Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #155420 > unrolled thread
| Started by | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-31 09:01 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-09-09 12:53 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 173 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
How does whatsapp work? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-31 09:01 -0400
Re: How does whatsapp work? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-31 09:20 -0600
Re: How does whatsapp work? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-01 00:51 -0400
Re: How does whatsapp work? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-31 20:37 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-01 01:01 -0400
Re: How does whatsapp work? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-01 09:44 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-09-01 12:47 +0200
Signal (was: Re: How does whatsapp work?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-01 12:21 +0100
Re: Signal (was: Re: How does whatsapp work?) "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-09-01 16:30 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 19:15 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-01 19:32 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 21:25 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-01 21:26 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 21:53 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:20 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 17:10 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:37 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 21:23 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:36 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:31 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 22:32 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 02:40 +0530
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 23:24 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 11:39 +0845
[OT/Meta] Trolling (was: Re: Signal) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:37 +0100
Re: [OT/Meta] Trolling Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 03:43 +0930
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:28 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 02:31 +0930
[OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:18 +0100
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 17:10 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:25 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:28 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 22:33 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 02:41 +0530
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 23:25 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 11:35 +0845
Re: [OT] "trolling" Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 20:07 +0000
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-10 09:27 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:24 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-02 18:56 +0000
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 21:18 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:38 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:27 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 22:33 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 05:58 +0845
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 23:25 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 11:36 +0845
Re: Signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-01 18:59 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 21:18 +0200
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:11 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 17:18 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:28 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 21:25 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:38 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:32 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 23:00 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 02:39 +0530
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 19:05 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-01 19:13 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 20:52 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-01 21:27 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 21:50 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:20 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 17:11 +0200
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-02 18:50 +0100
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:30 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 21:34 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:51 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:34 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 23:00 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 06:00 +0845
Re: Signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-03 09:42 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 03:13 +0930
[OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-04 13:12 +0100
Re: [OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-08 21:04 +0300
Re: [OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-09-08 19:32 +0000
Re: [OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-09 08:21 +0300
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 21:31 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:51 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:27 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 22:34 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 02:37 +0530
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:55 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 02:44 +0930
[OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-04 12:39 +0100
Re: Signal micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-09 08:44 +0300
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-04 09:56 +0200
[OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-06 10:17 +0100
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-06 13:59 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-06 13:34 +0100
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-06 20:07 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-09 08:51 +0300
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-09 12:49 +0200
Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-09 09:55 -0700
Re: Contacts Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-10 10:16 +0100
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-10 09:30 -0700
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-10 17:49 +0000
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-10 21:33 -0700
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-11 06:54 +0000
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-11 01:24 -0600
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-11 11:09 -0700
Re: Contacts Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-11 18:23 +0000
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-11 12:56 -0600
Re: Contacts Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-11 19:37 +0000
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-11 12:46 -0600
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-11 12:48 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-11 21:59 -0230
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-11 19:12 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-12 01:31 -0100
Re: Contacts Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-12 13:00 +0000
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-12 08:32 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-12 17:31 +0000
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-12 13:05 -0700
Re: Contacts Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-12 18:00 +0000
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-12 13:05 -0700
Re: Contacts micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-17 13:33 +0300
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-17 12:30 +0000
Re: Contacts Siard <saylor259@mailbox.org> - 2026-09-17 15:12 +0200
