C. Lewis considers Apple and himself indistinguishable, as Lewis derives
his very self esteem from Apple products and MARKETING messaging. Hence
any affront to Apple MARKETING mantra is a direct insult against his
own self esteem. This is why, I posit, these Type III apologists react
so viciously with their hateful vitriol against mere bearers of fact.

What ruins this newsgroup is that these apologists exist.
o Otherwise this would be a normal conversation on the merits of the facts.

The facts clearly are, to those with adult comprehensive skills anyway:
o Brazil === Apple apparently refuses to abide by basic warranty laws
o France === Apple isn't satisfying hands-free (out of the box) laws
--
Apple removes functionality so that you're always forced to buy it back.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On mer. 09 décembre 2020 (18:17) in "misc.phone.mobile.iphone",
Alan Baker wrote:

o France === Apple isn't satisfying hands-free (out of the box) laws

Speaker phone isn't hands-free now?

This french law[1] is not about providing hands-free phones but about
health concerns. Every manufacturers have to provide an accessory for
limiting the exposure of the head to radioelectric emissions during communications.

[1] <https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000030212642/>

PS. stopped massive crossposting w/o a clear FU2 and FU2 sets to
m.p.m.i.

--
Ashl3y dit: moi je suce que si le mec me baise après.
f0xy-dj1 dit: remarque s'il le fait pas il t'aura quand même bien baisé.
* bashfr.org
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:02:09 -0000 (UTC), Matt wrote:

This french law[1] is not about providing hands-free phones but about
health concerns. Every manufacturers have to provide an accessory for limiting the exposure of the head to radioelectric emissions during communications.

Hi Matt,

Wow. Another adult on this newsgroup!
o Someone actually capable of _adult_ comprehensive skills on an Apple ng!

*Thank you for being the _only_ one who understood the French requirement!*

I had based my responses of the requirement on the last line of sms' cite:
o Want a charger with your iPhone 12? Move to Brazil.
Want Earpods with your iPhone 12? Move to France.
<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>
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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".
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:39:37 -0600, joe wrote:

Interesting, the google translated version of the link has
"II �) Currently, there is no legal or regulatory obligation for manufacturers and distributors of mobile telephony terminals to equip
their devices with a �hands-free kit� or �headset�."

Where does your quote come from?

Hi "joe",

Thank you for your childish post because you proved my point for me
that the problem with this newsgroup is simply that you apologists exist.

You're a well known apologist, of the Alan Baker ilk, so it's not
surprising you didn't even _see_ the cites I laboriously provided.

Like Alan Baker, and all apologists, you're utterly unable to see links,
and when you do, you deny they exist, and when you can no longer deny they exist, you then claim they don't say what they actually do say.

And when you finally figure out they say what I said they said, then you
blame anyone but Apple for the facts being facts you simply don't like.

Thank you joe, for proving you're _exactly_ like Alan Baker & other apologists. o You're incredibly immune to facts that were clearly stated in plain view!

Simply because you _hate_ what Apple is... so you ignore what Apple does.

Your post is further proof that the problem with this newsgroup
is that you apologists exist.
--
Read what I posted which shows EXACTLY where the translation came from.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2020-12-09 3:39 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:39:37 -0600, joe wrote:

Interesting, the google translated version of the link has
"II °) Currently, there is no legal or regulatory obligation for
manufacturers and distributors of mobile telephony terminals to equip
their devices with a ´hands-free kit¡ or ´headset¡."

Where does your quote come from?

Hi "joe",

Thank you for your childish post because you proved my point for me
that the problem with this newsgroup is simply that you apologists exist.

How is it "childish" to ask for a source?
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Update... more evidence it's the apologists who ruin this newsgroup...

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.

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

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Here is more evidence of the problem on this newsgroup is apologists exist.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:59:28 -0000 (UTC), bje@ripco.com wrote:

Alan Baker flatly denied facts (sans even clicking on the links)...
1. Apple doesn't sell a $35 Lightning-to-3.5mm adapter cable. It's $9USD.

Not to start an argument but the adapter is $9, the cable (1.2m) is in fact $35.

Hi bje,

I saw your retraction which came after this post, but are you sure of that?

