Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #181444 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-07-24 17:47 +0100 |
| Last post | 2025-07-25 21:09 +0000 |
| Articles | 19 on this page of 39 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac
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.
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-07-24 17:47 +0100
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 17:14 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-07-24 18:30 +0100
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-07-24 21:25 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-07-24 23:41 +0100
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-07-24 22:46 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 22:58 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 16:11 -0700
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My E xperience on MacRumors % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 16:17 -0700
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My E xperience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My E xperience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 23:33 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My E xperience on MacRumors % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 18:01 -0700
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My E xperience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My E xperience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 23:13 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-07-24 22:47 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-07-25 00:09 +0100
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 23:13 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors T i m <eternal@spaced.me.uk> - 2025-07-25 05:22 +0100
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-07-25 08:14 +0100
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 23:11 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-07-25 08:30 +0100
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-25 17:29 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-07-25 19:02 +0100
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-25 18:06 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-07-25 20:18 +0100
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-25 21:10 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-07-25 13:13 -0700
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My E xperience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My E xperience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-25 21:07 +0000
Re: Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) "Tegenaria" <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> - 2025-07-25 19:34 +0000
Re: Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-25 21:07 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-07-25 21:11 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-25 21:30 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) "Tegenaria" <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> - 2025-07-25 21:37 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-25 23:28 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-07-26 22:34 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-27 01:16 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-07-30 09:20 +0200
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-07-30 09:05 +0100
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-07-30 15:52 +0000
Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-07-25 21:09 +0000
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 17:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <6883bef1$5$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #181467 |
On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>: > On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>: >> >>> On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>>> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >>>> >>>>> On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote: >>>>>> On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote: >>>>>>> BDB wrote: >>>>>>>> I *DO* trust Howard Oakley! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And HO trusts and extols Etre. >>>>> >>>>>> *Maybe mistakenly*. >>>>> >>>>>>>> You’re probably familiar with EtreCheck, the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose >>>>>>>> problems, but have you paid for its Pro features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the best performance from your Mac, that’s money well-spent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While your OP to this topic was 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>>> your own insight is *blind*. Worse than blind, badly distorted beyond >>>>>>> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect HO never even thought to question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with nothing to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >>>>> >>>>> He even removed his LinkedIn page when I questioned him! >>>>> >>>>> https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-BC-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No honest fellow would do that! >>>> >>>> What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical question... why could a person who >>>> is generally honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, especially if >>>> they are being followed around by someone asking questions over and over? >>> >>> >>> appreciate your question — it's fair to ask why I see that as a red flag. >>> >>> Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But context matters. When someone runs a paid software >>> product, makes strong claims about its capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable support emails (even when support is part of the paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions — that’s where the suspicion starts. >> >> What questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but it can appear >>> evasive — especially if the individual is selling something to the >>> public and benefiting from trust built within communities like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support forums. >> >> There can also be extenuating circumstances of not wanting someone to keep >> asking questions seen as inappropriate. >>> >>> I'm not trying to hound anyone — but transparency and accountability >>> matter, especially in tech where users often rely on software to >>> diagnose or alter critical systems. It’s not unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this tool I’m being told to trust? >> >> If you do not trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you want. >>> >>> So yes — context, not just the act, is what shapes my view. > > > Hi Brock, > > Fair points—and thank you for asking respectfully. I genuinely don’t > have a problem with people removing their LinkedIn page in general. > You're absolutely right that there can be valid, personal reasons for > doing so—especially if someone feels harassed or unduly scrutinised. > > However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from more than just that > single act. I paid for EtreCheck’s Power User package — which includes > support — and asked legitimate technical questions about the app. What questions? Please be specific. > Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply. That’s not just > frustrating; it’s unacceptable when support is part of the paid offering. You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have an unhealthy focus on the software -- which is odd -- and also on the author -- which is harmful. > > At the same time, I’ve seen posts quietly vanish, evasive replies in > public forums, and a lack of any concrete way to verify the developer’s > background or qualifications. What makes you think you are entitled to know ANYTHING about his background or qualifications? > In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page > right after being questioned only deepened my unease. > > This isn’t personal, When you focus on him as a person -- his "background or qualifications" -- that makes it personal and not professional. > and it’s certainly not about Snit — he’s a friend, > not a foe! I just believe that if someone is asking users to trust them > with diagnostic tools that can touch sensitive parts of a system, there > should be some accountability. That’s all. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 19:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mehv5hFovapU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #181475 |
On 25/07/2025 18:29, Brock McNuggets asked yet MORE questions!
Hi Brock,
Thanks again for engaging politely — I really do appreciate it. Let me
try to clarify a few things:
"What questions? Please be specific."
Certainly. The questions I asked John Daniel directly (via the contact
details provided for EtreCheck support) were strictly technical and
focused on:
Clarification of what data EtreCheck collects and where it is
stored or transmitted.
The purpose and function of specific background processes launched
by the app.
The reasons for observed outbound connections made by EtreCheck
when run in offline mode.
Why EtreCheck triggered false positives in several independent
malware and telemetry monitoring tools.
None of those were answered — not even with a simple acknowledgment. I
sent polite follow-ups and eventually asked via a public forum whether
others had received support. At that point, John vanished from LinkedIn,
and some of my posts disappeared from public view (as did others
questioning similar things).
"You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is malware..."
I do understand that concern. Let me be clear: I’ve never declared
EtreCheck to be malware. What I have said is that, given the opacity
surrounding its operation and the developer's refusal to answer
straightforward queries, it raises red flags. That’s a risk-based
statement, not a claim of confirmed malicious intent. As someone with a
long history of dealing with systems security, I view tools that evade
transparency with extra caution.
"What makes you think you are entitled to know ANYTHING about his
background or qualifications?"
Fair question. My answer: I’m not entitled to anything beyond what he
voluntarily offers. But if someone wants to sell a product that alters
or scans system-level components — especially on macOS — and markets
that tool on the basis of authority or credibility, then it’s perfectly
valid to ask: What qualifies this person to give diagnostics or
remediation advice? If someone benefits commercially from trust, then
transparency helps support that trust.
"When you focus on him as a person... that makes it personal."
I get that distinction, and I accept that the line can blur. My aim has
never been to dig into private matters or launch ad hominem attacks —
far from it. I’ve raised questions only in relation to the product and
the support structure around it. If a person is presenting themselves as
a software authority but declines to engage in support or basic identity
verification, then yes — some personal accountability becomes relevant.
As for Snit — again, let me reiterate — I consider him a friend. We
disagree sometimes, as all friends do, but I’d never treat him as an
enemy. I hope he knows that.