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-17 16:12 +0000
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-17 18:48 +0200
Re: Contacts Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-09-18 10:04 +0200
Re: Contacts Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-09-18 10:00 +0200
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-18 10:58 -0700
Re: Contacts micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-17 13:26 +0300
Re: Contacts Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-11 00:30 +0100
Re: Contacts micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-12 21:58 +0300
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-12 13:16 -0700
Re: Contacts micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-13 05:06 +0300
Re: Contacts micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-13 05:15 +0300
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-12 20:40 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-13 11:22 +0545
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-13 06:05 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-13 06:54 -1000
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-13 14:17 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-15 00:50 +0000
Re: Contacts Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-13 19:02 +0000
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-13 14:17 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-14 21:56 -0300
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-20 00:15 -0700
Re: Contacts micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-23 21:02 +0300
Application identification on Motorola Android (was: Re: Contacts) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-13 08:11 +0100
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:12 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:26 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 22:40 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 02:35 +0530
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-03 00:03 +0100
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <user17785@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-03 01:00 +0000
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 02:47 +0930
[OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:49 +0100
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 03:38 +0930
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-04 09:26 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:29 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 21:33 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:51 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:35 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 23:00 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 02:36 +0530
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:24 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 17:30 +0200
Re: Signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-03 09:29 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 03:04 +0930
Re: Signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-03 18:46 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 04:22 +0930
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 19:20 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-01 17:03 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:56 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:04 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-09-04 21:15 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-05 14:14 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-09-05 18:03 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-01 14:37 +0000
Re: How does whatsapp work? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-09 09:07 +0300
Re: How does whatsapp work? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-09 12:53 +0200
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 22:34 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <vrdmmmxtos.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155543 |
On 2026-09-02 22:27, Maria Sophia wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: >> They are not facts, they are opinions > > I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions. > You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts. > > Your only intent, clearly, is to endlessly troll this newsgroup, Carlos. > Stop it. We argued the issue at length, and we proved you wrong. We don't need to go again over it. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 02:37 +0530 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <117a36n$99h$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155551 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: > We argued the issue at length You've never supplied a single fact. Not even one. Meanwhile, both Andy and I provided documented facts. I'm fine if you can't accept that fact, but stop trolling this newsgroup!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 11:55 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <117bjmd$3j6ut$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155543 |
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: >> They are not facts, they are opinions > > I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions. > You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts. I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one. Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect information. [ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ] > Your only intent, clearly, is to endlessly troll this newsgroup, Carlos. > Stop it. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 02:44 +0930 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <117c9ug$2i66$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155588 |
Nuno Silva wrote: > I can't help but feel slightly appalled Hi Nuno, Think about it logically. 1. Andy and I provided facts (cites, articles, documents, court cases) 2. Nobody disputes those facts, except Carlos. 3. Carlos simply claims all facts are wrong. 4. Now you come along, and claim facts "can" be wrong. WTF? That's not logic, Nuno. You claim, sans a shred of evidence, that the facts we presented "can" be wrong (which is true, but what's your evidence?). Remember, nobody is disputing the facts. a. Except Carlos. b. Who is a troll. c. Which is proved by the fact he's clearly trolling this newsgroup. You have to troll, to actually be accused of trolling. That's logic, right? And Carlos has been trolling this thread, has he not? A. Repeatedly, he posted his incessant denials of facts. B. Without ever supplying a single fact by way of response. Why do you "agree" with Carlos (which is absurd), and yet, you never once asked Carlos to explain why he thinks all facts by Andy and me are wrong? Why not, Nuno? Carlos has never in this newsgroup ever been able to dispute those facts with facts. He just constantly trolls us by claiming all facts are wrong. Without ever even once in the history of this newsgroup, providing a single fact that backs up his claim that Andy and I are wrong. And then, you take Carlos' point of view, Nuno/ WTF? That's not logic. You don't ask Carlos to back up his claim that all facts on this topic by Andy and me are wrong even as NOBODY else but Carlos refutes those facts? Why not? Why not be LOGICAL and ask Carlos to provide even a single fact instead of Carlos trolling us with constant refutation of the known facts that both Andy and I have provided cites to that include documents and court cases. Do me a favor, Nuno. Before you agree with the troll that "all facts are wrong", why don't you ask the troll why he think that Andy and I posted incorrect facts, Nuno. That would be a logical thing do to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 12:39 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) |
| Message-ID | <117eam3$iikm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155595 |
