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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #117675 > unrolled thread

Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-15 18:26 +0000
    Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-15 11:37 -0700
      Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-15 19:33 +0000
        Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-15 12:39 -0700
          Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-15 20:24 +0000
            Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-15 13:26 -0700
              Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-16 00:16 +0000
                Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-15 17:21 -0700
                  Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-16 02:42 +0000
                    Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> - 2018-08-17 19:31 +0100
                      Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-08-17 13:19 -0700
                        Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2018-08-18 20:12 -0700
        Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-15 15:48 -0400
          Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-15 20:35 +0000
            Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-15 13:41 -0700
              Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-15 17:24 -0400
                Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-16 03:02 +0000
                  Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-15 23:40 -0400
                    Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-16 06:23 +0000
                      Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-16 09:11 -0400
                        Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-16 14:06 +0000
              Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-16 04:15 +0000
                Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-16 00:27 -0400
                  Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-16 06:27 +0000
            Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-15 17:24 -0400
              Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-16 06:29 +0000
                Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-15 23:33 -0700
                  Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-16 06:38 +0000
                    Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows? Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-15 23:59 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#117675 — Re: Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows?

On 15 Aug 2018 04:05:19 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

>  Never mind 'trollboi'! 'trollboi' isn't the only one asking. *Others*
> like Bob-S and Wolf K are also asking. So backup your claims to *them*.
> Or are you going to continue to be the endless weasel who claims all
> sorts of things, but hardly ever delivers?
> 
> [This space is intentionally left blank for more of nospam's
> footstamping.]

Hi Frank,

You and I go way back over the years - mostly contentiously - but on one
thing we agree is that nospam constantly fabricates imaginary functionality
and then brazenly insists he's told us about it many times and won't back
up anything he says because he says we won't listen to him.

My question is why.
Why are the Apple Apologists not normal people?

What on earth is the benefit of playing such childish make-believe games?
It's not something adults do.

Only the Apple Apologists do it all the freakin' time.

What on earth drives Apple Apologists to incessantly do such childish
things constantly and repeatedly with no end in sight?

HINT: Over the decades, *all* the never-ending threads on functionality are
(unilaterally) due to this phenomenon of Apple Apologists brazenly
fabricating wholly imaginary non-existent functionality - where technical
threads drag on forever simply because of the Apple Apologists' insistence
on a make-believe belief system.

 What are common Apple Apologist psychological traits?
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#117676

On 2018-08-15 11:26 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2018 04:05:19 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
>>   Never mind 'trollboi'! 'trollboi' isn't the only one asking. *Others*
>> like Bob-S and Wolf K are also asking. So backup your claims to *them*.
>> Or are you going to continue to be the endless weasel who claims all
>> sorts of things, but hardly ever delivers?
>>
>> [This space is intentionally left blank for more of nospam's
>> footstamping.]
> 
> Hi Frank,
> 
> You and I go way back over the years - mostly contentiously - but on one
> thing we agree is that nospam constantly fabricates imaginary functionality
> and then brazenly insists he's told us about it many times and won't back
> up anything he says because he says we won't listen to him.
> 
> My question is why.
> Why are the Apple Apologists not normal people?
> 
> What on earth is the benefit of playing such childish make-believe games?
> It's not something adults do.
> 
> Only the Apple Apologists do it all the freakin' time.
> 
> What on earth drives Apple Apologists to incessantly do such childish
> things constantly and repeatedly with no end in sight?
> 
> HINT: Over the decades, *all* the never-ending threads on functionality are
> (unilaterally) due to this phenomenon of Apple Apologists brazenly
> fabricating wholly imaginary non-existent functionality - where technical
> threads drag on forever simply because of the Apple Apologists' insistence
> on a make-believe belief system.
> 
>   What are common Apple Apologist psychological traits?
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>
> 

What claim of functionality has been made that you now claim is 
non-existent?

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

#117678

On 15 Aug 2018 11:37:09 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:

> What claim of functionality has been made that you now claim is 
> non-existent?

I love a fact-based technical challenge since I only speak facts!

Let's start with this video, shall we?
 <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo> 

BTW, there are so many claims of imaginary functionality that I *know* you
didn't read *any* of the links you're responding to, because I already
provided much of what you ask.

But, this is Usenet, which is casual, so I can understand that you didn't
read the references I provided - and I'm perfectly happy to comply with
your request, since I only speak facts.

Facts are easily validated.
Facts are funny that way.