--
All the best,
David B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 18:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <6883c78a$3$10362$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #181476 |
On Jul 25, 2025 at 11:02:23 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <mehv5hFovapU1@mid.individual.net>: > On 25/07/2025 18:29, Brock McNuggets asked yet MORE questions! > > Hi Brock, > > Thanks again for engaging politely — I really do appreciate it. Let me > try to clarify a few things: > > "What questions? Please be specific." > > Certainly. The questions I asked John Daniel directly (via the contact > details provided for EtreCheck support) were strictly technical and > focused on: > > Clarification of what data EtreCheck collects and where it is > stored or transmitted. > > The purpose and function of specific background processes launched > by the app. > > The reasons for observed outbound connections made by EtreCheck > when run in offline mode. > > Why EtreCheck triggered false positives in several independent > malware and telemetry monitoring tools. If these were a bunch of emails I can see where it is a bit much, but overall those are not of concern. > > None of those were answered — not even with a simple acknowledgment. I > sent polite follow-ups and eventually asked via a public forum whether > others had received support. At that point, John vanished from LinkedIn, > and some of my posts disappeared from public view (as did others > questioning similar things). > > "You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is malware..." > > I do understand that concern. Let me be clear: I’ve never declared > EtreCheck to be malware. You have repeatedly insinuated. > What I have said is that, given the opacity > surrounding its operation and the developer's refusal to answer > straightforward queries, it raises red flags. That’s a risk-based > statement, not a claim of confirmed malicious intent. As someone with a > long history of dealing with systems security, I view tools that evade > transparency with extra caution. What "long history of dealing with systems security"? > > "What makes you think you are entitled to know ANYTHING about his > background or qualifications?" > > Fair question. My answer: I’m not entitled to anything beyond what he > voluntarily offers. But if someone wants to sell a product that alters > or scans system-level components — especially on macOS — and markets > that tool on the basis of authority or credibility, then it’s perfectly > valid to ask: What qualifies this person to give diagnostics or > remediation advice? If someone benefits commercially from trust, then > transparency helps support that trust. If you do not like the response simply do not use the product and, please, let it go. The obsession you have here is unhealthy for you. > > "When you focus on him as a person... that makes it personal." > > I get that distinction, and I accept that the line can blur. My aim has > never been to dig into private matters or launch ad hominem attacks — > far from it. I’ve raised questions only in relation to the product and > the support structure around it. No: you also asked about his personal life. > If a person is presenting themselves as > a software authority but declines to engage in support or basic identity > verification, then yes — some personal accountability becomes relevant. Not really... but if you need it and are not getting it then let it go and just do not use the product. > > As for Snit — again, let me reiterate — I consider him a friend. We > disagree sometimes, as all friends do, but I’d never treat him as an > enemy. I hope he knows that. I do. And I hope you know I feel the same way. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 20:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mei3jcFpn1aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #181477 |
On 25/07/2025 19:06, Brock McNuggets wrote: > On Jul 25, 2025 at 11:02:23 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote > <mehv5hFovapU1@mid.individual.net>: > >> On 25/07/2025 18:29, Brock McNuggets asked yet MORE questions! >> >> Hi Brock, >> >> Thanks again for engaging politely — I really do appreciate it. Let me >> try to clarify a few things: >> >> "What questions? Please be specific." >> >> Certainly. The questions I asked John Daniel directly (via the contact >> details provided for EtreCheck support) were strictly technical and >> focused on: >> >> Clarification of what data EtreCheck collects and where it is >> stored or transmitted. >> >> The purpose and function of specific background processes launched >> by the app. >> >> The reasons for observed outbound connections made by EtreCheck >> when run in offline mode. >> >> Why EtreCheck triggered false positives in several independent >> malware and telemetry monitoring tools. > > If these were a bunch of emails I can see where it is a bit much, but overall > those are not of concern. >> >> None of those were answered — not even with a simple acknowledgment. I >> sent polite follow-ups and eventually asked via a public forum whether >> others had received support. At that point, John vanished from LinkedIn, >> and some of my posts disappeared from public view (as did others >> questioning similar things). >> >> "You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is malware..." >> >> I do understand that concern. Let me be clear: I’ve never declared >> EtreCheck to be malware. > > You have repeatedly insinuated. > >> What I have said is that, given the opacity >> surrounding its operation and the developer's refusal to answer >> straightforward queries, it raises red flags. That’s a risk-based >> statement, not a claim of confirmed malicious intent. As someone with a >> long history of dealing with systems security, I view tools that evade >> transparency with extra caution. > > What "long history of dealing with systems security"? >> >> "What makes you think you are entitled to know ANYTHING about his >> background or qualifications?" >> >> Fair question. My answer: I’m not entitled to anything beyond what he >> voluntarily offers. But if someone wants to sell a product that alters >> or scans system-level components — especially on macOS — and markets >> that tool on the basis of authority or credibility, then it’s perfectly >> valid to ask: What qualifies this person to give diagnostics or >> remediation advice? If someone benefits commercially from trust, then >> transparency helps support that trust. > > If you do not like the response simply do not use the product and, please, let > it go. The obsession you have here is unhealthy for you. >> >> "When you focus on him as a person... that makes it personal." >> >> I get that distinction, and I accept that the line can blur. My aim has >> never been to dig into private matters or launch ad hominem attacks — >> far from it. I’ve raised questions only in relation to the product and >> the support structure around it. > > No: you also asked about his personal life. > >> If a person is presenting themselves as >> a software authority but declines to engage in support or basic identity >> verification, then yes — some personal accountability becomes relevant. > > Not really... but if you need it and are not getting it then let it go and > just do not use the product. >> >> As for Snit — again, let me reiterate — I consider him a friend. We >> disagree sometimes, as all friends do, but I’d never treat him as an >> enemy. I hope he knows that. > > I do. And I hope you know I feel the same way. Hi Brock, I appreciate your continued honesty and the fact that we can disagree without descending into hostility — that’s rare and valuable in online discussions, especially here. Just to clarify one last time: I’ve never contacted John Daniel about his personal life. I’ve only raised concerns relevant to the software he’s selling and supporting — or failing to. The questions I asked were rooted in technical transparency, not curiosity about his private affairs. As for my background, I’ve worked with system-level troubleshooting and OS-level tooling — both professionally and personally — for many decades. I’ve seen well-meaning software go rogue due to neglect, poor coding, or inadequate vetting. That’s why I raise concerns when tools gain implicit trust in communities while the person behind them avoids scrutiny or questions. That said, I do hear your point — and I’ll leave it there for now. If others find this discussion helpful or concerning, they’re welcome to weigh in. Otherwise, I’m happy to let it rest. And Michael — thank you. I’m glad we’re clear. 😊 -- Warm regards, David B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 21:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <6883f2af$8$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #181478 |
On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:18:04 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <mei3jcFpn1aU1@mid.individual.net>: > On 25/07/2025 19:06, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> On Jul 25, 2025 at 11:02:23 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >> <mehv5hFovapU1@mid.individual.net>: >> >>> On 25/07/2025 18:29, Brock McNuggets asked yet MORE questions! >>> >>> Hi Brock, >>> >>> Thanks again for engaging politely — I really do appreciate it. Let me >>> try to clarify a few things: >>> >>> "What questions? Please be specific." >>> >>> Certainly. The questions I asked John Daniel directly (via the contact >>> details provided for EtreCheck support) were strictly technical and >>> focused on: >>> >>> Clarification of what data EtreCheck collects and where it is >>> stored or transmitted. >>> >>> The purpose and function of specific background processes launched >>> by the app. >>> >>> The reasons for observed outbound connections made by EtreCheck >>> when run in offline mode. >>> >>> Why EtreCheck triggered false positives in several independent >>> malware and telemetry monitoring tools. >> >> If these were a bunch of emails I can see where it is a bit much, but overall >> those are not of concern. >>> >>> None of those were answered — not even with a simple acknowledgment. I >>> sent polite follow-ups and eventually asked via a public forum whether >>> others had received support. At that point, John vanished from LinkedIn, >>> and some of my posts disappeared from public view (as did others >>> questioning similar things). >>> >>> "You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is malware..." >>> >>> I do understand that concern. Let me be clear: I’ve never declared >>> EtreCheck to be malware. >> >> You have repeatedly insinuated. >> >>> What I have said is that, given the opacity >>> surrounding its operation and the developer's refusal to answer >>> straightforward queries, it raises red flags. That’s a risk-based >>> statement, not a claim of confirmed malicious intent. As someone with a >>> long history of dealing with systems security, I view tools that evade >>> transparency with extra caution. >> >> What "long history of dealing with systems security"? >>> >>> "What makes you think you are entitled to know ANYTHING about his >>> background or qualifications?" >>> >>> Fair question. My answer: I’m not entitled to anything beyond what he >>> voluntarily offers. But if someone wants to sell a product that alters >>> or scans system-level components — especially on macOS — and markets >>> that tool on the basis of authority or credibility, then it’s perfectly >>> valid to ask: What qualifies this person to give diagnostics or >>> remediation advice? If someone benefits commercially from trust, then >>> transparency helps support that trust. >> >> If you do not like the response simply do not use the product and, please, let >> it go. The obsession you have here is unhealthy for you. >>> >>> "When you focus on him as a person... that makes it personal." >>> >>> I get that distinction, and I accept that the line can blur. My aim has >>> never been to dig into private matters or launch ad hominem attacks — >>> far from it. I’ve raised questions only in relation to the product and >>> the support structure around it. >> >> No: you also asked about his personal life. >> >>> If a person is presenting themselves as >>> a software authority but declines to engage in support or basic identity >>> verification, then yes — some personal accountability becomes relevant. >> >> Not really... but if you need it and are not getting it then let it go and >> just do not use the product. >>> >>> As for Snit — again, let me reiterate — I consider him a friend. We >>> disagree sometimes, as all friends do, but I’d never treat him as an >>> enemy. I hope he knows that. >> >> I do. And I hope you know I feel the same way. > > Hi Brock, > > I appreciate your continued honesty and the fact that we can disagree > without descending into hostility — that’s rare and valuable in online > discussions, especially here. Agreed. Sad some try to use disagreement to push personal attacks. > > Just to clarify one last time: I’ve never contacted John Daniel about > his personal life. I’ve only raised concerns relevant to the software > he’s selling and supporting — or failing to. The questions I asked were > rooted in technical transparency, not curiosity about his private affairs. > > As for my background, I’ve worked with system-level troubleshooting and > OS-level tooling — both professionally and personally — for many > decades. I’ve seen well-meaning software go rogue due to neglect, poor > coding, or inadequate vetting. That’s why I raise concerns when tools > gain implicit trust in communities while the person behind them avoids > scrutiny or questions. > > That said, I do hear your point — and I’ll leave it there for now. If > others find this discussion helpful or concerning, they’re welcome to > weigh in. Otherwise, I’m happy to let it rest. Fair enough. > > And Michael — thank you. I’m glad we’re clear. 