On 2026-09-03, Maria Sophia wrote: > Nuno Silva wrote: >> I can't help but feel slightly appalled > > Hi Nuno, > > Think about it logically. > 1. Andy and I provided facts (cites, articles, documents, court cases) [...] > You claim, sans a shred of evidence, that the facts we presented "can" be > wrong (which is true, but what's your evidence?). I'm not disputing the veracity of these facts, I'm disputing that they're assumed to be facts to begin with. They may be facts, the problem I was alluding at is that by being a citation, article, document, court case, that does not automatically make information in it a fact. And if we're going to assume otherwise, then things can easily go wrong. > Remember, nobody is disputing the facts. > a. Except Carlos. > b. Who is a troll. > c. Which is proved by the fact he's clearly trolling this newsgroup. > > You have to troll, to actually be accused of trolling. > That's logic, right? No, this is a similar thing. You have to be seen as being trolling by someone, or someone may want to utter that even without any perception of trolling for whatever reason. That there is an accusation does not imply the occurence of that as a fact. It may be a fact, it may not. The accusations themselves are no grounds to establish that as a fact, and this goes both ways, not just for Carlos, but for you too. And for anyone else participating in that "vote" thread meanwhile mentioned. > And Carlos has been trolling this thread, has he not? > A. Repeatedly, he posted his incessant denials of facts. > B. Without ever supplying a single fact by way of response. > > Why do you "agree" with Carlos (which is absurd), and yet, you never once > asked Carlos to explain why he thinks all facts by Andy and me are > wrong? I don't think I've agreed with Carlos on this matter so far, I've merely thanked for some context when provided. > Why not, Nuno? (... and I'd like to stress that I've been asking specifically about the back-and-forth, and not about the disagreement that triggered it, although that's likely also relevant context) > Carlos has never in this newsgroup ever been able to dispute those facts > with facts. He just constantly trolls us by claiming all facts are wrong. > > Without ever even once in the history of this newsgroup, providing a single > fact that backs up his claim that Andy and I are wrong. I don't currently have the time to go read archives of this newsgroup to be able to make such an absolue assessment. > And then, you take Carlos' point of view, Nuno/ > WTF? I'd kindly appreciate if you took a moment to reread what I wrote and see whether have I taken Carlos' view on this matter so far, just like that other post where I did not chastise you. And by this I also don't mean I'm taking your view or rejecting Carlos' view. I'm merely trying not to take sides without fuller information, or without something I see as compelling to take a side. And if I ever take a position on this - which I likely will, given how this is derailing - it's more likely to be my position and my assessment, and not somebody else's. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 08:44 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <9hr1al9tq9d8h24ncmgr5u01ndoidvhteq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #155595 |
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 4 Sep 2026 02:44:56 +0930, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote: > >You have to troll, to actually be accused of trolling. >That's logic, right? No, It is not logic. People are accused of things they did not do all the time, either because the accuser is mistaken about the facts , or because he feels he has a valid overriding reason, or because he was bribed ,Or because he has an emotional need to win an argument, or even because of malice. Have you not heard of men falsely accused of beating their wives ? Or of an actual embezzler who cleverly shifts the blame to look like it falls on someone else and who participates in the accusation? Why do we have trials if not to decide if someone is truly accused or falsely accused ? If no one were ever falsely accused we would not need to have any trials.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 09:56 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <s6aqmmxltd.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155588 |
On 2026-09-03 12:55, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: > >> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> They are not facts, they are opinions >> >> I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions. >> You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts. > > I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before > stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being > written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one. > > Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect > information. > > [ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ] As you are new to the group, I should add some info. I refuse to answer Arlen requests for "facts" because the single matter that I posted about that started this browhaha was discussed here in depth with several participants and we reached some conclusions (which Arlen refuses to accept). I refuse to go over it again. Namely, that this statement of Arlen, which he repeats often: A> I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to disregard, A> but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has anything in their contacts A> that they don't own, is being exceptionally rude to friends & family. is false and not accepted. He is basically saying that everybody in the world is being rude for merely using the Google Contacts app (ie, that Google has access to our contact database and uses that data). It is specially not true for people living in the EU with our data protection laws. And I refuse to argue why again. Saying this sends Arlen into a fit; has happened before. Arlen (aka Maria (he is a name shifter)) has a trait of calling troll or fool anybody that contradicts him and doesn't accept his "facts" as facts. And you have witnessed this. Welcome to the group (or sorry about it if you prefer) :-) Where this we discuss this? Long ago, I did not keep pointers to every conversation, maybe I should have kept this one. Perhaps this thread: Subject: Texting annoyance Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:13:23 +0100 From: db <...@gmail.com> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android Message-ID: <uog2rj$3jso4$1@dont-email.me> He used a different alias back then. Actually more than one in this single thread. He even accused me of being a racist towards him, out of the blue! He is indeed a character. I try not to ignite him, but he ignited me by calling my, and millions, rude. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-06 10:17 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) |
| Message-ID | <117jb2c$26mtg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155611 |
On 2026-09-04, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-09-03 12:55, Nuno Silva wrote: >> On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: >> >>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> They are not facts, they are opinions >>> >>> I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions. >>> You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts. >> >> I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before >> stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being >> written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one. >> >> Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect >> information. >> >> [ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ] > > As you are new to the group, I should add some info. Thanks!, > > I refuse to answer Arlen requests for "facts" because the single > matter that I posted about that started this browhaha was discussed > here in depth with several participants and we reached some > conclusions (which Arlen refuses to accept). I refuse to go over it > again. > > Namely, that this statement of Arlen, which he repeats often: > > A> I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to > A> disregard, but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has > A> anything in their contacts that they don't own, is being > A> exceptionally rude to friends & family. > > is false and not accepted. He is basically saying that everybody in > the world is being rude for merely using the Google Contacts app (ie, > that