Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #31682 > unrolled thread

Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities?

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-14 23:21 +0000
    Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-07-15 05:19 +0000
      Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 01:35 -0400
        Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-15 19:57 +0000
      Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? ElfinArc6 <eflinarc6@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:18 -0500
        Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-15 19:58 +0000
      Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-15 19:57 +0000
        Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? ElfinArc6 <eflinarc6@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:01 -0500
          Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-16 03:46 +0000
            Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-07-16 04:28 +0000
              Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-16 05:11 +0000
                Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 15:31 +0000
                  Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-19 00:17 +0000
                    Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-18 21:21 -0400
                      Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-19 02:39 +0000
                        Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-18 22:49 -0400
                    Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 02:18 +0000
                      Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-18 22:30 -0400
                      Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-19 04:42 +0000
                        Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-19 00:45 -0400
                          Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-19 05:07 +0000
                            Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-19 01:39 -0400
                              Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 18:34 +0200
                                Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-19 13:10 -0400
                                  Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 19:26 +0200
                                    Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-19 13:34 -0400
                                    Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-07-19 19:32 +0000
                                      Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-19 23:00 +0000
                                        Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-07-20 09:30 +0200
                                          Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-07-20 17:01 +0000
                                          Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-20 18:33 +0000
                                            Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-07-21 11:12 +0200
                                            Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-07-21 11:12 +0200
                                              Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-21 18:27 +0000
                                                Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-07-21 18:41 +0000
                                                  Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-21 21:43 +0000
                                                  Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-23 01:44 +0000
    Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-16 12:17 -0600
    Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-17 21:18 +0000
    Re: Why do Apple Apologists lie so much about iOS capabilities? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-25 06:49 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#32187

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:45:40 -0400, nospam wrote:

> that's a contradiction.
> 
> both clauses cannot be true.

Sure they can.
You just don't know basic math.

Let's say Android does 100 things that iOS can't do.
And, let's say iOS does 50 things that Android can't do.
And, let's say, both can do 1,000 things in common.

Simple math says Android does, overall, 1,100 things.
And, simple math says overall, iOS does 1,050 things.

In that case, Android does more things than does iOS, but iOS does some
things that Android doesn't do too.

Which is exactly what I said.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32196

In article <nmkcj1$284$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> 
> > that's a contradiction.
> > 
> > both clauses cannot be true.
> 
> Sure they can.

you snipped *again* to alter the context.


here's what you said:
In article <nmkb4j$kc$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> Yup. Android does more things than does iOS, but iOS does some things that
> Android doesn't do too.


if ios can do things that android cannot, then android is *not* a
superset which means it doesn't do more than ios. it means there's an
intersection in what they do.

> You just don't know basic math.

clearly i know much more than you do, and not just about math.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32244

On 07/19/2016 07:39 AM, nospam wrote:

>
>
> if ios can do things that android cannot, then android is *not* a
> superset which means it doesn't do more than ios. it means there's an
> intersection in what they do.
>

It depends if you both agree on what "does more" means.

A being a superset of B is just a special case of
Number of set A members  > number of set B members.

One of acceptable interpretation of "does more"
is comparing of number of set members
that are not members of the set intersection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32245

In article <nmlkq7$cg6$1@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
<poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:

> > if ios can do things that android cannot, then android is *not* a
> > superset which means it doesn't do more than ios. it means there's an
> > intersection in what they do.
> 
> It depends if you both agree on what "does more" means.

'does more' is not a matter of opinion. it can be measured.