😊 As am I. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <pursent100@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <UVidnTmhd772eB71nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #181477 |
Brock McNuggets wrote: > On Jul 25, 2025 at 11:02:23 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote > <mehv5hFovapU1@mid.individual.net>: > >> On 25/07/2025 18:29, Brock McNuggets asked yet MORE questions! >> >> Hi Brock, >> >> Thanks again for engaging politely — I really do appreciate it. Let me >> try to clarify a few things: >> >> "What questions? Please be specific." >> >> Certainly. The questions I asked John Daniel directly (via the contact >> details provided for EtreCheck support) were strictly technical and >> focused on: >> >> Clarification of what data EtreCheck collects and where it is >> stored or transmitted. >> >> The purpose and function of specific background processes launched >> by the app. >> >> The reasons for observed outbound connections made by EtreCheck >> when run in offline mode. >> >> Why EtreCheck triggered false positives in several independent >> malware and telemetry monitoring tools. > > If these were a bunch of emails I can see where it is a bit much, but overall > those are not of concern. >> >> None of those were answered — not even with a simple acknowledgment. I >> sent polite follow-ups and eventually asked via a public forum whether >> others had received support. At that point, John vanished from LinkedIn, >> and some of my posts disappeared from public view (as did others >> questioning similar things). >> >> "You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is malware..." >> >> I do understand that concern. Let me be clear: I’ve never declared >> EtreCheck to be malware. > > You have repeatedly insinuated. > >> What I have said is that, given the opacity >> surrounding its operation and the developer's refusal to answer >> straightforward queries, it raises red flags. That’s a risk-based >> statement, not a claim of confirmed malicious intent. As someone with a >> long history of dealing with systems security, I view tools that evade >> transparency with extra caution. > > What "long history of dealing with systems security"? >> >> "What makes you think you are entitled to know ANYTHING about his >> background or qualifications?" >> >> Fair question. My answer: I’m not entitled to anything beyond what he >> voluntarily offers. But if someone wants to sell a product that alters >> or scans system-level components — especially on macOS — and markets >> that tool on the basis of authority or credibility, then it’s perfectly >> valid to ask: What qualifies this person to give diagnostics or >> remediation advice? If someone benefits commercially from trust, then >> transparency helps support that trust. > > If you do not like the response simply do not use the product and, please, let > it go. The obsession you have here is unhealthy for you. >> >> "When you focus on him as a person... that makes it personal." >> >> I get that distinction, and I accept that the line can blur. My aim has >> never been to dig into private matters or launch ad hominem attacks — >> far from it. I’ve raised questions only in relation to the product and >> the support structure around it. > > No: you also asked about his personal life. > >> If a person is presenting themselves as >> a software authority but declines to engage in support or basic identity >> verification, then yes — some personal accountability becomes relevant. > > Not really... but if you need it and are not getting it then let it go and > just do not use the product. >> >> As for Snit — again, let me reiterate — I consider him a friend. We >> disagree sometimes, as all friends do, but I’d never treat him as an >> enemy. I hope he knows that. > > I do. And I hope you know I feel the same way. > > i hate snit and i'll tell you why
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 21:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My E xperience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My E xperience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <6883f210$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #181481 |
On Jul 25, 2025 at 1:13:31 PM MST, "%" wrote <UVidnTmhd772eB71nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>: > Brock McNuggets wrote: >> On Jul 25, 2025 at 11:02:23 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >> <mehv5hFovapU1@mid.individual.net>: >> >>> On 25/07/2025 18:29, Brock McNuggets asked yet MORE questions! >>> >>> Hi Brock, >>> >>> Thanks again for engaging politely — I really do appreciate it. Let me >>> try to clarify a few things: >>> >>> "What questions? Please be specific." >>> >>> Certainly. The questions I asked John Daniel directly (via the contact >>> details provided for EtreCheck support) were strictly technical and >>> focused on: >>> >>> Clarification of what data EtreCheck collects and where it is >>> stored or transmitted. >>> >>> The purpose and function of specific background processes launched >>> by the app. >>> >>> The reasons for observed outbound connections made by EtreCheck >>> when run in offline mode. >>> >>> Why EtreCheck triggered false positives in several independent >>> malware and telemetry monitoring tools. >> >> If these were a bunch of emails I can see where it is a bit much, but overall >> those are not of concern. >>> >>> None of those were answered — not even with a simple acknowledgment. I >>> sent polite follow-ups and eventually asked via a public forum whether >>> others had received support. At that point, John vanished from LinkedIn, >>> and some of my posts disappeared from public view (as did others >>> questioning similar things). >>> >>> "You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is malware..." >>> >>> I do understand that concern. Let me be clear: I’ve never declared >>> EtreCheck to be malware. >> >> You have repeatedly insinuated. >> >>> What I have said is that, given the opacity >>> surrounding its operation and the developer's refusal to answer >>> straightforward queries, it raises red flags. That’s a risk-based >>> statement, not a claim of confirmed malicious intent. As someone with a >>> long history of dealing with systems security, I view tools that evade >>> transparency with extra caution. >> >> What "long history of dealing with systems security"? >>> >>> "What makes you think you are entitled to know ANYTHING about his >>> background or qualifications?" >>> >>> Fair question. My answer: I’m not entitled to anything beyond what he >>> voluntarily offers. But if someone wants to sell a product that alters >>> or scans system-level components — especially on macOS — and markets >>> that tool on the basis of authority or credibility, then it’s perfectly >>> valid to ask: What qualifies this person to give diagnostics or >>> remediation advice? If someone benefits commercially from trust, then >>> transparency helps support that trust. >> >> If you do not like the response simply do not use the product and, please, let >> it go. The obsession you have here is unhealthy for you. >>> >>> "When you focus on him as a person... that makes it personal." >>> >>> I get that distinction, and I accept that the line can blur. My aim has >>> never been to dig into private matters or launch ad hominem attacks — >>> far from it. I’ve raised questions only in relation to the product and >>> the support structure around it. >> >> No: you also asked about his personal life. >> >>> If a person is presenting themselves as >>> a software authority but declines to engage in support or basic identity >>> verification, then yes — some personal accountability becomes relevant. >> >> Not really... but if you need it and are not getting it then let it go and >> just do not use the product. >>> >>> As for Snit — again, let me reiterate — I consider him a friend. We >>> disagree sometimes, as all friends do, but I’d never treat him as an >>> enemy. I hope he knows that. >> >> I do. And I hope you know I feel the same way. >> >> > i hate snit and i'll tell you why So do I. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tegenaria" <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 19:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <xn0p8pwfdluet1008@usnews.blocknews.net> |
| In reply to | #181475 |
Brock McNuggets wrote: > On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33 AM MST, ""David B."" > wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>: > > > On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote: > >> On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26 AM MST, ""David B."" > wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>: > >> > >>> On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote: > >>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44 AM MST, ""David B."" > wrote >>>> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: > >>>> > >>>>> On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote: > >>>>>> On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote: > >>>>>>> BDB wrote: > >>>>>>>> I DO trust Howard Oakley! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And HO trusts and extols Etre. > >>>>> > >>>>>> *Maybe mistakenly*. > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> You’re probably familiar with EtreCheck, > the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in > Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose > >>>>>>>> problems, but have you paid for its Pro > features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the best > performance from your Mac, that’s money well-spent. > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While your OP to this topic was > 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>>> your > own insight is blind. Worse than blind, badly > distorted beyond >>>>>>> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> > I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer. > >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect HO never even thought to > question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone > who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with > nothing to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! > >>>>> >>>>> He even removed his LinkedIn page when I > questioned him! >>>>> > >>>>> > https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B > C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No honest > fellow would do that! >>>> > >>>> What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical > question... why could a person who >>>> is generally > honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, > especially if >>>> they are being followed around by > someone asking questions over and over? >>> >>> > >>> appreciate your question — it's fair to ask > why I see that as a red flag. >>> > >>> Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page > isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But > context matters. When someone runs a paid software > >>> product, makes strong claims about its > capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable > support emails (even when support is part of the > paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple > platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions — > that’s where the suspicion starts. >> >> What > questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile > after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or > background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but > it can appear >>> evasive — especially if the > individual is selling something to the >>> public > and benefiting from trust built within communities > like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support forums. >> >> > There can also be extenuating circumstances of not > wanting someone to keep >> asking questions seen as > inappropriate. >>> >>> I'm not trying to hound > anyone — but transparency and accountability >>> > matter, especially in tech where users often rely on > software to >>> diagnose or alter critical systems. > It’s not unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this > tool I’m being told to trust? >> >> If you do not > trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you > want. >>> >>> So yes — context, not just the act, > is what shapes my view. > > > > > > Hi Brock, > > > > Fair points—and thank you for asking respectfully. > > I genuinely don’t have a problem with people > > removing their LinkedIn page in general. You're > > absolutely right that there can be valid, personal > > reasons for doing so—especially if someone feels > > harassed or unduly scrutinised. > > > > However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from > > more than just that single act. I paid for > > EtreCheck’s Power User package — which includes > > support — and asked legitimate technical questions > > about the app. > > What questions? Please be specific. > > > Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply. > > That’s not just frustrating; it’s unacceptable > > when support is part of the paid offering. > > You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is > malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have an > unhealthy focus on the software -- which is odd -- > and also on the author -- which is harmful. > > > > At the same time, I’ve seen posts quietly vanish, > > evasive replies in public forums, and a lack of > > any concrete way to verify the developer’s > > background or qualifications. > > What makes you think you are entitled to know > ANYTHING about his background or qualifications? > > > In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page > > right after being questioned only deepened my > > unease. > > > > This isn’t personal, > > When you focus on him as a person -- his "background > or qualifications" -- that makes it personal and not > professional. > > > and it’s certainly not about Snit — he’s a friend, > > not a foe! I just believe that if someone is > > asking users to trust them with diagnostic tools > > that can touch sensitive parts of a system, there > > should be some accountability. That’s all. Preach it saint Snit ! Amen brother Snit. What a fucking loser you are. Your post is the ultimate in projection. You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does daily all that you are accusing Boater Dave of. Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting the pills snit. Go fuck yourself snit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 21:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <6883f229$0$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #181479 |
On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:34:29 PM MST, ""Tegenaria"" wrote <xn0p8pwfdluet1008@usnews.blocknews.net>: > Brock McNuggets wrote: > >> On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33 AM MST, ""David B."" >> wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>: >> >>> On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26 AM MST, ""David B."" >> wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>: >>>> >>>>> On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44 AM MST, ""David B."" >> wrote >>>> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote: >>>>>>>> On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote: >>>>>>>>> BDB wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I DO trust Howard Oakley! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And HO trusts and extols Etre. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Maybe mistakenly*. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You’re probably familiar with EtreCheck, >> the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in >> Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose >>>>>>>>>> problems, but have you paid for its Pro >> features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the best >> performance from your Mac, that’s money well-spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While your OP to this topic was >> 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>>> your >> own insight is blind. Worse than blind, badly >> distorted beyond >>>>>>> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect HO never even thought to >> question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone >> who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with >> nothing to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >>>>>>>>>>>> He even removed his LinkedIn page when I >> questioned him! >>>>> >>>>>>> >> https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B >> C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No honest >> fellow would do that! >>>> >>>>>> What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical >> question... why could a person who >>>> is generally >> honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, >> especially if >>>> they are being followed around by >> someone asking questions over and over? >>> >>> >>>>> appreciate your question — it's fair to ask >> why I see that as a red flag. >>> >>>>> Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page >> isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But >> context matters. When someone runs a paid software >>>>> product, makes strong claims about its >> capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable >> support emails (even when support is part of the >> paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple >> platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions — >> that’s where the suspicion starts. >> >> What >> questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile >> after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or >> background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but >> it can appear >>> evasive — especially if the >> individual is selling something to the >>> public >> and benefiting from trust built within communities >> like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support forums. >> >> >> There can also be extenuating circumstances of not >> wanting someone to keep >> asking questions seen as >> inappropriate. >>> >>> I'm not trying to hound >> anyone — but transparency and accountability >>> >> matter, especially in tech where users often rely on >> software to >>> diagnose or alter critical systems. >> It’s not unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this >> tool I’m being told to trust? >> >> If you do not >> trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you >> want. >>> >>> So yes — context, not just the act, >> is what shapes my view. >>> >>> >>> Hi Brock, >>> >>> Fair points—and thank you for asking respectfully. >>> I genuinely don’t have a problem with people >>> removing their LinkedIn page in general. You're >>> absolutely right that there can be valid, personal >>> reasons for doing so—especially if someone feels >>> harassed or unduly scrutinised. >>> >>> However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from >>> more than just that single act. I paid for >>> EtreCheck’s Power User package — which includes >>> support — and asked legitimate technical questions >>> about the app. >> >> What questions? Please be specific. >> >>> Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply. >>> That’s not just frustrating; it’s unacceptable >>> when support is part of the paid offering. >> >> You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is >> malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have an >> unhealthy focus on the software -- which is odd -- >> and also on the author -- which is harmful. >>> >>> At the same time, I’ve seen posts quietly vanish, >>> evasive replies in public forums, and a lack of >>> any concrete way to verify the developer’s >>> background or qualifications. >> >> What makes you think you are entitled to know >> ANYTHING about his background or qualifications? >> >>> In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page >>> right after being questioned only deepened my >>> unease. >>> >>> This isn’t personal, >> >> When you focus on him as a person -- his "background >> or qualifications" -- that makes it personal and not >> professional. >> >>> and it’s certainly not about Snit — he’s a friend, >>> not a foe! I just believe that if someone is >>> asking users to trust them with diagnostic tools >>> that can touch sensitive parts of a system, there >>> should be some accountability. That’s all. > > Preach it saint Snit ! > Amen brother Snit. > > What a fucking loser you are. > > Your post is the ultimate in projection. > You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does daily > all that you are accusing Boater Dave of. > > Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting the > pills snit. > Go fuck yourself snit. Sad you have nothing of value to say. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 21:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <1060ruq$2314i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181479 |