So, I will politely respond to you in a factual way by simply stating that
we can start with this *classic* claim by the Apple Apologists of brazenly
fabricated imaginary functionality where, paradoxically, the the Apple
Apologists *still* claim that this wholly imaginary functionality exists!
  It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time 
 <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0[1-25]>

Note that since I posit that *all* the never-ending threads on Apple
Apologists claims of imaginary functionality, it's important for adults to
realize that we documented that Snit made his claim of imaginary *over 400
times* in 400 separate posts - all of which were well after his claims were
debunked.

He literally cut and pasted his claim of imaginary functionality that many
times! (We counted them at the time, in fact.)

*Can you even imagine what I just said (which is a verified fact).*

Snit never once looked at the Y axis of the app he vehemently and
repeatedly claimed could do what clearly can't be done - while Lewis, Jolly
Roger, nospam, and others all chimed in similarly .... and yet ... their
claims of functionality are *all* patently false.

If you count the claims by Snit and the others, that's about 500 separate
posts (roughly) claiming a functionality that clearly does not exist.

That doesn't even count the facts presented in counter arguments that the
functionality doesn't exist, so, you can just about double those numbers
(roughly) to about 1,000 posts (roughly).

That's 1000 posts (roughly) where half prove the functionality doesn't
exist, while the other half claims that it does (and they *still* claim it
exists - nospam did so about a month ago, as I recall).

This fact is critical to realize since almost *all* the arguments on the
web of apple-versus-others are similarly infested!

The reason this *matters* greatly, is that this one imaginary claim alone
by the Apple Apologists proved that a simple fact that the Apple Apologists
don't like eventually generates (arguably) about 1,000 posts, where, in the
end, the *single original post* in that thread was 100% accurate then, as
it is now.

In summary, what appears to happen on Usenet over the decades is that a
single fact that doesn't fit into the Apple Apologists' belief system, can
generate as many as 1,000 posts, of which *every* claim by the Apple
Apologists is dead wrong.

When you're done with that canonical example, try this one next:
 It's a fact current iOS devices can't report a correct cell tower ID 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2F_24NrIU3Q/t7_jS4zyAgAJ>

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

#117679

On 2018-08-15 12:33 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2018 11:37:09 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:
> 
>> What claim of functionality has been made that you now claim is
>> non-existent?
> 
> I love a fact-based technical challenge since I only speak facts!
> 
> Let's start with this video, shall we?
>   <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>

Nope. Let's start with a claim IN THIS THREAD.

> 
> BTW, there are so many claims of imaginary functionality that I *know* you
> didn't read *any* of the links you're responding to, because I already
> provided much of what you ask.

There were no links in the post to which I replied.

> 
> But, this is Usenet, which is casual, so I can understand that you didn't
> read the references I provided - and I'm perfectly happy to comply with
> your request, since I only speak facts.

There were no references in the post to which I replied.

> 
> Facts are easily validated.
> Facts are funny that way.

So start providing some facts:

What claim of functionality has been made that you now claim is 
non-existent?

> 
> So, I will politely respond to you in a factual way by simply stating that
> we can start with this *classic* claim by the Apple Apologists of brazenly
> fabricated imaginary functionality where, paradoxically, the the Apple
> Apologists *still* claim that this wholly imaginary functionality exists!
>    It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
>   <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0[1-25]>

That's not a quote. I don't read through

> 
> Note that since I posit that *all* the never-ending threads on Apple
> Apologists claims of imaginary functionality, it's important for adults to
> realize that we documented that Snit made his claim of imaginary *over 400
> times* in 400 separate posts - all of which were well after his claims were
> debunked.
> 
> He literally cut and pasted his claim of imaginary functionality that many
> times! (We counted them at the time, in fact.)
> 
> *Can you even imagine what I just said (which is a verified fact).*
> 
> Snit never once looked at the Y axis of the app he vehemently and
> repeatedly claimed could do what clearly can't be done - while Lewis, Jolly
> Roger, nospam, and others all chimed in similarly .... and yet ... their
> claims of functionality are *all* patently false.
> 
> If you count the claims by Snit and the others, that's about 500 separate
> posts (roughly) claiming a functionality that clearly does not exist.
> 
> That doesn't even count the facts presented in counter arguments that the
> functionality doesn't exist, so, you can just about double those numbers
> (roughly) to about 1,000 posts (roughly).
> 
> That's 1000 posts (roughly) where half prove the functionality doesn't
> exist, while the other half claims that it does (and they *still* claim it
> exists - nospam did so about a month ago, as I recall).
> 
> This fact is critical to realize since almost *all* the arguments on the
> web of apple-versus-others are similarly infested!
> 
> The reason this *matters* greatly, is that this one imaginary claim alone
> by the Apple Apologists proved that a simple fact that the Apple Apologists
> don't like eventually generates (arguably) about 1,000 posts, where, in the
> end, the *single original post* in that thread was 100% accurate then, as
> it is now.
> 
> In summary, what appears to happen on Usenet over the decades is that a
> single fact that doesn't fit into the Apple Apologists' belief system, can
> generate as many as 1,000 posts, of which *every* claim by the Apple
> Apologists is dead wrong.
> 
> When you're done with that canonical example, try this one next:
>   It's a fact current iOS devices can't report a correct cell tower ID
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2F_24NrIU3Q/t7_jS4zyAgAJ>
> 