Google has access to our contact database and uses that data). It > is specially not true for people living in the EU with our data > protection laws. > > And I refuse to argue why again. As I've commented elsewhere in the thread: I think I understand the reasoning behind this and I think I can agree to *some extent*, in the same way that several years ago people joining e.g. LinkedIn would give them mail addresses to spam to no end. But from that to "being exceptionally rude" goes a distance I'm not crossing, at least not for the time being... > Saying this sends Arlen into a fit; has happened before. Arlen (aka > Maria (he is a name shifter)) has a trait of calling troll or fool > anybody that contradicts him and doesn't accept his "facts" as > facts. And you have witnessed this. Welcome to the group (or sorry > about it if you prefer) :-) That's now obvious to me, and I wish I had just not started the mess I ended up starting. It's a shame, given a lot of their posts can actually be useful, productive and helpful. But what comes across now is that every time Maria says logic is important or that they're striving to add something to the discussion with every post, that it's just meaningless filling for the post. Saying that they value someobody's contribution, when the alternative appears to be calling a "troll" or describing it as "trolling", nears the same evaluation. And that's sad. Now because I'm saying that *that specific part* of their posts is useless, they'll say I'm "agreeing with you" in what they see as trolling-aggression and trolling myself, even though what I'm saying is basically that their posts are not garbage, that there's still useful and relevant content at least in some of them... (Again, something that'd be very easy to understand for somebody who actually knows at least something of logic. Or has seen Venn diagrams, or the de Morgan laws, ...) At this point, let me be clear in case they come demanding an apology from this post for some reason: after all of their responses, and they not even apologizing for the "chastising" escalation, which I've chosen to interpret as merely arising out of misreading: After all that, I couldn't care any least what their opinion of me or my posts is. I don't have time or energy to worry about that, and there are other things more worthy of my time, like rewatching the Star Wars Holiday Special. > Where this we discuss this? Long ago, I did not keep pointers to every > conversation, maybe I should have kept this one. Perhaps this thread: > > Subject: Texting annoyance > Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:13:23 +0100 > From: db <...@gmail.com> > Organization: A noiseless patient Spider > Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android > Message-ID: <uog2rj$3jso4$1@dont-email.me> > > He used a different alias back then. Actually more than one in this > single thread. He even accused me of being a racist towards him, out > of the blue! > > He is indeed a character. I try not to ignite him, but he ignited me > by calling my, and millions, rude. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-06 13:59 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] "trolling" |
| Message-ID | <6610nmxu6f.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155670 |
On 2026-09-06 11:17, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-09-04, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-09-03 12:55, Nuno Silva wrote: >>> On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: >>> >>>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> They are not facts, they are opinions >>>> >>>> I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions. >>>> You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts. >>> >>> I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before >>> stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being >>> written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one. >>> >>> Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect >>> information. >>> >>> [ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ] >> >> As you are new to the group, I should add some info. > > Thanks!, > >> >> I refuse to answer Arlen requests for "facts" because the single >> matter that I posted about that started this browhaha was discussed >> here in depth with several participants and we reached some >> conclusions (which Arlen refuses to accept). I refuse to go over it >> again. >> >> Namely, that this statement of Arlen, which he repeats often: >> >> A> I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to >> A> disregard, but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has >> A> anything in their contacts that they don't own, is being >> A> exceptionally rude to friends & family. >> >> is false and not accepted. He is basically saying that everybody in >> the world is being rude for merely using the Google Contacts app (ie, >> that Google has access to our contact database and uses that data). It >> is specially not true for people living in the EU with our data >> protection laws. >> >> And I refuse to argue why again. Just to clarify, in case it is not clear. I use the Google Contacts application, which is installed by default. I add all my friends, family, people I barely know, professionals, etc, to it. He assumes that Google treats this as public information and that they can do anything they wish with it. Like spamming my friends. Well, that simply doesn't happen. In the EU where I live that is protected information and Google would get a monster fine. Thus, I'm not being rude by storing contact information in the contact app. And other applications can not just copy the information and upload to their own servers and make free use of it. If you already understood, forgive my blurb :-) > > As I've commented elsewhere in the thread: I think I understand the > reasoning behind this and I think I can agree to *some extent*, in the > same way that several years ago people joining e.g. LinkedIn would give > them mail addresses to spam to no end. > > But from that to "being exceptionally rude" goes a distance I'm not > crossing, at least not for the time being... > ... -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-06 13:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] "trolling" |
| Message-ID | <117jml6$2bkjb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155674 |
On 2026-09-06, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-09-06 11:17, Nuno Silva wrote: >> On 2026-09-04, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2026-09-03 12:55, Nuno Silva wrote: >>>> On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: >>>> >>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> They are not facts, they are opinions >>>>> >>>>> I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions. >>>>> You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts. >>>> >>>> I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before >>>> stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being >>>> written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one. >>>> >>>> Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect >>>> information. >>>> >>>> [ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ] >>> >>> As you are new to the group, I should add some info. >> >> Thanks!, >> >>> >>> I refuse to answer Arlen requests for "facts" because the single >>> matter that I posted about that started this browhaha was discussed >>> here in depth with several participants and we reached some >>> conclusions (which Arlen refuses to accept). I refuse to go over it >>> again. >>> >>> Namely, that this statement of Arlen, which he repeats often: >>> >>> A> I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to >>> A> disregard, but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has >>> A> anything in their contacts that they don't own, is being >>> A> exceptionally rude to friends & family. >>> >>> is false and not accepted. He is basically saying that everybody in >>> the world is being rude for merely using the Google Contacts app (ie, >>> that Google has access to our contact database and uses that data). It >>> is specially not true for people living in the EU with our data >>> protection laws. >>> >>> And