On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote: > Brock McNuggets wrote: > >> On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33 AM MST, ""David B."" >> wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>: >> >> > On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> >> On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26 AM MST, ""David B."" >> wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>: >> >> >> >>> On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> >>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44 AM MST, ""David B."" >> wrote >>>> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote: >> >>>>>> On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote: >> >>>>>>> BDB wrote: >> >>>>>>>> I DO trust Howard Oakley! >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> And HO trusts and extols Etre. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> *Maybe mistakenly*. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>>> You’re probably familiar with EtreCheck, >> the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in >> Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose >> >>>>>>>> problems, but have you paid for its Pro >> features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the best >> performance from your Mac, that’s money well-spent. >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While your OP to this topic was >> 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>>> your >> own insight is blind. Worse than blind, badly >> distorted beyond >>>>>>> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer. >> >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect HO never even thought to >> question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone >> who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with >> nothing to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >> >>>>> >>>>> He even removed his LinkedIn page when I >> questioned him! >>>>> >> >>>>> >> https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B >> C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No honest >> fellow would do that! >>>> >> >>>> What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical >> question... why could a person who >>>> is generally >> honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, >> especially if >>>> they are being followed around by >> someone asking questions over and over? >>> >>> >> >>> appreciate your question — it's fair to ask >> why I see that as a red flag. >>> >> >>> Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page >> isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But >> context matters. When someone runs a paid software >> >>> product, makes strong claims about its >> capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable >> support emails (even when support is part of the >> paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple >> platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions — >> that’s where the suspicion starts. >> >> What >> questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile >> after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or >> background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but >> it can appear >>> evasive — especially if the >> individual is selling something to the >>> public >> and benefiting from trust built within communities >> like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support forums. >> >> >> There can also be extenuating circumstances of not >> wanting someone to keep >> asking questions seen as >> inappropriate. >>> >>> I'm not trying to hound >> anyone — but transparency and accountability >>> >> matter, especially in tech where users often rely on >> software to >>> diagnose or alter critical systems. >> It’s not unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this >> tool I’m being told to trust? >> >> If you do not >> trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you >> want. >>> >>> So yes — context, not just the act, >> is what shapes my view. >> > >> > >> > Hi Brock, >> > >> > Fair points—and thank you for asking respectfully. >> > I genuinely don’t have a problem with people >> > removing their LinkedIn page in general. You're >> > absolutely right that there can be valid, personal >> > reasons for doing so—especially if someone feels >> > harassed or unduly scrutinised. >> > >> > However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from >> > more than just that single act. I paid for >> > EtreCheck’s Power User package — which includes >> > support — and asked legitimate technical questions >> > about the app. >> >> What questions? Please be specific. >> >> > Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply. >> > That’s not just frustrating; it’s unacceptable >> > when support is part of the paid offering. >> >> You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is >> malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have an >> unhealthy focus on the software -- which is odd -- >> and also on the author -- which is harmful. >> > >> > At the same time, I’ve seen posts quietly vanish, >> > evasive replies in public forums, and a lack of >> > any concrete way to verify the developer’s >> > background or qualifications. >> >> What makes you think you are entitled to know >> ANYTHING about his background or qualifications? >> >> > In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page >> > right after being questioned only deepened my >> > unease. >> > >> > This isn’t personal, >> >> When you focus on him as a person -- his "background >> or qualifications" -- that makes it personal and not >> professional. >> >> > and it’s certainly not about Snit — he’s a friend, >> > not a foe! I just believe that if someone is >> > asking users to trust them with diagnostic tools >> > that can touch sensitive parts of a system, there >> > should be some accountability. That’s all. > > Preach it saint Snit ! > Amen brother Snit. > > What a fucking loser you are. > > Your post is the ultimate in projection. > You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does daily > all that you are accusing Boater Dave of. > > Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting the > pills snit. > Go fuck yourself snit. These days in order to save money, snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona is mixing up his own brand of jenkem. That's when he isn't huffing glue from a bag. snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona is the most dishonest poster on Usenet. Possibly the Internet as a whole. Do not trust anything snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona posts because the chances are excellent that he is lying. Why don't you join with the other members of ACW and completely, 100%, ignore and not reply directly to snit? We welcome you. -- pothead "I have a lot of friends who are Democrats, and they’re idiots. I always say they have big hearts and little brains. Almost every single policy rolled out failed.” -- Jamie Dimon CEO JPMorgan Chase.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 21:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <6883f77b$25$24$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #181486 |
On Jul 25, 2025 at 2:11:55 PM MST, "pothead" wrote <1060ruq$2314i$1@dont-email.me>: > On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote: >> Brock McNuggets wrote: >> >>> On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33 AM MST, ""David B."" >>> wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>: >>> >>>> On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26 AM MST, ""David B."" >>> wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>: >>>>> >>>>>> On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44 AM MST, ""David B."" >>> wrote >>>> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote: >>>>>>>>>> BDB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I DO trust Howard Oakley! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And HO trusts and extols Etre. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Maybe mistakenly*. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You’re probably familiar with EtreCheck, >>> the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in >>> Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose >>>>>>>>>>> problems, but have you paid for its Pro >>> features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the best >>> performance from your Mac, that’s money well-spent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While your OP to this topic was >>> 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>>> your >>> own insight is blind. Worse than blind, badly >>> distorted beyond >>>>>>> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect HO never even thought to >>> question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone >>> who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with >>> nothing to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >>>>>>>>>>>>> He even removed his LinkedIn page when I >>> questioned him! >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B >>> C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No honest >>> fellow would do that! >>>> >>>>>>> What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical >>> question... why could a person who >>>> is generally >>> honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, >>> especially if >>>> they are being followed around by >>> someone asking questions over and over? >>> >>> >>>>>> appreciate your question — it's fair to ask >>> why I see that as a red flag. >>> >>>>>> Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page >>> isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But >>> context matters. When someone runs a paid software >>>>>> product, makes strong claims about its >>> capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable >>> support emails (even when support is part of the >>> paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple >>> platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions — >>> that’s where the suspicion starts. >> >> What >>> questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile >>> after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or >>> background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but >>> it can appear >>> evasive — especially if the >>> individual is selling something to the >>> public >>> and benefiting from trust built within communities >>> like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support forums. >> >> >>> There can also be extenuating circumstances of not >>> wanting someone to keep >> asking questions seen as >>> inappropriate. >>> >>> I'm not trying to hound >>> anyone — but transparency and accountability >>> >>> matter, especially in tech where users often rely on >>> software to >>> diagnose or alter critical systems. >>> It’s not unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this >>> tool I’m being told to trust? >> >> If you do not >>> trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you >>> want. >>> >>> So yes — context, not just the act, >>> is what shapes my view. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Brock, >>>> >>>> Fair points—and thank you for asking respectfully. >>>> I genuinely don’t have a problem with people >>>> removing their LinkedIn page in general. You're >>>> absolutely right that there can be valid, personal >>>> reasons for doing so—especially if someone feels >>>> harassed or unduly scrutinised. >>>> >>>> However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from >>>> more than just that single act. I paid for >>>> EtreCheck’s Power User package — which includes >>>> support — and asked legitimate technical questions >>>> about the app. >>> >>> What questions? Please be specific. >>> >>>> Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply. >>>> That’s not just frustrating; it’s unacceptable >>>> when support is part of the paid offering. >>> >>> You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is >>> malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have an >>> unhealthy focus on the software -- which is odd -- >>> and also on the author -- which is harmful. >>>> >>>> At the same time, I’ve seen posts quietly vanish, >>>> evasive replies in public forums, and a lack of >>>> any concrete way to verify the developer’s >>>> background or qualifications. >>> >>> What makes you think you are entitled to know >>> ANYTHING about his background or qualifications? >>> >>>> In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page >>>> right after being questioned only deepened my >>>> unease. >>>> >>>> This isn’t personal, >>> >>> When you focus on him as a person -- his "background >>> or qualifications" -- that makes it personal and not >>> professional. >>> >>>> and it’s certainly not about Snit — he’s a friend, >>>> not a foe! I just believe that if someone is >>>> asking users to trust them with diagnostic tools >>>> that can touch sensitive parts of a system, there >>>> should be some accountability. That’s all. >> >> Preach it saint Snit ! >> Amen brother Snit. >> >> What a fucking loser you are. >> >> Your post is the ultimate in projection. >> You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does daily >> all that you are accusing Boater Dave of. >> >> Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting the >> pills snit. >> Go fuck yourself snit. > > These days in order to save money, snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix > Arizona is mixing up his own brand of jenkem. That's when he isn't > huffing glue from a bag. > > snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix > Arizona is the most dishonest poster on Usenet. > Possibly the Internet as a whole. > Do not trust anything snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix > Arizona posts because the chances are excellent that he is lying. > > Why don't you join with the other members of ACW and completely, > 100%, ignore and not reply directly to snit? > We welcome you. A white supremacist lying about a Jew. How shocking! Notice the 100% lack of quotes or MID to back any accusation Pothead has. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tegenaria" <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 21:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <xn0p8pznrq8iii009@usnews.blocknews.net> |