This is yet another example of apologists brazenly denying reliable cites:
o Review: Apple's "goofy looking" horribly expensive $550 AirPods don't
even have the most basic of functionality <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/REJLJ4fYTfU>

*Without ever even _clicking_ on the very cites they brazenly deny exist!*

I don't see any of Alan Baker's idiotic (always wrong) posts unless/until someone responds, where it's always these Type III apologists who can't
even click on links before they brazenly deny Apple does what Apple clearly does.

This was published 2 days ago, which seems to confirm a $35 "audio" cable:
o Apple releases $35 bi-directional Lightning to 3.5mm Audio Cable <https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/12/08/apple-releases-35-bi-directional-lightning-to-35mm-audio-cable>

"Apple has quietly added a Lightning to 3.5mm bi-directional audio
cable to its online Apple Store, a $35 accessory that can be used
with the just-launched AirPods Max"

It used to shock me how incredibly stupid (in different ways) apologists
are, but as always, it proves the problem with this newsgroup is simply
that the apologists exist (there are fewer than a half dozen adults).
o Type I (nospam) will defend MARKETING decisions to the death
o Type II (Alan Browne) never seem to be able to doublecheck facts
o Type III (Alan Baker) don't even _click_ on cites before denying them

"Surfacing in the online Apple Store on Tuesday and appearing as a
recommended item when ordering the AirPods Max, the Lightning to
3.5mm Audio Cable is a fairly straightforward product.

Measuring 1.2 meters (3.9 foot) in length, the cable has a 3.5mm
headphone jack on one end, and a Lightning connector on the other.

Apple advises it can be used to connect the AirPods Max and
Beats Solo Pro headphones to 3.5mm audio sources, which would enable the
personal audio accessories to work with hardware that doesn't offer
wireless connectivity.

It would also make the AirPods Max usable with the headphone jacks
supplied in modern airplane seats, an industry that doesn't like
passengers using wireless connectivity in general."
--
What's shocking is how apologists still brazenly deny all facts without comprehending them, and, it always turns out, without even _clicking_ on
the cites before they brazenly deny what those cites clearly state.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:36:42 -0000 (UTC), Matt wrote:

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

Then you should go out and see how many people are using headphones
(hint: a lot) ;)

Hi Matt,

Almost every Android phone ever made, and, in fact over 99.5% of them...
o Have the basic functionality of a headphone jack

Exactly for the reason Matt says, which is that it's _very_ useful indeed.
o How many of the existing Android phones lack headphone jack basic hardware functionality?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/ZjnD2kAf-mI>

Apple removed basic functionality so that people are forced to buy it back.

*Even the new $350 AirPods Max headphones lack this basic functionality:*
o Review: Apple's "goofy looking" horribly expensive $550 AirPods don't even have the most basic of functionality
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/REJLJ4fYTfU>

Apple removed basic functionality so that people are forced to buy it back.
o Apple releases $35 bi-directional Lightning to 3.5mm Audio Cable <https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/12/08/apple-releases-35-bi-directional-lightning-to-35mm-audio-cable>
--
You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:42:16 -0000 (UTC), Matt wrote:

Like when Timmy thinks his users are immature and should be kept in a
golden prison.

Hi Matt,

We did provide evidence, long ago, that Tim Cook says his customer is
stupid, particularly when he (correctly) predicted his (admittedly
brilliant) MARKETING org needed to find a way to make the iPhone "appear"
to be cheaper than it really was.

o Tim Cook just literally said his customer is unfathomably stupid! <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/oulJsYSmDDM>
--
You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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>
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 23:52:49 +0000, �nvalid 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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 15:21:53 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

If only everyone around here would heed that advice.

Hehhehheh...
o The trolls like Alan Browne hate me because they can't ever seem to add value.

And yet, the same question is asked of you, Alan Browne.
o How many tested tutorials have you written in your entire life?