> A being a superset of B is just a special case of
> Number of set A members  > number of set B members.
> 
> One of acceptable interpretation of "does more"
> is comparing of number of set members
> that are not members of the set intersection.

incorrect interpretations are never acceptable.

if there is just *one* item in set b that is not in set a, then set a
does not 'do more', but rather 'each set does some things that the
other cannot', i.e., an intersection.

for someone who wants that one particular item, it doesn't matter how
big the first set is. they need that one item and won't be able to do
what they need to do with a device belonging to the first set.

there's also way more than one item in set b. it also doesn't matter
because nobody uses every single feature so counting them is completely
pointless. however, every feature is used by *someone*.

what matters is whether a user can do the tasks they want to do in a
productive manner. for some people that's android and for others it's
ios.

like everything, there are advantages and disadvantages to each system.

claiming that android can do everything that ios can is flat out false.

this is particularly true with his crazy list, almost all of which is
totally wrong. *he* may not know how to do certain things on ios, but
that doesn't mean they're impossible. what's worse is that several
people have explained how and he still claims it's not possible.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32247

On 07/19/2016 07:10 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <nmlkq7$cg6$1@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
> <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> if ios can do things that android cannot, then android is *not* a
>>> superset which means it doesn't do more than ios. it means there's an
>>> intersection in what they do.
>>
>> It depends if you both agree on what "does more" means.
>
> 'does more' is not a matter of opinion. it can be measured.

'does more' is subject of definition agreement
what "does more" means in given context.

If the definition involves measuring, it can be measured.
If the definition involves enumeration, it can be enumerated.

Personally, I would be curious how you would measure feature list.

>> A being a superset of B is just a special case of
>> Number of set A members  > number of set B members.
>>
>> One of acceptable interpretation of "does more"
>> is comparing of number of set members
>> that are not members of the set intersection.
>
> incorrect interpretations are never acceptable.

Inconsistently used definitions are never acceptable.

>
> if there is just *one* item in set b that is not in set a, then set a
> does not 'do more', but rather 'each set does some things that the
> other cannot', i.e., an intersection.

Being superset is a sufficient, but not essential condition.

But any discussion of OS superiority
is just an incubation of a flamewar
without edible fruits.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32248

In article <nmlnrf$nt3$1@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
<poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> But any discussion of OS superiority
> is just an incubation of a flamewar
> without edible fruits.

that's the whole point.

pick the best tool for the job.

there is no 'best' or 'does everything'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32254

Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> But any discussion of OS superiority
> is just an incubation of a flamewar
> without edible fruits.

You are stating the obvious. This entire thread (and others like it) was
started as a pure troll.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32266

On 19 Jul 2016 19:32:45 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> You are stating the obvious. This entire thread (and others like it) was
> started as a pure troll.

You're actually wrong, but, the fact you can't see the value is something
that I would have predicted, now that I know more about how you think.

What I learned from this thread is that the average iOS user is probably a
*different* kind of thinker than is an average Android user, if we take,
say, you and Poutnik as average platform users.

Poutnik has helped me many times in the past, particularly on mapping
applications, and especially when I needed to plan an off-trail hike in
extremely rugged territory. Poutnik would use the best software for the
application.

You, on the other hand, have almost never helped anyone - and - in fact,
you constantly troll incessantly (your words are your own proof) with
negative thoughts about people without any regard for the topic of the
thread.

This thread, in particular, is written to better understand the psychology
of the iOS users who post here, and you are the *perfect* example because
you're so simple and easy to figure out.

a. You bought on image alone, so *anything* whatsoever that tarnishes the
image so carefully crafted by Apple Marketing is considered a dire threat
to you.

b. You are so afraid of being outside the herd that *anything* whatsoever
that goes against the Apple Mantra of being wholly ensconced within the
walled garden is considered an affront to you, and, more importantly,
another dire threat to your herd way of life.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32332

Am 20.07.2016 um 01:00 schrieb Aardvarks:

> This thread, in particular, is written to better understand the psychology
> of the iOS users who post here,

That's what you think.