Sorry, but that isn't a claim in this thread.

And your link takes me to a post where you CLAIM people have claimed 
this functionality, but which provides no actual quote and reference of 
them having done so.

Now, back to the current case:

What claim of functionality has been made in this thread that you now 
claim is non-existent?

Provide a QUOTE and a link to the post where the quoted text appears.

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

#117681

On 15 Aug 2018 12:39:54 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:

> Nope. Let's start with a claim IN THIS THREAD.

Hi Alan Baker,

Your entire response is *perfect* to prove my point that you Apple
Apologists are different from normal adults on Usenet.

I need to let the world know that you are a well-known classic Apple
Apologist (on the Mac side) who incessantly plays 5th-grade childish silly
semantic games - and - since I only speak facts - if you dispute that - I
welcome the invitation you prove for me to prove I've told you that plenty
of times before.

You think I forgot who you are?

You are a classic Apple Apologist, Alan Baker, - hence - all you *can* do -
is incessantly play your silly childish semantic games.

*The world will witness the silly semantic games you play below...*

> There were no links in the post to which I replied.

The mere fact you respond so quickly, coupled with the fact that the post
you responded to contains a link that links to more than a *dozen* factual
examples, again proves that you Apple Apologists have no need for facts.

The fact is that you didn't even *look* as the link in the post you 
responded to, which contains *plenty* of links, as shown below:
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/ooCFANY5CAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/7Qqc3f1dCAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/SGhljjBYCAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/VqzlcQ0hCAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/C78-NjwnCAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/Cf3bIIcQCAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/1YHAnJEnCAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/jsxtlTchCAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/3naulH4cCAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/yk6sP4I2CAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/HZYE3iscCAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/7rHAL_QXCAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/u21p0MMaCAAJ> 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/z3kVVoc-CAAJ> 
etc.

I'm not even going to *count* all those links that you didn't see, since
you said there were zero - where - as always - you Apple Apologists simply
play your silly childish 5th-grade semantic games.

> There were no references in the post to which I replied.

Again, the very words of the Apple Apologists themselves proves the
veracity of my statements that all they *can* do, is play their silly
childish 5th-grade semantic games.

Had they actually *read* the post their responding to and clicked on the
supplied reference, all the facts above would have been plain to them.

Why are the Apple Apologists all so childish?
I don't know why.

Based on the fact their childish behavior is repeated umpteen times over
the decades, I have often wondered what is so very different about Apple
Apple Apologists since they are clearly not interested in any fact that
doesn't fit into their imaginary belief system.
 What are common well-verified psychological traits of Apple Apologists
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/2BJ0i7LtngQ>

> So start providing some facts:
You mean, in *addition* to the dozen or more facts provided in the links
you didn't even see?

And, in addition to the two additional links in the two threads I provided
in the very post you're responding to?
a. WiFi
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2F_24NrIU3Q/t7_jS4zyAgAJ>
b. Cellular
   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2F_24NrIU3Q/t7_jS4zyAgAJ> 

*What's interesting is how you Apple Apologists are immune to facts!*

Really?
You're really _that_ dumb?

Nobody is _that_ dumb - not even you Apple Apologists.
Apparently facts are just a childish silly *game* to you Apple Apologists.

In this one post, you deny *all* the facts, and yet, like all Apple
Apologists, you supply not only incorrect facts (e.g., that you saw zero
references when that is false), but you supply, in toto, ZERO facts.

> What claim of functionality has been made that you now claim is 
> non-existent?

To the world at large ... if this statement alone doesn't prove my facts
100% correct that the Apple Apologists will deny anything - nothing else
will.