HINT: I wrote more in just the last week than you have in your whole life.
o *You always prove to be an utterly worthless piece of shit, Alan Browne.*

o Tutorial to add a freeware killswitch which blocks software installations
from phoning home during or after the initial install process
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.msdos.batch/c/Tk8xlPZ-tKk>

o Tutorial to get batch command shortcuts working perfectly on Windows
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/1PzeGP4KMTU>

o Tutorial for creating easy (Win+R > Run) access to lookup files on Windows
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/5LxGOixwwWs/q8wVoJ3mBAAJ>

o Tutorial for installing KDEConnect freeware on Windows & Android
for seamless WiFi LAN bidirectional file encrypted copy
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/9S3j2XN1zDg>

o Tutorial creating & using Hirens Boot CD & MemTest86 diagnostic stress
testing tools for USB boot to Windows 10 PE & WinXPmini on BIOS & UEFI
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/VWG0NNyGNHc>

o Tutorial for creating a "god mode" Run command for Windows 7 & up
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/Dn2SYf9TtIU>

o Tutorial for creating cclip & killall clearing the Windows clipboard & killing users' tasks in one fell swoop
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/OOkNy010aEY>

o Tutorial for creating custom Windows icons from screenshots using only Irfanview freeware
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/xm6aHzaC-D8>

o Tutorial for creating custom Windows icons from screenshots using only Irfanview freeware
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/qeHbJySBp0M>

o Tutorial for how to watch any Youtube video without ever seeing an advertisement
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.comp.freeware/HPpxopbOrUY/_bSyk1E2BQAJ>

o Tutorial for installing ghostscript/ghostview/pstoedit to remove PDF copy
& password protection , downconvert, rotate pages, change paper sizes,
fix corruption, extract text, etc.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/O7l0utRdJYk>

o Tutorial for modifying icons inside common Windows system DLLs
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/lAJV8OZdZjg>

o Windows Tutorial to annotate & print family calendar at home on 8.5x11
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/RA3bLfsgtFg>

o Tutorial to print from Android to your home networked printer <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/nTAYljkvVl4>

o Tutorial for setting up Ubuntu as a Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL in Windows 10
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/rOT8xBWo9dk>

o Tutorial: How to run anything from Android on Windows for free
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/ix9empN-mxg/lq8ixnZwBAAJ>

o Tutorial: How to update a driver that Windows just doesn't want to update
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/a23fY9CM6rY>
etc.

How many tutorials have you ever written in your entire life, Alan?
o HINT: zero

Why not?
o You can't add value.
--
The trolls like Alan Browne hate me because they can't ever seem to add value. --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 13:11:27 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

That's the nature of all trolls. He, like all other trolls, should
always be killfiled, so you are not tempted to reply to them.

Hi Ken Blake,

Hehhehheh... it's always the same with you worthless pieces of shit...
o Simple adult question, for the permanent Usenet record to preserve.

You're a well known worthless piece of shit troll on Windows newsgroups.
o So it's not surprising you've started to infest the mobile device ngs.

This is a simple _adult_ question I ask of all you trolls, Ken Blake:
o *How many tutorials have you written & posted to these newsgroups*, Ken?

HINT: I know the answer and so does every _adult_ on this newsgroup.
o It's the same number of tutorials the rest of you trolls have written.

How many iOS/Android/Windows/Linux tutorials do you think I've written?
o HINT: I've written more in the last week than you in your entire life.

o Tutorial Installing Android Studio 4.1.1 on Windows 10 (AMD CPU) <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/g3ymz5CPsIk>

o Tutorial: How to easily change Android app shortcut icons & app names <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/3bu27OTTdGY>

o Tutorial: How to install & set up free ad-free GSF dependent AdClear <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/GouWPiwXuaw>

o Quick tutorial for creating Android homescreen shortcuts using custom icons
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/if4FD2NFEnk>

o Tutorial on how to delete all information on Google servers that was backed up from your Android phone
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/On7_okP39ms>

And that's just in the last week or so... on just one newsgroup.
o How many tutorials have you trolls ever written in your entire lives Ken?
--
There are only two types of people on Usenet: Worthless pieces of shit
trolls like Ken Blake, Alan Browne, et al. who have _never_ in their entire lives, ever purposefully helpfully added value; and those, like me, who do.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 14:27:21 -0500, nospam wrote:

A 68 IQ infant troll who is best ignored.