I refuse to argue why again. > > Just to clarify, in case it is not clear. I use the Google Contacts > application, which is installed by default. I add all my friends, > family, people I barely know, professionals, etc, to it. He assumes > that Google treats this as public information and that they can do > anything they wish with it. Like spamming my friends. Well, that > simply doesn't happen. In the EU where I live that is protected > information and Google would get a monster fine. Thus, I'm not being > rude by storing contact information in the contact app. > > And other applications can not just copy the information and upload to > their own servers and make free use of it. > > If you already understood, forgive my blurb :-) I think the core point of the criticism is that, outside a few features/constructs, like what's upcoming for Android 17, or the protected storage already present in 15, other applications with Contacts permission can technically do "whatever" they want, and so it'd depend on these applications too, not just the maker of the contacts application in use. (Yes, it'd imply a fine and probably other penalties in any sane jurisdiction, but the damage would be done by then.) So yeah, it'd have to be something intentionally evil and illegal in developed countries. (But yeah, I think I've understood.) >> As I've commented elsewhere in the thread: I think I understand the >> reasoning behind this and I think I can agree to *some extent*, in the >> same way that several years ago people joining e.g. LinkedIn would give >> them mail addresses to spam to no end. >> >> But from that to "being exceptionally rude" goes a distance I'm not >> crossing, at least not for the time being... >> > > ... -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-06 20:07 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] "trolling" |
| Message-ID | <8nm0nmxvbt.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155675 |
On 2026-09-06 14:34, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-09-06, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2026-09-06 11:17, Nuno Silva wrote: >>> On 2026-09-04, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2026-09-03 12:55, Nuno Silva wrote: >>>>> On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>> They are not facts, they are opinions >>>>>> >>>>>> I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions. >>>>>> You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts. >>>>> >>>>> I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before >>>>> stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being >>>>> written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one. >>>>> >>>>> Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect >>>>> information. >>>>> >>>>> [ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ] >>>> >>>> As you are new to the group, I should add some info. >>> >>> Thanks!, >>> >>>> >>>> I refuse to answer Arlen requests for "facts" because the single >>>> matter that I posted about that started this browhaha was discussed >>>> here in depth with several participants and we reached some >>>> conclusions (which Arlen refuses to accept). I refuse to go over it >>>> again. >>>> >>>> Namely, that this statement of Arlen, which he repeats often: >>>> >>>> A> I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to >>>> A> disregard, but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has >>>> A> anything in their contacts that they don't own, is being >>>> A> exceptionally rude to friends & family. >>>> >>>> is false and not accepted. He is basically saying that everybody in >>>> the world is being rude for merely using the Google Contacts app (ie, >>>> that Google has access to our contact database and uses that data). It >>>> is specially not true for people living in the EU with our data >>>> protection laws. >>>> >>>> And I refuse to argue why again. >> >> Just to clarify, in case it is not clear. I use the Google Contacts >> application, which is installed by default. I add all my friends, >> family, people I barely know, professionals, etc, to it. He assumes >> that Google treats this as public information and that they can do >> anything they wish with it. Like spamming my friends. Well, that >> simply doesn't happen. In the EU where I live that is protected >> information and Google would get a monster fine. Thus, I'm not being >> rude by storing contact information in the contact app. >> >> And other applications can not just copy the information and upload to >> their own servers and make free use of it. >> >> If you already understood, forgive my blurb :-) > > I think the core point of the criticism is that, outside a few > features/constructs, like what's upcoming for Android 17, or the > protected storage already present in 15, other applications with > Contacts permission can technically do "whatever" they want, and so it'd > depend on these applications too, not just the maker of the contacts > application in use. Yes, that is so. > > (Yes, it'd imply a fine and probably other penalties in any sane > jurisdiction, but the damage would be done by then.) Also yes. > > So yeah, it'd have to be something intentionally evil and illegal in > developed countries. > Indeed. > (But yeah, I think I've understood.) Yep. > >>> As I've commented elsewhere in the thread: I think I understand the >>> reasoning behind this and I think I can agree to *some extent*, in the >>> same way that several years ago people joining e.g. LinkedIn would give >>> them mail addresses to spam to no end. >>> >>> But from that to "being exceptionally rude" goes a distance I'm not >>> crossing, at least not for the time being... >>> >> >> ... > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 08:51 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] "trolling" |
| Message-ID | <jks1al9jgtjm4r1l5kre21u1291gtatg0p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #155674 |
In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 6 Sep 2026 13:59:34 +0200, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >On 2026-09-06 11:17, Nuno Silva wrote: >> On 2026-09-04, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2026-09-03 12:55, Nuno Silva wrote: >>>> On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: >>>> >>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> They are not facts, they are opinions >>>>> >>>>> I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions. >>>>> You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts. >>>> >>>> I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before >>>> stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being >>>> written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one. >>>> >>>> Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect >>>> information. >>>> >>>> [ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ] >>> >>> As you are new to the group, I should add some info. >> >> Thanks!, >> >>> >>> I refuse to answer Arlen requests for "facts" because the single >>> matter that I posted about that started this browhaha was discussed >>> here in depth with several participants and we reached some >>> conclusions (which Arlen refuses to accept). I refuse to go over it >>> again. >>> >>> Namely, that this statement of Arlen, which he repeats often: >>> >>> A> I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to >>> A> disregard, but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has >>> A> anything in their contacts that they don't own, is being >>> A> exceptionally rude to friends & family. >>> >>> is false and not accepted. He is basically saying that everybody in >>> the world is being rude for merely using the Google Contacts app (ie, >>> that Google has access to our contact database and uses that data). It >>> is specially not true for people living in the EU with our data >>> protection laws. >>> >>> And I refuse to argue why again. > >Just to clarify, in case it is not clear. I use the Google Contacts >application, which is installed by default. I add all my friends, If one did not use the app , it would be hard to function , would it not? What would have to type in every number , one would have to memorize everybody's phone number , one would have to or one would have to copy and paste it from some list he kept on his own . Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to contacts my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They were both called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a silhouette from the front in blue and the only difference was that one was a lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this? I didn't want my contacts to be spread out over two different apps. That would really be confusing. >family, people I barely know, professionals, etc, to it. He assumes that >Google treats this as public information and that they can do anything >they wish with it. Like spamming my friends. Well, that simply doesn't >happen. In the EU where I live that is protected information and Google >would get a monster fine. Thus, I'm not being rude by storing contact >information in the contact app. Even in the USA, I haven't noticed any of this . > >And other applications can not just copy the information and upload to >their own servers and make free use of it. > >If you already understood, forgive my blurb :-) > >> >> As I've commented elsewhere in the thread: I think I understand the >> reasoning behind this and I think I can agree to *some extent*, in the >> same way that several years ago people joining e.g. LinkedIn would give >> them mail addresses to spam to no end. >> >> But from that to "being exceptionally rude" goes a distance I'm not >> crossing, at least not for the time being... >> > >...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 12:49 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] "trolling" |
| Message-ID | <l7q7nmxdmp.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155809 |
On 2026-09-09 07:51, micky wrote: > In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 6 Sep 2026 13:59:34 +0200, "Carlos E.R." > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2026-09-06 11:17, Nuno Silva wrote: >>> On 2026-09-04, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2026-09-03 12:55, Nuno Silva wrote: >>>>> On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>> They are not facts, they are opinions >>>>>> >>>>>> I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions. >>>>>> You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts. >>>>> >>>>> I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before >>>>> stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being >>>>> written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one. >>>>> >>>>> Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect >>>>> information. >>>>> >>>>> [ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ] >>>> >>>> As you are new to the group, I should add some info. >>> >>> Thanks!, >>> >>>> >>>> I refuse to answer Arlen requests for "facts" because the single >>>> matter that I posted about that started this browhaha was discussed >>>> here in depth with several participants and we reached some >>>> conclusions (which Arlen refuses to accept). I refuse to go over it >>>> again. >>>> >>>> Namely, that this statement of Arlen, which he repeats often: >>>> >>>> A> I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to >>>> A> disregard, but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has >>>> A> anything in their contacts that they don't own, is being >>>> A> exceptionally rude to friends & family. >>>> >>>> is false and not accepted. He is basically saying that everybody in >>>> the world is being rude for merely using the Google Contacts app (ie, >>>> that Google has access to our contact database and uses that data). It >>>> is specially not true for people living in the EU with our data >>>> protection laws. >>>> >>>> And I refuse to argue why again. >> >> Just to clarify, in case it is not clear. I use the Google Contacts >> application, which is installed by default. I add all my friends, > > If one did not use the app , it would be hard to function , would it > not? What would have to type in every number , one would have to > memorize everybody's phone number , one would have to or one would have > to copy and paste it from some list he kept on his own . There may be contacts apps that do not use the cloud. They probably have limitations in the features, too. > > Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to contacts > my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They were both > called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a silhouette > from the front in blue and the only difference was that one was a > lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this? I didn't want my > contacts to be spread out over two different apps. That would really be > confusing. Two? > >> family, people I barely know, professionals, etc, to it. He assumes that >> Google treats this as public information and that they can do anything >> they wish with it. Like spamming my friends. Well, that simply doesn't >> happen. In the EU where I live that is protected information and Google >> would get a monster fine. Thus, I'm not being rude by storing contact >> information in the contact app. > > Even in the USA, I haven't noticed any of this . >> >> And other applications can not just copy the information and upload to >> their own servers and make free use of it. >> >> If you already understood, forgive my blurb :-) >> >>> >>> As I've commented elsewhere in the thread: I think I understand the >>> reasoning behind this and I think I can agree to *some extent*, in the >>> same way that several years ago people joining e.g. LinkedIn would give >>> them mail addresses to spam to no end. >>> >>> But from that to "being exceptionally rude" goes a distance I'm not >>> crossing, at least not for the time being... >>> >> >> ... -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AJL <noemail@none.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 09:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Contacts |
| Message-ID | <117s321$1amgb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155809 |
On 9/8/2026 10:51 PM, micky wrote: > Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to > contacts my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They > were both called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a > silhouette from the front in blue and the only difference was that > one was a lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this? The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a Verizon app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who makes it but gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a clue? > I didn't want my contacts to be spread out over two different apps. > That would really be confusing. On my Android tablets I've installed the Google contacts app from the Google Play Store. It's version 4.86.23 (plus 9 more numbers) so doesn't appear to be related to the version number of the Verizon app. But the Google Contacts apps on my tablets all sync and work just fine with my phone's Verizon Contacts app. I've decided to leave well enough alone and not try to put the current Google Contacts app on my phone as long as the installed Verizon version keeps working. That and the fact that the 'Phone' app also claims to be Verizon and its info screen shows the exact same version number (13.1.30.10) as the Contact app info screen leading me to believe that it might be wise that they be used together?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 10:16 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Contacts |
| Message-ID | <117tsi8$1rla8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155820 |