In the very post that Alan Baker (a well known Apple Apologist on the Mac
groups) are facts that have been validaed and proved with references
galore.

And yet, Alan Baker responded to this post in shorter time than it would
take to read those two referenced threads ... asking "what claims" are
made!
a. WiFi
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2F_24NrIU3Q/t7_jS4zyAgAJ>
b. Cellular
   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2F_24NrIU3Q/t7_jS4zyAgAJ> 

Can you believe how utterly fantastically _dumb_ these Apple Apologists
appear to be?

Actually, even they can't be this dumb ... so that's why I ask the question
of why the Apple Apologists are so incredibly _different_ from normal
adults.

Why do Apple Apologists immune to facts?
I don't know why.

I think it could be simply that Apple Apologists vehemently deny anything
and everything that doesn't fit neatly into their imaginary belief system.

For example.. they even deny what Apple already admitted for heaven's sake!
 What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted? 
 <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0[51-75]>

> That's not a quote. I don't read through

More silly semantic games from the Apple Apologists, which seems to be a
skill they're extremely good at.

> Sorry, but that isn't a claim in this thread.

Notice that the Apple Apologists are not only vehemently allergic to facts,
but that they deny facts even when patently obvious.

The question isn't whether they do this incessantly. They do.
The question is why.

Why are Apple Apologists so very _different_ from normal adults?

For example:
 Why do the Apple Apologists deny facts & habitually fabricate imaginary content?
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eRTC23FyVDY/fDk0k8KAAwAJ>

> And your link takes me to a post where you CLAIM people have claimed 
> this functionality, but which provides no actual quote and reference of 
> them having done so.

Hehhehheh... classic. Very classic. Intensely classic.

Play your silly semantic games Apple Apologists.

Play.

The facts were provided in those two threads. 
Those facts are clear.

Nobody disputes the facts other than the Apple Apologists - who - it should
be noted - provide absolutely zero evidence of their claims of non-existent
functionality.

This is the classic scenario:
a. Fact is presented which doesn't fit the Apple Apologist belief system
b. Apple Apologists says the fact is wrong (providing zero evidence)
c. Evidence is provided proving the fact (facts are funny that way)
b. Apple Apologists says the fact is wrong (providing zero evidence)
e. More evidence is provided proving the facts (facts are easy to prove)
b. Apple Apologists says the fact is wrong (providing zero evidence)
(where this goes on forever)

Usually the Apple Apologist is able to divert the thread playing silly
semantic games and changing the goal posts, as the Apple Apologists
recently did here for example.
 How does one upload voice memo recording to a web site directly from an iPhone? 
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lXUWgJT-vWc[1-25]>

> Now, back to the current case:

Note that the most common "trick" of the Apple Apologists is to first deny
obvious facts (without even reading them, in fact) and then trying to
divert the conversation by incessantly playing their silly fifth-grade
semantic games.

> What claim of functionality has been made in this thread that you now 
> claim is non-existent?

You're kidding right?
There were two clear cases of imaginary functionality claimed by the Apple
Apologists in the very post you're responding to .... 
*and you missed that?*

How could you miss it?

HINT: The same way you missed the dozen threads referenced in the post that
you claimed had zero references - that's how you missed it.

The fact that you Apple Apologists are immune to facts is well known.

The only question is *why* are you Apple Apologists immune to facts?

> Provide a QUOTE and a link to the post where the quoted text appears.

To the world - do you see how Alan Baker's response clearly shows that the
Apple Apologists all exhibit one or more of the following traits in almost
every post where they refute facts that don't fit into their imaginary
belief system...
===========================================================================
. They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary app functionality
. They then exclaim that it's been told to us many times how to do it! 
...
. They almost never back up statements with actual referenced facts
. They incessantly play childish semantic games when faced with those facts
...
. They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened 
. They then wittily respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!
...
. They're never purposefully helpful by helping the OP answer the question
. They post worthless retorts, all of which lack any added technical value
...
. They consistently blame Android for most of Apple's app & hardware faults 
. They consistently find the absolute worst price:performance comparisons
...
. They actually believe that a well-documented process is too complex!
. They literally believe elapsed time is proof of actual resolution time.
===========================================================================

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

#117682

On 2018-08-15 1:24 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2018 12:39:54 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:
> 
>> Nope. Let's start with a claim IN THIS THREAD.
> 
> Hi Alan Baker,
> 
> Your entire response is *perfect* to prove my point that you Apple
> Apologists are different from normal adults on Usenet.