That high? Pretty generous.

it's easy to miss the decimal point.

I love that you always prove me 100% correct about each of the three types!
o Type I (nospam)
o Type II (Alan Browne)
o Type III (Lewis)

And you have absolutely no defense to facts...
o It's why you revert to "instant children" when confronted with facts.

What I love, is all three types of apologists prove me 100% correct:
o Type I (nospam) will always defend Apple MARKETING decisions to the death
o Type II (Alan Browne) are non-scientific people who don't check facts
o Type III (Lewis) are DK quadrant-1 (far left) cultist who identify with
Apple marketing mantra (i.e., their entire self worth === Apple messaging)

All of you are easily shown to be utterly _petrified_ by facts.
o You _hate_ facts.

You hate facts so much, you hate the mere bearer of facts.
o Because facts instantly DESTROY your entire imaginary belief systems.

You can't stand me... because you can't stand facts...
o Simply because you have absolutely no adult defense to facts.

Which is fine by me because the one thing none of you have ever done...
o Is show my facts to ever be materially wrong.

Fancy that.
o You hate what I tell you about Apple products because they're facts.

And you have absolutely no defense to facts...
o It's why you revert to "instant children" when confronted with 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".
HINT: iOS code dates to 1985 and Google proved it has never been tested.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 09:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Nothing has no risk. Everything you do has risk from the second you get out of bed. It's government's choice to take a balanced view and decide what
risk is acceptable and what needs to be reduced. Like smoking, car
pollution, electrical safety, etc. The problem with government is that they often go against scientific advice, are prone to lobbying and have
political biases. Just because there's a law doesn't mean it truly
represents the facts.

In California is, perhaps, a "parallel" to what is happening in France:
o With respect to laws that have no actual basis in sound scientific fact.

"[i]t is inherently misleading for a warning to state that a chemical
is known to the state of California to cause cancer based on the finding
of one organization [International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)]
. . . when apparently all other regulatory and governmental bodies have
found the opposite."

I generally stay out of politics here (mainly because most of it on Usenet
is infantile) but to the point of Chris above, California recently saw a
case where the state was forcing glyphosate manufacturers (e.g., "Roundup")
to label the container about a presumed cancer risk that Monsanto disputed.
o Court Bars CA Prop 65 Glyphosate Warning Requirement <https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-bars-ca-prop-65-glyphosate-warning-requirement>
o California Court Rules Against Prop 65 Warning Labels for Glyphosate <https://ehsdailyadvisor.blr.com/2020/07/california-court-rules-against-prop-65-warning-labels-for-glyphosate/>
o Federal Court Bars CA Prop 65 Glyphosate Warning Requirement <https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-bars-ca-prop-65-glyphosate-warning-requirement>
etc.

Doesn't France have similar "checks and balances" against laws you, Chris,
deem unworthy of being laws?

Nonetheless, this CA law seems "similar" in it's reputed overreach, to the French law that simply requires hands-free wired accessories, in the box.
o California Glyphosate Warning <https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/california-glyphosate-warning/>

As a related aside, I'm all for any law (Brazil & France to be commended)
that forces Apple to give back the basic functionality Apple removed from
the box (just so that Apple could then sell it back to you at your cost).
--
Then again, courts are fickle, as they let a glyphosate cancer case stand:
o Bayer's Request for Roundup Appeal Rejected by California Court <https://www.wsj.com/articles/bayers-request-for-roundup-appeal-rejected-by-california-court-11603388984>
o California Supreme Court Rejects Review in Roundup Case <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/health_law/section-news/2020/10/cal-sup/> --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Alan Baker <notonyourlife@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”

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 13:35:26 -0500, nospam wrote:

android device makers ignore it and suffer unexpected sudden shutdowns, including during boot time, where the device goes into an endless boot
loop. that's *bad*.

Hi nospam,

Stop it with the pure bullshit, will ya.
o Just stop it.

You couldn't last a week in the Silicon Valley they way you bullshit, nospam.
o Only on an Apple newsgroup could you even possibly survive.

Because most Apple owners are too ignorant to catch your bullshit.
o Nobody but Apple pulls these smartphone throttling stunts, nospam.