Actually, this thread taught me *a lot* about the thinking of (at least 
some) people diagnosed with Asperger. So psychology being the topic here 
is not so wrong - it's just that you think you're the scientist while 
actually you're the subject of the investigation. :-) And what a nice 
one... :-)

Michael

P.S.: Just in case you'd like now to say that you Asperger diagnosis was 
all made up - in that case you definitively have a very serious mental 
problem and should seek appropriate help first thing in the morning!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32401

On 2016-07-20, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:
> Am 20.07.2016 um 01:00 schrieb Aardvarks:
>
>> This thread, in particular, is written to better understand the psychology
>> of the iOS users who post here,
>
> That's what you think.
>
> Actually, this thread taught me *a lot* about the thinking of (at least 
> some) people diagnosed with Asperger. So psychology being the topic here 
> is not so wrong - it's just that you think you're the scientist while 
> actually you're the subject of the investigation. :-) And what a nice 
> one... :-)

No shit. : )

> P.S.: Just in case you'd like now to say that you Asperger diagnosis was 
> all made up - in that case you definitively have a very serious mental 
> problem and should seek appropriate help first thing in the morning!

That would be comical! : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32415

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:30:29 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> you think you're the scientist while 
> actually you're the subject of the investigation

It's interesting how the Apple Apologists end each post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32480

Am 21.07.2016 um 11:12 schrieb Michael Eyd:
> Am 20.07.2016 um 20:33 schrieb Aardvarks:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:30:29 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>>
>>> you think you're the scientist while
>>> actually you're the subject of the investigation
>>
>> It's interesting how the Apple Apologists end each post.
>
> With a true one. :-)

That better read: With a true statement. :-)

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32481

Am 20.07.2016 um 20:33 schrieb Aardvarks:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:30:29 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> you think you're the scientist while
>> actually you're the subject of the investigation
>
> It's interesting how the Apple Apologists end each post.

With a true one. :-)

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32499

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:12:25 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

>> It's interesting how the Apple Apologists end each post.
> 
> With a true one. :-)

It doesn't appear you meant that as a compliment, so, I'm trying to figure
out why you end many posts with a simple insult.

While you're more complex than Jolly Roger, the Jamies, and Lewis, I can
still glean useful foresight about iOS users from your posts and from those
of nospam and others.

Thanks to Jolly Roger's simplicity, now that I finally *understand* why
some Apple posters act the way they do, I wouldn't call them "Apple
Apologists" anymore.

They're not apologizing for anything.
a. They're herd animals - so to them - it's scary outside the herd
b. They're style conscious - so to them - anything else is passé
c. They're simple minded - so to them - anything difficult is impossible

Given this newly acquired insight, I don't know where to fit their tendency
to always have the last word end with an insult.

I'm perfectly happy to allow you the last word.
And, I'm not at all negatively affected by the consistent and repeated
insults.

What I'm trying to figure out is *why* you feel you need to end very many
posts with an insult.

What is it about me or about the question or about iOS that makes you feel
that you need to end your posts with insults?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32500

On 2016-07-21, Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Jolly Roger's simplicity, now that I finally *understand*
> why some Apple posters act the way they do, I wouldn't call them
> "Apple Apologists" anymore.

You prove over and over you understand very little about much of
anything.

> They're not apologizing for anything.  a. They're herd animals - so to
> them - it's scary outside the herd

Liar. Many of us use all of the above platforms.

> b. They're style conscious - so to them - anything else is passé

Liar. Many of us choose functionality over form.

> c. They're simple minded - so to them - anything difficult is
> impossible

Liar. You've shown time and again here you fail to understand even the
most basic things often claiming things that are possible are
"impossible on iOS", even after people have explained to you they are
possible.

You are really good at one thing: making yourself look like the
humongous fool you are. Troll on, loser.

> Given this newly acquired insight, I don't know where to fit their
> tendency to always have the last word end with an insult.

Then your "insight" isn't worth very much, indeed.

> What is it about me or about the question or about iOS that makes you
> feel that you need to end your posts with insults?

Two words: Your trolling.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32523

On 21 Jul 2016 18:41:06 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> You are really good at one thing: making yourself look like the
> humongous fool you are.