| In reply to | #181486 |
pothead wrote: > On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria > <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote: > > Brock McNuggets wrote: > > > >> On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33 AM MST, ""David B."" > >> wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>: > >> > >> > On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote: > >> >> On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26 AM MST, ""David > B."" >> wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>: > >> >> > >> >>> On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote: > >> >>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44 AM MST, ""David > B."" >> wrote >>>> > <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >> >>>> > >> >>>>> On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote: > >> >>>>>> On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote: > >> >>>>>>> BDB wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> I DO trust Howard Oakley! > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> And HO trusts and extols Etre. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> *Maybe mistakenly*. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> You’re probably familiar with EtreCheck, > >> the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in > >> Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose > >> >>>>>>>> problems, but have you paid for its Pro > >> features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the best > >> performance from your Mac, that’s money > well-spent. >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While your OP to > this topic was >> 'well-spoken' it belies the fact > that >>>>>>> your >> own insight is blind. Worse > than blind, badly >> distorted beyond >>>>>>> > recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I have NO DOUBTS > about HO, a fellow naval officer. >> >>>>>> >>>>>> > I suspect HO never even thought to >> question the > honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone >> who is > simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with >> nothing > to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >> >>>>> > >>>>> He even removed his LinkedIn page when I >> > questioned him! >>>>> >> >>>>> > >> > https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B > >> C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No > honest >> fellow would do that! >>>> >> >>>> What > makes you think that? Not a rhetorical >> > question... why could a person who >>>> is generally > >> honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, > >> especially if >>>> they are being followed around > by >> someone asking questions over and over? >>> > >>> >> >>> appreciate your question — it's fair > to ask >> why I see that as a red flag. >>> >> >>> > Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page >> > isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But >> > context matters. When someone runs a paid software > >> >>> product, makes strong claims about its >> > capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable >> > support emails (even when support is part of the >> > paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple > >> platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions — > >> that’s where the suspicion starts. >> >> What >> > questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile >> > after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or > >> background doesn't automatically signal guilt, > but >> it can appear >>> evasive — especially if the > >> individual is selling something to the >>> public > >> and benefiting from trust built within > communities >> like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support > forums. >> >> >> There can also be extenuating > circumstances of not >> wanting someone to keep >> > asking questions seen as >> inappropriate. >>> >>> > I'm not trying to hound >> anyone — but transparency > and accountability >>> >> matter, especially in tech > where users often rely on >> software to >>> > diagnose or alter critical systems. >> It’s not > unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this >> tool > I’m being told to trust? >> >> If you do not >> > trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you > >> want. >>> >>> So yes — context, not just the > act, >> is what shapes my view. >> > >> > > >> > Hi Brock, > >> > > >> > Fair points—and thank you for asking > respectfully. >> > I genuinely don’t have a problem > with people >> > removing their LinkedIn page in > general. You're >> > absolutely right that there > can be valid, personal >> > reasons for doing > so—especially if someone feels >> > harassed or > unduly scrutinised. >> > > >> > However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from > >> > more than just that single act. I paid for > >> > EtreCheck’s Power User package — which includes > >> > support — and asked legitimate technical > questions >> > about the app. > >> > >> What questions? Please be specific. > >> > >> > Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply. > >> > That’s not just frustrating; it’s unacceptable > >> > when support is part of the paid offering. > >> > >> You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is > >> malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have > an >> unhealthy focus on the software -- which is > odd -- >> and also on the author -- which is harmful. > >> > > >> > At the same time, I’ve seen posts quietly > vanish, >> > evasive replies in public forums, and a > lack of >> > any concrete way to verify the > developer’s >> > background or qualifications. > >> > >> What makes you think you are entitled to know > >> ANYTHING about his background or qualifications? > >> > >> > In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page > >> > right after being questioned only deepened my > >> > unease. > >> > > >> > This isn’t personal, > >> > >> When you focus on him as a person -- his > "background >> or qualifications" -- that makes it > personal and not >> professional. > >> > >> > and it’s certainly not about Snit — he’s a > friend, >> > not a foe! I just believe that if > someone is >> > asking users to trust them with > diagnostic tools >> > that can touch sensitive parts > of a system, there >> > should be some > accountability. That’s all. > > > > Preach it saint Snit ! > > Amen brother Snit. > > > > What a fucking loser you are. > > > > Your post is the ultimate in projection. > > You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does > > daily all that you are accusing Boater Dave of. > > > > Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting > > the pills snit. > > Go fuck yourself snit. > > These days in order to save money, snit Michael > Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona is mixing up his > own brand of jenkem. That's when he isn't huffing > glue from a bag. > > snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix > Arizona is the most dishonest poster on Usenet. > Possibly the Internet as a whole. > Do not trust anything snit Michael Glasser of > Prescott/Phoenix Arizona posts because the chances > are excellent that he is lying. > > Why don't you join with the other members of ACW and > completely, 100%, ignore and not reply directly to > snit? We welcome you. Thanks. I will join the rest of you in ignoring shithead snit. I have some very interesting, current, information regarding snit that I am in the process of verifying. If it turns out to be accurate I will post here. Happy day to all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 23:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <6884130f$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #181488 |
On Jul 25, 2025 at 2:37:26 PM MST, ""Tegenaria"" wrote <xn0p8pznrq8iii009@usnews.blocknews.net>: > pothead wrote: > >> On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria >> <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote: >>> Brock McNuggets wrote: >>> >>>> On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33 AM MST, ""David B."" >>>> wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>: >>>> >>>>> On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26 AM MST, ""David >> B."" >> wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44 AM MST, ""David >> B."" >> wrote >>>> >> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> BDB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I DO trust Howard Oakley! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And HO trusts and extols Etre. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Maybe mistakenly*. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You’re probably familiar with EtreCheck, >>>> the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in >>>> Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose >>>>>>>>>>>> problems, but have you paid for its Pro >>>> features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the best >>>> performance from your Mac, that’s money >> well-spent. >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While your OP to >> this topic was >> 'well-spoken' it belies the fact >> that >>>>>>> your >> own insight is blind. Worse >> than blind, badly >> distorted beyond >>>>>>> >> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I have NO DOUBTS >> about HO, a fellow naval officer. >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I suspect HO never even thought to >> question the >> honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone >> who is >> simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with >> nothing >> to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >> >>>>> >>>>>>> He even removed his LinkedIn page when I >> >> questioned him! >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B >>>> C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No >> honest >> fellow would do that! >>>> >> >>>> What >> makes you think that? Not a rhetorical >> >> question... why could a person who >>>> is generally >>>> honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, >>>> especially if >>>> they are being followed around >> by >> someone asking questions over and over? >>> >>>>>>>>>> appreciate your question — it's fair >> to ask >> why I see that as a red flag. >>> >> >>> >> Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page >> >> isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But >> >> context matters. When someone runs a paid software >>>>>>> product, makes strong claims about its >> >> capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable >> >> support emails (even when support is part of the >> >> paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple >>>> platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions — >>>> that’s where the suspicion starts. >> >> What >> >> questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile >> >> after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or >>>> background doesn't automatically signal guilt, >> but >> it can appear >>> evasive — especially if the >>>> individual is selling something to the >>> public >>>> and benefiting from trust built within >> communities >> like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support >> forums. >> >> >> There can also