This is an awful lot of verbiage, and frankly, I'm not interested in 
your ranting.

Provide the quote and the reference, or we're done.

> 
> I need to let the world know that you are a well-known classic Apple
> Apologist (on the Mac side) who incessantly plays 5th-grade childish silly
> semantic games - and - since I only speak facts - if you dispute that - I
> welcome the invitation you prove for me to prove I've told you that plenty
> of times before.
> 
> You think I forgot who you are?
> 
> You are a classic Apple Apologist, Alan Baker, - hence - all you *can* do -
> is incessantly play your silly childish semantic games.
> 
> *The world will witness the silly semantic games you play below...*
> 
>> There were no links in the post to which I replied.
> 
> The mere fact you respond so quickly, coupled with the fact that the post
> you responded to contains a link that links to more than a *dozen* factual
> examples, again proves that you Apple Apologists have no need for facts.
> 
> The fact is that you didn't even *look* as the link in the post you
> responded to, which contains *plenty* of links, as shown below:
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/ooCFANY5CAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/7Qqc3f1dCAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/SGhljjBYCAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/VqzlcQ0hCAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/C78-NjwnCAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/Cf3bIIcQCAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/1YHAnJEnCAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/jsxtlTchCAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/3naulH4cCAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/yk6sP4I2CAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/HZYE3iscCAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/7rHAL_QXCAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/u21p0MMaCAAJ>
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/z3kVVoc-CAAJ>
> etc.

None of those links were in the post to which I initially replied.

There was NO LINK in the post to which I originally replied.

<rest of ranting snipped>

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

#117687

On 15 Aug 2018 13:26:43 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:

> Provide the quote and the reference, or we're done.

The proof is stellar to the reader at large how the Apple Apologists play
their fifth grade silly semantic games, day in and day out on the Usenet.

Why do the Apple Apologists like Alan Baker play these silly games?
I don't know why.

Over the decades, I've seen them incessantly play these games, where they
particularly play their silly semantic games whenever "inconvenient facts"
threaten their imaginary belief system.

These facts that threaten their imaginary belief system generally are facts
that indicate an inability of their desired OS to perform typically the
simplest of tasks that all other common consumer operating systems easily
perform. 

What the Apple Apologists do, first and foremost, is deny the facts.
Then they generally make blatant fabricated assertions of functionality.
When confronted with facts to the contrary, they continue to deny facts.
And then, they generally divert the conversation with silly semantic games.

In stark contrast, while there are childish people on the non-Apple
os-related groups, in general, the Windows, Linux, and Android posters have
no problem with inconvenient facts.

That is, a Windows poster generally can disparage Microsoft accurately.
Likewise, a Linux poster can say the truth about Canonical or RedHat.
Similarly, an Android poster can ask how to avoid using Google Play.

On all these groups with mostly normal adults, such questions are handled
factually, and without 1,000 times the number of needless articles.

But not on Apple-based newsgroups.
On any discussion of fact on an Apple-based newsgroup, if that fact is
unpalatable to the Apple Apologists, they will do their damdness to deny
patently obvious facts. 

Witness the patently obvious fact, for example, that iOS can't even graph
the WiFi signal strength over time for all access points visible to the
device ... where that fact alone spawned something like 1,000 posts
(roughly), about half of which are by the Apple Apologists who denied the
obvious fact - and the other half (roughly) providing the data that the
Apple Apologists deny exists.

And yet ... the truth was, and still is - that the iOS device is patently
incapable of graphing wifi signal strength over time for the visible access
point. It's just not capable . That's a fact.

There are literally hundreds of such undeniable facts that the Apple
Apologists consistently deny, from the lack of ability to record phone
conversations automatically to the lack of ability to organize a screen
effectively to the lack of ability to torrent to the lack of ability to
rename app icons to make sense to the lack of ability to determine cell
tower IDs accurately to the lack of ability to easily manage older IPAs
like we can trivially easily manage older APKs & zip & deb files to the
lack of ability to easily manage your device storage sans Apple-branded
abominations like *every* other consumer platform allows.

NOTE: The list goes on for quite a long time for app functionality that,
for example, all other similar compute devices, and that particularly,
Android devices have that iOS just can't possibly do - while it was long
ago proven there is actually zero app functionality on iOS that isn't
already on Android. 


Why are the Apple Apologists different from normal adults?
I don't know why.