On 2026-09-09, AJL wrote: > On 9/8/2026 10:51 PM, micky wrote: > >> Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to >> contacts my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They >> were both called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a >> silhouette from the front in blue and the only difference was that >> one was a lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this? > > The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a Verizon > app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who makes it but > gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a clue? > >> I didn't want my contacts to be spread out over two different apps. >> That would really be confusing. > > On my Android tablets I've installed the Google contacts app from the > Google Play Store. It's version 4.86.23 (plus 9 more numbers) so doesn't > appear to be related to the version number of the Verizon app. But the > Google Contacts apps on my tablets all sync and work just fine with my > phone's Verizon Contacts app. > > I've decided to leave well enough alone and not try to put the current > Google Contacts app on my phone as long as the installed Verizon version > keeps working. That and the fact that the 'Phone' app also claims to be > Verizon and its info screen shows the exact same version number > (13.1.30.10) as the Contact app info screen leading me to believe that > it might be wise that they be used together? I think I spotted a Motorola one on the web which used the same ID as the Google one. So there may be a Motorola version, but then the question is how would these get installed side-by-side, is that possible? Exceptionally possible for "non-uninstallable" bundled applications? The syncing probably depends more on the sync providers. If they're all using the Android contact storage, then I guess the app might not even need to be involved at all? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 09:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Contacts |
| Message-ID | <117ulvv$29vm$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155831 |
AJL wrote: > On 9/8/2026 10:51 PM, micky wrote: > >> Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to >> contacts my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They >> were both called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a >> silhouette from the front in blue and the only difference was that >> one was a lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this? > > The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a Verizon > app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who makes it but > gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a clue? > >> I didn't want my contacts to be spread out over two different apps. >> That would really be confusing. > > On my Android tablets I've installed the Google contacts app from the > Google Play Store. It's version 4.86.23 (plus 9 more numbers) so doesn't > appear to be related to the version number of the Verizon app. But the > Google Contacts apps on my tablets all sync and work just fine with my > phone's Verizon Contacts app. > > I've decided to leave well enough alone and not try to put the current > Google Contacts app on my phone as long as the installed Verizon version > keeps working. That and the fact that the 'Phone' app also claims to be > Verizon and its info screen shows the exact same version number > (13.1.30.10) as the Contact app info screen leading me to believe that > it might be wise that they be used together? Hi AJL, Like you, I don't have Google Contacts installed currently, but my phone is a mirror of all past installations, so it was on my phone at one point. <https://i.postimg.cc/rydmmZZt/googlecontacts.jpg> Given I'm always helpful to others, I went to the appreciable trouble to screenshot & annotate the situation for the OP, mirroring your experience. I don't see the original thread for some reason, but to answer the OP... There are some app categories, which, by their very nature, tend to have the exact same icon-shortcut names and even the same color/shape icons. <https://i.postimg.cc/5tH5pSNf/phone.jpg> There is only 1 way to tell them apart for sure, which is the package name. <https://i.postimg.cc/fTKvbbr4/contacts.jpg> As for Google Contacts, per se, it used to be installed on my phone, as we can tell from the grayed-out icon below which points to the repository. <https://i.postimg.cc/rydmmZZt/googlecontacts.jpg> When I click on that grayed out icon, it installs the app if I want it. <market://details?id=com.google.android.contacts> I think everyone should have their phone set up as efficiently as mine. -- On Usenet, kind-hearted experts combine their experiences to help others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AJL <noemail@none.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 17:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Contacts |
| Message-ID | <117uqil$277vs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155836 |
On 9/10/26 9:30 AM, Maria Sophia wrote: >AJL wrote: >> On 9/8/2026 10:51 PM, micky wrote: >> >>> Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to >>> contacts my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They >>> were both called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a >>> silhouette from the front in blue and the only difference was that >>> one was a lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this? >> >> The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a Verizon >> app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who makes it but >> gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a clue? >> >>> I didn't want my contacts to be spread out over two different apps. >>> That would really be confusing. >> >> On my Android tablets I've installed the Google contacts app from the >> Google Play Store. It's version 4.86.23 (plus 9 more numbers) so doesn't >> appear to be related to the version number of the Verizon app. But the >> Google Contacts apps on my tablets all sync and work just fine with my >> phone's Verizon Contacts app. >> >> I've decided to leave well enough alone and not try to put the current >> Google Contacts app on my phone as long as the installed Verizon version >> keeps working. That and the fact that the 'Phone' app also claims to be >> Verizon and its info screen shows the exact same version number >> (13.1.30.10) as the Contact app info screen leading me to believe that >> it might be wise that they be used together? > >Hi AJL, > >Like you, I don't have Google Contacts installed currently, but my phone is >a mirror of all past installations, so it was on my phone at one point. > <https://i.postimg.cc/rydmmZZt/googlecontacts.jpg> > >Given I'm always helpful to others, I went to the appreciable trouble to >screenshot & annotate the situation for the OP, mirroring your experience. >I don't see the original thread for some reason, but to answer the OP... That's cause I cut micky out of the old off topic endless personal wars thread and made a new new one that actually has something to do with Android... >There are some app categories, which, by their very nature, tend to have >the exact same icon-shortcut names and even the same color/shape icons. > <https://i.postimg.cc/5tH5pSNf/phone.jpg> > >There is only 1 way to tell them apart for sure, which is the package name. > <https://i.postimg.cc/fTKvbbr4/contacts.jpg> > >As for Google Contacts, per se, it used to be installed on my phone, as we >can tell from the grayed-out icon below which points to the repository. > <https://i.postimg.cc/rydmmZZt/googlecontacts.jpg> > >When I click on that grayed out icon, it installs the app if I want it. > <market://details?id=com.google.android.contacts> >I think everyone should have their phone set up as efficiently as mine. I think everyone should have a phone as old as mine...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 21:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Contacts |
| Message-ID | <11800ai$2343$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155837 |
AJL wrote:
>>I don't see the original thread for some reason, but to answer the OP...
>
> That's cause I cut micky out of the old off topic endless personal wars
> thread and made a new new one that actually has something to do with
> Android...
Oh, that explains it. I am dropping out of a lot of threads lately too.
Bickering is all most people "can" do since they can't add on-topic value.
Anyway, my main point in responding was that the icon isn't what's unique.
In fact, app-icon PHONE ^ CONTACTS icons are particularly commonly reused.
The two green phone icons, for example, in this screenshot, are different.
<https://i.postimg.cc/5tH5pSNf/phone.jpg>
Even I can't tell them apart without looking at the underlying intents.
>> I think everyone should have their phone set up as efficiently as mine.