be extenuating >> circumstances of not >> wanting someone to keep >> >> asking questions seen as >> inappropriate. >>> >>> >> I'm not trying to hound >> anyone — but transparency >> and accountability >>> >> matter, especially in tech >> where users often rely on >> software to >>> >> diagnose or alter critical systems. >> It’s not >> unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this >> tool >> I’m being told to trust? >> >> If you do not >> >> trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you >>>> want. >>> >>> So yes — context, not just the >> act, >> is what shapes my view. >> > >> > >>>>> Hi Brock, >>>>> >>>>> Fair points—and thank you for asking >> respectfully. >> > I genuinely don’t have a problem >> with people >> > removing their LinkedIn page in >> general. You're >> > absolutely right that there >> can be valid, personal >> > reasons for doing >> so—especially if someone feels >> > harassed or >> unduly scrutinised. >> > >>>>> However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from >>>>> more than just that single act. I paid for >>>>> EtreCheck’s Power User package — which includes >>>>> support — and asked legitimate technical >> questions >> > about the app. >>>> >>>> What questions? Please be specific. >>>> >>>>> Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply. >>>>> That’s not just frustrating; it’s unacceptable >>>>> when support is part of the paid offering. >>>> >>>> You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is >>>> malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have >> an >> unhealthy focus on the software -- which is >> odd -- >> and also on the author -- which is harmful. >>>>> >>>>> At the same time, I’ve seen posts quietly >> vanish, >> > evasive replies in public forums, and a >> lack of >> > any concrete way to verify the >> developer’s >> > background or qualifications. >>>> >>>> What makes you think you are entitled to know >>>> ANYTHING about his background or qualifications? >>>> >>>>> In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page >>>>> right after being questioned only deepened my >>>>> unease. >>>>> >>>>> This isn’t personal, >>>> >>>> When you focus on him as a person -- his >> "background >> or qualifications" -- that makes it >> personal and not >> professional. >>>> >>>>> and it’s certainly not about Snit — he’s a >> friend, >> > not a foe! I just believe that if >> someone is >> > asking users to trust them with >> diagnostic tools >> > that can touch sensitive parts >> of a system, there >> > should be some >> accountability. That’s all. >>> >>> Preach it saint Snit ! >>> Amen brother Snit. >>> >>> What a fucking loser you are. >>> >>> Your post is the ultimate in projection. >>> You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does >>> daily all that you are accusing Boater Dave of. >>> >>> Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting >>> the pills snit. >>> Go fuck yourself snit. >> >> These days in order to save money, snit Michael >> Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona is mixing up his >> own brand of jenkem. That's when he isn't huffing >> glue from a bag. >> >> snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix >> Arizona is the most dishonest poster on Usenet. >> Possibly the Internet as a whole. >> Do not trust anything snit Michael Glasser of >> Prescott/Phoenix Arizona posts because the chances >> are excellent that he is lying. >> >> Why don't you join with the other members of ACW and >> completely, 100%, ignore and not reply directly to >> snit? We welcome you. > > Thanks. I will join the rest of you in ignoring > shithead snit. So you say, but in your very next sentence you say you will keep obsessing over me. > I have some very interesting, current, > information regarding snit that I am in the process of > verifying. No you don't. And even if you did, it would just mean you are sick. But you don't. > If it turns out to be accurate I will post > here. No, you will post lies -- and you posted that as a threat. You make threats because you are pathetic. > Happy day to all. Clearly you are not having one. LOL! -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 22:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <1063l5m$2jfg8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181488 |
On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote: > pothead wrote: > >> On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria >> <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote: >> > Brock McNuggets wrote: >> > >> >> On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33 AM MST, ""David B."" >> >> wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>: >> >> >> >> > On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26 AM MST, ""David >> B."" >> wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> >> >>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44 AM MST, ""David >> B."" >> wrote >>>> >> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote: >> >> >>>>>> On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> BDB wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> I DO trust Howard Oakley! >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> And HO trusts and extols Etre. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> *Maybe mistakenly*. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> You’re probably familiar with EtreCheck, >> >> the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in >> >> Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose >> >> >>>>>>>> problems, but have you paid for its Pro >> >> features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the best >> >> performance from your Mac, that’s money >> well-spent. >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While your OP to >> this topic was >> 'well-spoken' it belies the fact >> that >>>>>>> your >> own insight is blind. Worse >> than blind, badly >> distorted beyond >>>>>>> >> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I have NO DOUBTS >> about HO, a fellow naval officer. >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I suspect HO never even thought to >> question the >> honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone >> who is >> simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with >> nothing >> to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >> >>>>> >> >>>>> He even removed his LinkedIn page when I >> >> questioned him! >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >> >> https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B >> >> C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No >> honest >> fellow would do that! >>>> >> >>>> What >> makes you think that? Not a rhetorical >> >> question... why could a person who >>>> is generally >> >> honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, >> >> especially if >>>> they are being followed around >> by >> someone asking questions over and over? >>> >> >>> >> >>> appreciate your question — it's fair >> to ask >> why I see that as a red flag. >>> >> >>> >> Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page >> >> isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But >> >> context matters. When someone runs a paid software >> >> >>> product, makes strong claims about its >> >> capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable >> >> support emails (even when support is part of the >> >> paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple >> >> platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions — >> >> that’s where the suspicion starts. >> >> What >> >> questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile >> >> after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or >> >> background doesn't automatically signal guilt, >> but >> it can appear >>> evasive — especially if the >> >> individual is selling something to the >>> public >> >> and benefiting from trust built within >> communities >> like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support >> forums. >> >> >> There can also be extenuating >> circumstances of not >> wanting someone to keep >> >> asking questions seen as >> inappropriate. >>> >>> >> I'm not trying to hound >> anyone — but transparency >> and accountability >>> >> matter, especially in tech >> where users often rely on >> software to >>> >> diagnose or alter critical systems. >> It’s not >> unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this >> tool >> I’m being told to trust? >> >> If you do not >> >> trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you >> >> want. >>> >>> So yes — context, not just the >> act, >> is what shapes my view. >> > >> > >> >> > Hi Brock, >> >> > >> >> > Fair points—and thank you for asking >> respectfully. >> > I genuinely don’t have a problem >> with people >> > removing their LinkedIn page in >> general. You're >> > absolutely right that there >> can be valid, personal >> > reasons for doing >> so—especially if someone feels >> > harassed or >> unduly scrutinised. >> > >> >> > However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from >> >> > more than just that single act. I paid for >> >> > EtreCheck’s Power User package — which includes >> >> > support — and asked legitimate technical >> questions >> > about the app. >> >> >> >> What questions? Please be specific. >> >> >> >> > Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply. >> >> > That’s not just frustrating; it’s unacceptable >> >> > when support is part of the paid offering. >> >> >> >> You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is >> >> malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have >> an >> unhealthy focus on the software -- which is >> odd -- >> and also on the author -- which is harmful. >> >> > >> >> > At the same time, I’ve seen posts quietly >> vanish, >> > evasive replies in public forums, and a >> lack of >> > any concrete way to verify the >> developer’s >> > background or qualifications. >> >> >> >> What makes you think you are entitled to know >> >> ANYTHING about his background or qualifications? >> >> >> >> > In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page >> >> > right after being questioned only deepened my >> >> > unease. >> >> > >> >> > This isn’t personal, >> >> >> >> When you focus on him as a person -- his >> "background >> or qualifications" -- that makes it >> personal and not >> professional. >> >> >> >> > and it’s certainly not about Snit — he’s a >> friend, >> > not a foe! I just believe that if >> someone is >> > asking users to trust them with >> diagnostic tools >> > that can touch sensitive parts >> of a system, there >> > should be some >> accountability. That’s all. >> > >> > Preach it saint Snit ! >> > Amen brother Snit. >> > >> > What a fucking loser you are. >> > >> > Your post is the ultimate in projection. >> > You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does >> > daily all that you are accusing Boater Dave of. >> > >> > Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting >> > the pills snit. >> > Go fuck yourself snit. >> >> These days in order to save money, snit Michael >> Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona is mixing up his >> own brand of jenkem. That's when he isn't huffing >> glue from a bag. >> >> snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix >> Arizona is the most dishonest poster on Usenet. >> Possibly the Internet as a whole. >> Do not trust anything snit Michael Glasser of >> Prescott/Phoenix Arizona posts because the chances >> are excellent that he is lying. >> >> Why don't you join with the other members of ACW and >> completely, 100%, ignore and not reply directly to >> snit? We welcome you. > > Thanks. I will join the rest of you in ignoring > shithead snit. I have some very interesting, current, > information regarding snit that I am in the process of > verifying. If it turns out to be accurate I will post > here. > Happy day to all. Since snit Michael Glasser of Prescott / Phoenix Arizona has been stalking and harassing people for years it's open season on him. He can dish it out, let's see if he can take it. As long as it is public information of course. Thanks for joining with us in ignoring snit. It's already having an effect as he is trying in vain to start new threads (circus tents) to keep his troll farm alive. I suspect a snit breakdown is coming. Don't touch that dial! ROTFLMAO! -- pothead "I have a lot of friends who are Democrats, and they’re idiots. I always say they have big hearts and little brains. Almost every single policy rolled out failed.” -- Jamie Dimon CEO JPMorgan Chase.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-27 01:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <68857dea$0$27$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #181491 |