But they are. 

*I think facts threaten the Apple Apologists' imaginary belief system.*

Luckily for you, the reader, that Alan Brown, a classic (Mac) Apple
Apologist, quite literally proves the veracity of everything I posited.

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

#117688

On 2018-08-15 5:16 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2018 13:26:43 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:
> 
>> Provide the quote and the reference, or we're done.
> 
> The proof is stellar to the reader at large how the Apple Apologists play
> their fifth grade silly semantic games, day in and day out on the Usenet.
> 
> Why do the Apple Apologists like Alan Baker play these silly games?
> I don't know why.
> 
> Over the decades, I've seen them incessantly play these games, where they
> particularly play their silly semantic games whenever "inconvenient facts"
> threaten their imaginary belief system.
> 
> These facts that threaten their imaginary belief system generally are facts
> that indicate an inability of their desired OS to perform typically the
> simplest of tasks that all other common consumer operating systems easily
> perform.
> 
> What the Apple Apologists do, first and foremost, is deny the facts.
> Then they generally make blatant fabricated assertions of functionality.
> When confronted with facts to the contrary, they continue to deny facts.
> And then, they generally divert the conversation with silly semantic games.
> 
> In stark contrast, while there are childish people on the non-Apple
> os-related groups, in general, the Windows, Linux, and Android posters have
> no problem with inconvenient facts.
> 
> That is, a Windows poster generally can disparage Microsoft accurately.
> Likewise, a Linux poster can say the truth about Canonical or RedHat.
> Similarly, an Android poster can ask how to avoid using Google Play.
> 
> On all these groups with mostly normal adults, such questions are handled
> factually, and without 1,000 times the number of needless articles.
> 
> But not on Apple-based newsgroups.
> On any discussion of fact on an Apple-based newsgroup, if that fact is
> unpalatable to the Apple Apologists, they will do their damdness to deny
> patently obvious facts.
> 
> Witness the patently obvious fact, for example, that iOS can't even graph
> the WiFi signal strength over time for all access points visible to the
> device ... where that fact alone spawned something like 1,000 posts
> (roughly), about half of which are by the Apple Apologists who denied the
> obvious fact - and the other half (roughly) providing the data that the
> Apple Apologists deny exists.
> 
> And yet ... the truth was, and still is - that the iOS device is patently
> incapable of graphing wifi signal strength over time for the visible access
> point. It's just not capable . That's a fact.
> 
> There are literally hundreds of such undeniable facts that the Apple
> Apologists consistently deny, from the lack of ability to record phone
> conversations automatically to the lack of ability to organize a screen
> effectively to the lack of ability to torrent to the lack of ability to
> rename app icons to make sense to the lack of ability to determine cell
> tower IDs accurately to the lack of ability to easily manage older IPAs
> like we can trivially easily manage older APKs & zip & deb files to the
> lack of ability to easily manage your device storage sans Apple-branded
> abominations like *every* other consumer platform allows.
> 
> NOTE: The list goes on for quite a long time for app functionality that,
> for example, all other similar compute devices, and that particularly,
> Android devices have that iOS just can't possibly do - while it was long
> ago proven there is actually zero app functionality on iOS that isn't
> already on Android.
> 
> 
> Why are the Apple Apologists different from normal adults?
> I don't know why.
> 
> But they are.
> 
> *I think facts threaten the Apple Apologists' imaginary belief system.*
> 
> Luckily for you, the reader, that Alan Brown, a classic (Mac) Apple
> Apologist, quite literally proves the veracity of everything I posited.
> 

As I expected, you've posted no facts; at least no pertinent ones.

We're done and you lose.

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

#117689

On 15 Aug 2018 17:21:15 GMT, Alan Baker wrote:

> As I expected, you've posted no facts; at least no pertinent ones.

Everything you Apple Apologists post indicates that you're actually dumb.
But, nobody can be as dumb as you're playing.
So the only logical conclusion is that all you *can* do, is play silly
games.

All you Apple Apologists are alike in that way.
You're not at all like normal adults.
 Why are Apple Apologists not like normal adults?
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/2BJ0i7LtngQ/tv_HQ-iRDQAJ>

For example, this is an obvious fact that the Apple Apologists denied:
 It's a fact that iOS can't even display WiFi strength over time for available access points
 < <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0[1-25]>>
HINT: It's a fact - and - it's a fact the Apple Apologists denied!
 