:)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32619

On 21 Jul 2016 18:41:06 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Two words: Your trolling.

Did you pass third grade English grammar yet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31909

Aardvarks wrote:

> This is NOT a technical question.
> This is a PSYCHOLOGOY question.
> 
> *Why do Apple Apologists lie constatnly about iOS capabilities?*
> 
> In another thread, <SNIP>

If it isn't a technical question, shouldn't it be marked [OT]?

I hope nobody has left any replies for me in this thread because I'm 
marking the freakin' thing "all read" and moving on.

-- 
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
  [Sat Mar 26: "Documentation and Portability"]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32011

Can a single iOS user prove they can do any of these simple things which I
do all day, every day, on Android?

Jolly Roger and nospam *say* (aka, lie) that they can do *all* these thigns
on iOS, yet, ask them for proof - and see what you get in response.  

1 Load software outside the Apple ecosystem 
2 Change the launcher at will to entirely change the look & feel
3 Control what data programs have access to from other programs
4 Traverse & modify the entire file system (or almost all of it)
5 Install the "real" anonymos Tor Browser Bundle node system
6 Install the real anonymous "Orbot" free VPN server system
7 Redirect files & types of files at will (i.e., File Redirectors)
8 Perform detailed radio scanning (such as what WiGle WiFi does)
9 Organize the desktop with icons on any grid or no grid whatsoever
10 Hide *any* icon whatsoever no matter what the icon is
11 Put icons in multiple places for logical organization
12 Create empty named placeholder folders for organization
13 Use bitTorrent applications to download legal torrent files
14 Automatically store installers offline to user storage
15 Then *use* those offline installers on other similar mobile devices 
16 Store hidden icons in a *fully-functional* offline "App Drawer" app
(and, no, a "folder" is not a fully-function app-drawer app).

The question isn't whether iOS can or can't do these things.
The question is why they lie.

I think the answer is simple, and now it no longer bothers me that they lie
so much.

a. They bought an "image" carefully crafted *by Apple Marketing*; so
anything that tarnishes that image they bought into, threatens them.

b. They are herd animals, so, again, anything that is done outside the herd
mentality (as defined by *Apple Marketing*), also threatens them.

That's why they lie!
The truth is a threat.

I finally understand why they lie so much.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32706

Abstract:
The Apple fundamentalists repeatedly spout appletruths because:
a. They buy on image alone (so everything is a threat to their image)
b. They are herd animals (so everything outside the garden is a threat)
c. They love uni-dimensional solutions (functionality choices scare them)

Body:
I mentioned that, to the Apple Fundamentalists, in their Apple-twisted
state of mind, given those three underlying Apple-inspired psychological
traits, it's not a lie to say "all bittorents are illegal" or to vehemently
declare "bluetooth file transfer is absurd" or to shout repeated "bullshit"
to the factual presentation of what Android can do that iOS can't hope to
accomplish.

To you Apple Fundamentaliasts, given your underlying psychological
appletruth matrix, it's not a lie to say that iOS doesn't break
connectivity, even though you know that iOS breaks Linux connectivity any
time Apple wants to. To your herd-animal way of thinking, linux isn't
tested and therefore, to you, it doesn't even exist in your answers (yet
you say "bullshit" anyway - which is a lie in reality - but to you - it's
your particularly twisted Apple-minded version of your
Apple-Marketing-Inspired Appletruth).

So, what I used to call an outright lie, is really just an "Appletruth" to
you. 

Only recently have I understood you well enough to understand your
responses.

Conclusion:
The most predictable set of Apple Fundamentalists here are those in the
simpler set, such as the primitive appletruth set Jolly Roger and Lewis are
in. Luckily, Jolly Roger is so simple to figure out that this whole
revealingly perfect appletruth concept came to me almost exclusively from
his writing alone - and not of the functionally more complex appletruthers
such as nospam, Savageduck, and Michael Eyd.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web