On Jul 26, 2025 at 3:34:30 PM MST, "pothead" wrote <1063l5m$2jfg8$1@dont-email.me>: > On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote: >> pothead wrote: >> >>> On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria >>> <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote: >>>> Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33 AM MST, ""David B."" >>>>> wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>: >>>>> >>>>>> On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26 AM MST, ""David >>> B."" >> wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44 AM MST, ""David >>> B."" >> wrote >>>> >>> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> BDB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I DO trust Howard Oakley! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And HO trusts and extols Etre. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Maybe mistakenly*. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You’re probably familiar with EtreCheck, >>>>> the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in >>>>> Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose >>>>>>>>>>>>> problems, but have you paid for its Pro >>>>> features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the best >>>>> performance from your Mac, that’s money >>> well-spent. >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While your OP to >>> this topic was >> 'well-spoken' it belies the fact >>> that >>>>>>> your >> own insight is blind. Worse >>> than blind, badly >> distorted beyond >>>>>>> >>> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I have NO DOUBTS >>> about HO, a fellow naval officer. >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> I suspect HO never even thought to >> question the >>> honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone >> who is >>> simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with >> nothing >>> to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >> >>>>> >>>>>>>> He even removed his LinkedIn page when I >> >>> questioned him! >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>> https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B >>>>> C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No >>> honest >> fellow would do that! >>>> >> >>>> What >>> makes you think that? Not a rhetorical >> >>> question... why could a person who >>>> is generally >>>>> honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, >>>>> especially if >>>> they are being followed around >>> by >> someone asking questions over and over? >>> >>>>>>>>>>> appreciate your question — it's fair >>> to ask >> why I see that as a red flag. >>> >> >>> >>> Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page >> >>> isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But >> >>> context matters. When someone runs a paid software >>>>>>>> product, makes strong claims about its >> >>> capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable >> >>> support emails (even when support is part of the >> >>> paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple >>>>> platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions — >>>>> that’s where the suspicion starts. >> >> What >> >>> questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile >> >>> after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or >>>>> background doesn't automatically signal guilt, >>> but >> it can appear >>> evasive — especially if the >>>>> individual is selling something to the >>> public >>>>> and benefiting from trust built within >>> communities >> like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support >>> forums. >> >> >> There can also be extenuating >>> circumstances of not >> wanting someone to keep >> >>> asking questions seen as >> inappropriate. >>> >>> >>> I'm not trying to hound >> anyone — but transparency >>> and accountability >>> >> matter, especially in tech >>> where users often rely on >> software to >>> >>> diagnose or alter critical systems. >> It’s not >>> unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this >> tool >>> I’m being told to trust? >> >> If you do not >> >>> trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you >>>>> want. >>> >>> So yes — context, not just the >>> act, >> is what shapes my view. >> > >> > >>>>>> Hi Brock, >>>>>> >>>>>> Fair points—and thank you for asking >>> respectfully. >> > I genuinely don’t have a problem >>> with people >> > removing their LinkedIn page in >>> general. You're >> > absolutely right that there >>> can be valid, personal >> > reasons for doing >>> so—especially if someone feels >> > harassed or >>> unduly scrutinised. >> > >>>>>> However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from >>>>>> more than just that single act. I paid for >>>>>> EtreCheck’s Power User package — which includes >>>>>> support — and asked legitimate technical >>> questions >> > about the app. >>>>> >>>>> What questions? Please be specific. >>>>> >>>>>> Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply. >>>>>> That’s not just frustrating; it’s unacceptable >>>>>> when support is part of the paid offering. >>>>> >>>>> You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is >>>>> malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have >>> an >> unhealthy focus on the software -- which is >>> odd -- >> and also on the author -- which is harmful. >>>>>> >>>>>> At the same time, I’ve seen posts quietly >>> vanish, >> > evasive replies in public forums, and a >>> lack of >> > any concrete way to verify the >>> developer’s >> > background or qualifications. >>>>> >>>>> What makes you think you are entitled to know >>>>> ANYTHING about his background or qualifications? >>>>> >>>>>> In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page >>>>>> right after being questioned only deepened my >>>>>> unease. >>>>>> >>>>>> This isn’t personal, >>>>> >>>>> When you focus on him as a person -- his >>> "background >> or qualifications" -- that makes it >>> personal and not >> professional. >>>>> >>>>>> and it’s certainly not about Snit — he’s a >>> friend, >> > not a foe! I just believe that if >>> someone is >> > asking users to trust them with >>> diagnostic tools >> > that can touch sensitive parts >>> of a system, there >> > should be some >>> accountability. That’s all. >>>> >>>> Preach it saint Snit ! >>>> Amen brother Snit. >>>> >>>> What a fucking loser you are. >>>> >>>> Your post is the ultimate in projection. >>>> You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does >>>> daily all that you are accusing Boater Dave of. >>>> >>>> Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting >>>> the pills snit. >>>> Go fuck yourself snit. >>> >>> These days in order to save money, snit Michael >>> Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona is mixing up his >>> own brand of jenkem. That's when he isn't huffing >>> glue from a bag. >>> >>> snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix >>> Arizona is the most dishonest poster on Usenet. >>> Possibly the Internet as a whole. >>> Do not trust anything snit Michael Glasser of >>> Prescott/Phoenix Arizona posts because the chances >>> are excellent that he is lying. >>> >>> Why don't you join with the other members of ACW and >>> completely, 100%, ignore and not reply directly to >>> snit? We welcome you. >> >> Thanks. I will join the rest of you in ignoring >> shithead snit. I have some very interesting, current, >> information regarding snit that I am in the process of >> verifying. If it turns out to be accurate I will post >> here. >> Happy day to all. > > Since snit Michael Glasser of Prescott / Phoenix Arizona has > been stalking and harassing people for years it's open season > on him. He can dish it out, let's see if he can take it. > As long as it is public information of course. You faked an image and were busted. Oh well. > > Thanks for joining with us in ignoring snit. > It's already having an effect as he is trying in vain to > start new threads (circus tents) to keep his troll farm alive. > I suspect a snit breakdown is coming. > Don't touch that dial! > ROTFLMAO! When was the last time you made it 15 minutes without thinking of me? -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-30 09:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <106ch36$30qkg$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #181491 |
On 27.07.25 00:34, pothead wrote: > Since snit Michael Glasser of Prescott / Phoenix Arizona has > been stalking and harassing people for years it's open season > on him. He can dish it out, let's see if he can take it. > As long as it is public information of course. > > Thanks for joining with us in ignoring snit. > It's already having an effect as he is trying in vain to > start new threads (circus tents) to keep his troll farm alive. > I suspect a snit breakdown is coming. > Don't touch that dial! > ROTFLMAO! > -- pothead "I have a lot of friends who are Democrats, and they’re > idiots. I always say they have big hearts and little brains. Almost > every single policy rolled out failed.” -- Jamie Dimon CEO JPMorgan Chase. Why should anyone sympathize with an obvious fascist and friend of #47 like you seem to be? -- "Ave! Morituri te salutant!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-30 09:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <meu22oFpkevU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #181506 |
On 30/07/2025 08:20, Jörg Lorenz wrote: [....] > Why should anyone sympathize with an obvious fascist and friend of #47 > like you seem to be? For those who, like me, didn't know! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIosO8G6zSc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-30 15:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors (was: Asking Questions Isn’t a Crime – My Experience on MacRumors) |
| Message-ID | <688a3fcf$0$27$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #181506 |
On Jul 30, 2025 at 12:20:06 AM MST, "Jörg Lorenz" wrote <106ch36$30qkg$1@solani.org>: > On 27.07.25 00:34, pothead wrote: >> Since snit Michael Glasser of Prescott / Phoenix Arizona has >> been stalking and harassing people for years it's open season >> on him. He can dish it out, let's see if he can take it. >> As long as it is public information of course. >> >> Thanks for joining with us in ignoring snit. >> It's already having an effect as he is trying in vain to >> start new threads (circus tents) to keep his troll farm alive. >> I suspect a snit breakdown is coming. >> Don't touch that dial! >> ROTFLMAO! >> -- pothead "I have a lot of friends who are Democrats, and they’re >> idiots. I always say they have big hearts and little brains. Almost >> every single policy rolled out failed.” -- Jamie Dimon CEO JPMorgan Chase. > > Why should anyone sympathize with an obvious fascist and friend of #47 > like you seem to be? Thank you for calling this out. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-25 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1060rpk$231s1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181446 |
David B. <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > I'm not trying to hound anyone Says the man who has spent literally years (maybe a decade by now?) desperately trying to fabricate a narrative against this person. You have got to get professional help with this obsession. And stop nymshifting. You know you're doing it so don't play the ignorant <plonk>
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac
csiph-web