Just last month, yet again, the Apple Apologists Jolly Roger and nospam
repeatedly fabricated non-existent functionality which they insisted the OP
try (where the OP was a valid Apple user, Wade Garrett, who vainly tried
the imaginary functionality that both Jolly Roger and nospam *insisted*
existed - even as more intelligent users like David Empson - who has never
once been wrong - proved otherwise!)
  Copy App from iPad to iPad Mini 
 <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw>

This poor Apple user, like many, asked a basic question of how to do
something that would be trivial on all common consumer operating systems
other than iOS. 

What he got from the Apple Apologists was pure fiction!
Repeatedly, the Apple Apologists screamed out imaginary functionality.
The Apple Apologists even chastised the poor OP for his utter failure.

And yet, David Empson, probably the most respected technically accurate
poster on all Apple groups, proved the claims of the Apple Apologists to be
utterly false.

They simply made them up.
Why?

I don't know why.
You tell me why.

Why do Apple Apologists incessantly fabricate imaginary functionality?
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/vcq3ESStmlc/DTreKP6lBAAJ>

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

#117705

On 16/08/2018 03:42, Arlen Holder wrote:
>
 >SNIP
 >
> Why?
> 
> I don't know why.
> You tell me why.
> 
> Why do Apple Apologists incessantly fabricate imaginary functionality?
>   <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/vcq3ESStmlc/DTreKP6lBAAJ>
> 
As a casual passerby I also have a question. Why do you care so much 
about Apple that you spend hours typing this stuff?

I don't like Apple. I don't buy their products. End of story.

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

#117708

On Aug 17, 2018, MikeS wrote
(in article <pl74ag$db1$1@dont-email.me>):

> On 16/08/2018 03:42, Arlen Holder wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > I don't know why.
> > You tell me why.
> >
> > Why do Apple Apologists incessantly fabricate imaginary functionality?
> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/vcq3ESStmlc/DTreKP6lBAAJ>
> As a casual passerby I also have a question. Why do you care so much
> about Apple that you spend hours typing this stuff?

Classic obsessive TROLL that is why.
>
> I don't like Apple. I don't buy their products. End of story.

Fair enough.

-- 

Regards,
Savageduck

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

#117725

On 8/17/18   PDT 1:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2018, MikeS wrote
> (in article <pl74ag$db1$1@dont-email.me>):
> 
>> On 16/08/2018 03:42, Arlen Holder wrote:
>>>

Please delete the troll groups. Let little "Arlen" work a bit.

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

#117680

In article <pl1v6t$cjm$1@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote:

>  It's a fact current iOS devices can't report a correct cell tower ID 

nonsense. 

of course they can, as you've been repeatedly told and which you
repeatedly ignore.

<http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/a986329a-82a9-4abd-bfdf-514132f
522f6-png.37469/>
<http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/3472dd2a-ab33-4309-8719-5e9102c
7570c-png.37471/>
<http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/b2d960fc-d1f5-4be6-a3f6-e1fdbd3
de5ad-png.37472/>

also note the date, november 2017, which shatters your usual excuse
that it's 'an old version of ios and was removed'.

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

#117683

On 15 Aug 2018 12:48:01 GMT, nospam wrote:

> nonsense. 
> 
> of course they can, as you've been repeatedly told and which you
> repeatedly ignore.
> 
> <http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/a986329a-82a9-4abd-bfdf-514132f
> 522f6-png.37469/>
> <http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/3472dd2a-ab33-4309-8719-5e9102c
> 7570c-png.37471/>
> <http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/b2d960fc-d1f5-4be6-a3f6-e1fdbd3
> de5ad-png.37472/>
> 
> also note the date, november 2017, which shatters your usual excuse
> that it's 'an old version of ios and was removed'.

Another trait of the Apple Apologists is to claim a functionality simply by
showing a screenshot which doesn't actually show the claimed functionality.

They did it here too!
 <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo> 

They think everyone is as stupid as they need them to be to believe what we
all know already is that any app can look up (and essentially guess by
doing so) most likely cell tower IDs from a plethor of existing (some good,
some terrible) database on the net but that never was the question -
particularly because the question was always about femto towers (which I
own, and which is well known to nospam that I own them) which are not on
any public Internet look database.

Even if they were, the lookups are not the actual report of the actual
*accurate* femto cell tower id (which is what, of course, Android reports).