Nobody.

We get it that you'll fabricate any excuse in your defense of Apple.
o But your fabrications of bullshit in defense of Apple have got to stop.

Only the most childish of people would believe what you claim.
o No OEM other than Apple pulls these throttling stunts, nospam.

So stop bullshitting us, nospam.
o I'm sure the apologists (e.g., Lewis, Jolly Roger, et al.) love it.

But you spout pure bullshit with nary a single fact to back it up.
o Not even one.

Every time you pull this stunt (e.g., you blame Samsung for Apple's design flaws), I point out that nobody on this planet can find any OEM other than Apple who pulls these throttling stunts on a mobile device.
o Nobody.

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> --
The problem with Apple newsgroups is apologists fabricate all their claims.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Hi badgolferman,

I bring TRUTH to the otherwise fact free Apple newsgroups, badgolferman.
o Nobody has _ever_ found my facts ever to be materially wrong, badgolferman.

That's not because I went to the finest schools in this country,
badgolferman, nor because I excelled at startups in the Silicon Valley, badgolferman.

It's simply because I own adult cognitive skills, badgolferman.
o Apologists do not.

With respect to "what is truth", you have to realize how childlike the
people are on the Apple newsgroups.

For example, Steve Scharf _still_ believes that the Qualcomm royalties went down, and yet, the facts show they went up (appreciably).

As another example, nospam just claimed Android smartphone makers pull the stunt of throttling software added to almost the entire lineup of
smartphones, which is just pure bullshit.

Notice the difference, where both are bullshitting us:
1. Steve is a Type II apologist - he simply can't process difficult facts.
2. nospam is a Type I apologist - he'll bullshit forever to excuse MARKETING.

If we let these apologists like Alan Browne (a Type II apologist who can't process facts like an adult should be able to), then there will _never_ be truth in these Apple newsgroups, badgolferman.

Alan Browne, as you well know, actually _believes_ the Apple bullshit that removing basic functionality from the iPhone 12 box was to be "green", even
as nobody else on the planet believes that, simply because the evidence is overwhelmingly otherwise.

And yet, these Type II apologists like Steve and Alan Browne actually
believe the bullshit.

And don't even get me started on the Type III apologists, who are literally dunning kruger quadrant 1, far to the left, i.e., so stupid they can't even comprehend how stupid they really are.
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 real problem with the Apple newsgroups is simply that the apologists exist. --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 21 Dec 2020 19:48:42 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

You're full of shit, as usual. There is no "power circuit problem" other
than that old batteries can't deliver required power consistently.

Hi nospam,

The problem with Apple newsgroups is that you apologists exist.
o You blame everyone but Apple for decisions Apple already admitted to making!

How do you explain away the fact Apple paid the criminal fine for the
express crime of intentionally purposefully shortening the life of iPhones?

o Apple publicly admits the crime of intentionally lowering iPhone lifespan <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ>

Only Apple pulls these throttling stunts, nospam.
o Only Apple.
--
The real problem with Apple newsgroups is that apologists exist.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2020-12-21 2:04 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

On 21 Dec 2020 19:48:42 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

You're full of shit, as usual. There is no "power circuit problem" other
than that old batteries can't deliver required power consistently.

Hi nospam,

The problem with Apple newsgroups is that you apologists exist.
o You blame everyone but Apple for decisions Apple already admitted to making!

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <rrr6ii$ukb$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:

On 2020-12-21 2:04 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

On 21 Dec 2020 19:48:42 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

You're full of shit, as usual. There is no "power circuit problem" other >> than that old batteries can't deliver required power consistently.

Hi nospam,

The problem with Apple newsgroups is that you apologists exist.
o You blame everyone but Apple for decisions Apple already admitted to making!

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.)
--
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!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.
--
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!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@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!

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.

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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�m 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>
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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>
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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. --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <rtpm47$12kc$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> wrote:

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

which newsgroup? You are posting to 3 of them.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

Impeccable <a href="https://www.smaestimating.com/">construction estimating services</a> ! Their precision and expertise transformed our project, ensuring on-time completion and cost efficiency. Highly recommend for anyone seeking top-notch estimating solutions