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.)
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.
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 717 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 54:18:38 |
| Calls: | 9,191 |
| Calls today: | 12 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
185 files (75,632K bytes) |
| Messages: | 466,067 |
| Posted today: | 2 |