Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "David B." Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,uk.comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.advocacy Subject: Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 21:58:38 +0100 Lines: 89 Message-ID: References: <1075j7c$rso5$1@dont-email.me> <1075o0u$rso5$2@dont-email.me> <1075t30$vdme$2@dont-email.me> <1077s68$1d40a$1@dont-email.me> <1078a8g$1d433$1@dont-email.me> <1078iku$1he2o$2@dont-email.me> <107aske$22qav$2@dont-email.me> <107ip7m$2vd0$1@dont-email.me> Reply-To: boaterdave@hotmail.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net XPX8SJ2SjIfeWND4+ncMfA25m3e8M1UZ6PhqXLtyI5vcQvUXD6 Cancel-Lock: sha1:+YdUtCAnVOwuJAZXDdNjV5y83KE= sha256:b41pKqS581wYdLGfksU/2epWY6kVMQ8+kdwzGJltKZ8= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <107ip7m$2vd0$1@dont-email.me> Xref: csiph.com uk.comp.sys.mac:181674 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:136521 On 13/08/2025 20:32, Alan wrote: > On 2025-08-13 12:09, David B. wrote: >> On 10/08/2025 20:41, Alan wrote: >>> On 2025-08-10 01:46, David B. wrote: >>>> On 09/08/2025 23:38, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2025-08-09 14:49, David B. wrote: >>>>>> On 09/08/2025 21:15, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-08-09 10:58, David B. wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [....] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https:// >>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.ibb.co/ bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please help me understand why none of his other work can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be identified. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather >>>>>>>>>>>> underline my point: >>>>>>>>>>>> when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, >>>>>>>>>>>> you choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts. >>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you >>>>>>>>>>> aren't a fair and reasonable person. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was >>>>>>>>>>> on fire... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alan, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the >>>>>>>>>> point at hand. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alan, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its >>>>>>>> developer in >>>>>>>> the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s >>>>>>>> personal worth. >>>>>>> Bully for you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're a lying piece of shit, so what you say you are doing >>>>>>> doesn't matter at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just whose sock-puppet are you, dear boy? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No one's, you lying sack of shit. >>>> >>>> I don't lie about anything, laddie! :-P >>> >>> You're lying about that. >>> >>>>> And don't you just hate that. >>>> >>>> I'd very much like to know which post(s) you, personally, made in >>>> THIS thread! >>>  > > https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-etrecheck-safe-to-use- >>> and-is- >>>> this-safe-place-to-download.2034144/page-2 >>>> >>>> Do tell! >>> >>> Sure. I've never seen that thread or to my best recollection ever >>> posted anything on those forums. >> >> Do you know ANYTHING about Apple software?!!! >> >> Or hardware?!!! > How do you get that response from the fact that I haven't read a > particular thread on a not particularly important forum? Alan, Fair point — not having read a particular MacRumors thread doesn’t in itself prove anything about your Apple knowledge. I only asked because MacRumors is, in my view, the go-to Mac forum, and I was curious if you’d seen the relevant discussion there. That said, in a thread about EtreCheck and Ulbow, it’s fair to ask whether contributors have first-hand Apple experience to back their opinions. My focus is on the facts — software behaviour, developer background, and security implications — not personalities.