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

#117684

On 2018-08-15 1:35 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2018 12:48:01 GMT, nospam wrote:
> 
>> nonsense.
>>
>> of course they can, as you've been repeatedly told and which you
>> repeatedly ignore.
>>
>> <http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/a986329a-82a9-4abd-bfdf-514132f
>> 522f6-png.37469/>
>> <http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/3472dd2a-ab33-4309-8719-5e9102c
>> 7570c-png.37471/>
>> <http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/b2d960fc-d1f5-4be6-a3f6-e1fdbd3
>> de5ad-png.37472/>
>>
>> also note the date, november 2017, which shatters your usual excuse
>> that it's 'an old version of ios and was removed'.
> 
> Another trait of the Apple Apologists is to claim a functionality simply by
> showing a screenshot which doesn't actually show the claimed functionality.

The first of those screenshots clearly shows the cell tower ID.

Perhaps that's why you snipped the fact that you claimed:

"It's a fact current iOS devices can't report a correct cell tower ID "

<rest of rant snipped>

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

#117685

In article <pl2352$u3u$1@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz>
wrote:

> > 
> >> nonsense.
> >>
> >> of course they can, as you've been repeatedly told and which you
> >> repeatedly ignore.
> >>
> >> <http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/a986329a-82a9-4abd-bfdf-514132f
> >> 522f6-png.37469/>
> >> <http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/3472dd2a-ab33-4309-8719-5e9102c
> >> 7570c-png.37471/>
> >> <http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/b2d960fc-d1f5-4be6-a3f6-e1fdbd3
> >> de5ad-png.37472/>
> >>
> >> also note the date, november 2017, which shatters your usual excuse
> >> that it's 'an old version of ios and was removed'.
> > 
> > Another trait of the Apple Apologists is to claim a functionality simply by
> > showing a screenshot which doesn't actually show the claimed functionality.
> 
> The first of those screenshots clearly shows the cell tower ID.
> 
> Perhaps that's why you snipped the fact that you claimed:
> 
> "It's a fact current iOS devices can't report a correct cell tower ID "

yep, that's why he snipped it.

whenever he's shown to be wrong, he goes off on a rant.

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

#117690

On 15 Aug 2018 14:24:04 GMT, nospam wrote:

> whenever he's shown to be wrong, he goes off on a rant.

No rant. Just facts. 

 It's a fact current iOS devices can't even report the correct cell tower ID 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/2F_24NrIU3Q/t7_jS4zyAgAJ>

 Is there a reason (what is the reason) Apple iOS won't let users get the cell tower ID? 
 <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1QKD-6c06_w[201-225]>

 Which app do you use to scan/debug GSM/CDMA cellular tower signal strength? 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/LizlMNsu49Q/oQJXKyX-CAAJ>

etc.

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

#117691

In article <pl2pfu$nto$1@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote:

>  It's a fact current iOS devices can't even report the correct cell tower ID 

it's a fact that you're full of shit.

<http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/234545fd-a440-432b-ac8a-12f1019
de8f7-png.37470/>

so much for your 'facts'.

>  Is there a reason (what is the reason) Apple iOS won't let users get the
> cell tower ID? 

they have no issue with users getting the cell tower id, not that it's
of much use, but those who want that info can obtain it.

<http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/234545fd-a440-432b-ac8a-12f1019
de8f7-png.37470/>

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

#117694

On 15 Aug 2018 20:40:22 GMT, nospam wrote:

> it's a fact that you're full of shit.

You don't even realize you're referencing a picture from *my own thread*
from Oct 26, 2017 for heaven's sake!
Does iOS 10 & iOS 11 iPhone 7 Field Test Mode output femtocell unique cell id numbers & tower freqs

The guy who kindly posted those screenshots, at my repeated request, didn't
even know what they show - as the question was always to show the specific
*unique* cell tower ID of the *femtocells* for troubleshooting purposes.

I also asked the same question at the same time on Tom's Hardware, but
nobody knew the answer to the same femtocell question over there either.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-3552320/ios-ios-iphone-field-test-mode-output-femtocell-unique-cell-numbers-tower-freqs.html

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

#117700

In article <pl359b$90c$1@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote:

> 
> > it's a fact that you're full of shit.
> 
> You don't even realize you're referencing a picture from *my own thread*

wrong.

> from Oct 26, 2017 for heaven's sake!

wrong*2.

the date is very clearly visible:
<http://www.iphoneforums.net/attachments/a986329a-82a9-4abd-bfdf-514132f
522f6-png.37469/>

you really are that stupid.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web