> I think everyone should have a phone as old as mine...
Mine is from 2021 so you beat me by a mile on the age of your phone. :)
As for the original topic, you've heard me extol the virtues of
Muntashirakon AM, but for others, this program tells you the package name.
<https://muntashir.dev/AppManager/en/>
There are other ways to find out the package manager, of course, but I
think anyone who does NOT use Muntashirakon App Manager, isn't efficient.
--
On Usenet, we pass along knowledge that once we had to learn ourselves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AJL <noemail@none.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-11 06:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Contacts |
| Message-ID | <11808jc$2looe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155840 |
On 9/10/26 9:33 PM, Maria Sophia wrote: >my main point in responding was that the icon isn't what's unique. >In fact, app-icon PHONE ^ CONTACTS icons are particularly commonly reused. My Verizon and Google 'Contact' icons were very similar but still slightly different. My problem was to remember which was which. >The two green phone icons, for example, in this screenshot, are different. > <https://i.postimg.cc/5tH5pSNf/phone.jpg> >Even I can't tell them apart without looking at the underlying intents. The popup on your link using my Android Chrome browser was annoying. You should warn folks. However when I used Firefox with the uBlock Origin extension no popup. I should always use that here, huh... >As for the original topic, you've heard me extol the virtues of >Muntashirakon AM, but for others, this program tells you the package name. > <https://muntashir.dev/AppManager/en/> > >There are other ways to find out the package manager, of course, but I >think anyone who does NOT use Muntashirakon App Manager, isn't efficient. Above my pay level. But speaking of app managers I'm using my Amazon Fire HD10 tablet to post this and I'm surprised how easy it is to install apps from just about anywhere on this thing. I can sideload apps from the outside or from my installed sideloaded Google Play store app and the tablet puts them all in its Fire OS app manager and treats them just like as if they were from its own Amazon Appstore. And no outright refusals to load an outside apk like some of my other Android toys. Ease of use great. Security? Perhaps not so much? BTW my Groundhog newsreader started working again on this thing. So things are really looking up on this toy...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-11 01:24 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Contacts |
| Message-ID | <1180abo$20vl$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155841 |
AJL wrote: >>my main point in responding was that the icon isn't what's unique. >>In fact, app-icon PHONE ^ CONTACTS icons are particularly commonly reused. > > My Verizon and Google 'Contact' icons were very similar but still slightly > different. My problem was to remember which was which. Hi AJL, Actually, IMHO, that's NOT your problem... :) Seriously. That's NOT your problem because there's a solution for it. :() Your problem is identifying which is which, only once. a. Because once you identify which is which, you can *change* the icon. b. And/or you can change what it says below the icon. So, for example, if you have two exact same icons and names, but one is for Verizon contacts while the other is for Google contacts, all you have to do is change the Verizon color to, oh, say, red & the google color to, blue. And/or, change the wording for the Verizon contacts to, oh, say Vcontacts. And/or, change the wording for the Google contacts to, oh, say Gcontacts. >>The two green phone icons, for example, in this screenshot, are different. >> <https://i.postimg.cc/5tH5pSNf/phone.jpg> >>Even I can't tell them apart without looking at the underlying intents. > > The popup on your link using my Android Chrome browser was annoying. You > should warn folks. However when I used Firefox with the uBlock Origin > extension no popup. I should always use that here, huh... I love that you're a rare breed on Usenet who is balanced in what you say. So I get it. You're trying to be helpful. I appreciate that helpful note. You think I don't know it. And therefore, you think I need to know it. But, trust me. I'm well aware that some people see annoying popups. So you do know browsers, but I'm not gonna warn people 'cuz it's common knowledge that if you don't know what you're doing, almost any web page has annoying stuff on it. I can't fix every person's knowledge of browsers. :) FYI: I don't see any popup but I certainly *believe* you that you saw it. So I'm not disputing that you see annoying stuff on some browser setups. But people who know how to use browsers don't see it. I can't fix stupid. (I'm not saying *you* are stupid, as you fixed it.) But thanks for (trying to) let me know. >>As for the original topic, you've heard me extol the virtues of >>Muntashirakon AM, but for others, this program tells you the package name. >> <https://muntashir.dev/AppManager/en/> >> >>There are other ways to find out the package manager, of course, but I >>think anyone who does NOT use Muntashirakon App Manager, isn't efficient. > > Above my pay level. But speaking of app managers I'm using my Amazon Fire > HD10 tablet to post this and I'm surprised how easy it is to install apps > from just about anywhere on this thing. I can sideload apps from the > outside or from my installed sideloaded Google Play store app and the > tablet puts them all in its Fire OS app manager and treats them just like > as if they were from its own Amazon Appstore. And no outright refusals to > load an outside apk like some of my other Android toys. Ease of use great. > Security? Perhaps not so much? > > BTW my Groundhog newsreader started working again on this thing. So things > are really looking up on this toy... If your headers are correct, I see you're posting from User-Agent: PhoNews/3.13.4 (Android/11) As for the Amazone tablet loading any APK, that's wonderful, as Lord knows, Google is doing its damndest to make it harder and harder to side load. BTW, I hate that word 'sideload' as it's just normal loading, but people seem to use it (just as they use Gulf of Mexico even as it's recently been renamed for the United States to Gulf of America). :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web