Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-21 10:44, badgolferman wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-12-20 11:32, badgolferman wrote:
>>>> One of the basic iPhone apps is running into problems as multiple
>>>> users took to the iPhone subreddit to complain that their alarms
>>>> aren't going off. As per the reports, users found themselves
>>>> oversleeping because the iPhone alarm they had set didn't go off or
>>>> there was no sound when the screen lit up.
>>>
>>> Do you have an iPhone?
>>
>>
>> I have two. A personal phone and work phone.
>
> OK... ...why?
>

I’ve had a work iPhone since 2008 when I started out with the iPhone 4. I
only had a work phone for many years until corporate forced MDM on them. At
that point I decided to get my own phone for personal stuff. Having been
used to iOS and getting too old to learn something else I stuck with that
for my own phone. Also having kids whom I needed to keep an eye on with
Find My iPhone, I really had no other choice.

I know what you’re trying to get at. The reality is I stay with iPhones
because I’m used to them, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have their
shortcomings. When things are changed just for the sake of change, or
updates break the phone, I will make my thoughts known on that. If I see
articles which warn us of potential problems I will share those with people
here for their knowledge too. It’s better to be informed and make your own
decisions than be ignorant and taken advantage of.

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-21, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-21, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And it definitely never happens on Android, right? RIGHT?
>>>>
>>>> This is an iPhone group, right?
>>>
>>> And you're only here to troll. Try to keep up, kiddo.
>>
>> Of course you see it that way
>
> It is that way. I see reality. Good luck trying to find posts from you
> that don't attempt to shed Apple in a negative light - from problems
> that affect relatively few users to ridiculous freak outs about Apple
> daring to release a yellow iPhone, all you do is troll here.
>
>> you will defend Apple to the death.
>
> The old "I'm rubber and you're glue" defense. You're a child.
>
> Adults will note that I haven't defended Apple even once in this thread.
> 😉 All I've done is call out your weak troll. And you *hate* it. 🤣
>
>> The way I see it, it's important to let users know of potential
>> problems.
>
> "...but never, ever say anything good about Apple. Nobody wants that."
>

You’re wrong as usual. I have defended Apple on occasions and have even
disagreed with Arlen publicly. The difference is we can disagree amicably
without getting into a pissing contest.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

> The difference is we can disagree amicably
> without getting into a pissing contest.

I agree with badgolferman, and, in fact, there's plenty of evidence backing
up his statement and mine.

I think it's very clear to the _adults_ on this newsgroup that I'll agree
with anyone who presents a logically sensible opinion based on facts.

You guys don't even realize it, but the way these articles come to me is in
VIM, where I don't even know whom I'm responding to unless I explicitly
look.

As badgolferman does, I'll agree with Steve when he's saying something
sensible; and I'll disagree with Steve when he says something illogical.

Same with nospam.
And Jolly Roger.
Same even with Hemidactylus, or Alan Browne.

Hell, I'd agree with Alan Baker if he ever said something that made sense.

If someone says something sensibly logical given their assessment of the
facts, I'll agree with them. Only a fool would disagree with facts.

That's why they're fools.
--
The iKooks have an agenda to defend Apple to the death, no matter what.

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> The difference is we can disagree amicably
>> without getting into a pissing contest.
>
> I agree with badgolferman, and, in fact, there's plenty of evidence backing
> up his statement and mine.
>
> I think it's very clear to the _adults_ on this newsgroup that I'll agree
> with anyone who presents a logically sensible opinion based on facts.
>
> You guys don't even realize it, but the way these articles come to me is in
> VIM, where I don't even know whom I'm responding to unless I explicitly
> look.
>
> As badgolferman does, I'll agree with Steve when he's saying something
> sensible; and I'll disagree with Steve when he says something illogical.
>
> Same with nospam.
> And Jolly Roger.
> Same even with Hemidactylus, or Alan Browne.
>
> Hell, I'd agree with Alan Baker if he ever said something that made sense.
>
> If someone says something sensibly logical given their assessment of the
> facts, I'll agree with them. Only a fool would disagree with facts.
>
> That's why they're fools.

You haven’t acknowledged that DKE has flaws as a statistical artifact
though you weaponized it. You are an intellectually dishonest thug. Full
stop. Most people, excepting badgolfingman, can smell that rotting rat
carcass of your reputation here.

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote

> You haven't acknowledged that DKE has flaws as a statistical artifact
> though you weaponized it.

Hi Hemidactylus,

The response below assumes you're an adult...

I didn't respond directly to your DK assertions because it was clear to me
that you don't understand what DK is all about - and yet - you dislike it.

Who does that?
Nobody right?

Yet you did it.

You spent all your time furiously googling for rebuttals to D-K but you
spent utterly zero time reading the seminal papers to understand it.

If I thought that you understood what D-K is all about, then (and only
then) would I take anything you say about it seriously, Hemidactylus.

Think about it this way, Hemidactylus.
a. nospam constantly fabricates imaginary wi-fi debugging apps, right?
How do you expect me to take _anything_ nospam says seriously then?

b. Alan Browne insists he's never experienced the walled garden, right?
How do you expect me to take seriously _anything_ Alan says then?

c. Jolly Roger constantly claims Apple fully patches older releases, right?
How do you expect me to take seriously _anything_ JR says then?

> You are an intellectually dishonest thug. Full
> stop. Most people, excepting badgolfingman, can smell that rotting rat
> carcass of your reputation here.

You have no idea what the D-K papers actually said, Hemidactylus.
That's patently obvious to everyone. Even to you.

You couldn't summarize what the seminal papers said if you tried.
Yet you want me to take seriously you don't like what you don't understand?

See above examples of iKooks saying ridiculous things and then wanting to
be taken seriously Hemidactylus.

If you showed me that you actually _understood_ the D-K concepts, then (and
only then) would I take anything you say about it seriously, Hemidactylus.
--
Hell, if Alan Baker showed me he understood something as basic to racing
circuits as the catenary, I'd even take Alan Baker's words seriously.

MummyChunk <mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote

> This is a response to the post seen at:

I get it that you're promoting the web site any way you can.
<http://www.jlaforums.com/viewforum.php?f=367>

Do you have a table of contents for other newsgroups?
Particularly for the Android & news server newsgroups?

On 2023-12-22, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> The difference is we can disagree amicably without getting into a
>>> pissing contest.
>>
>> I agree with badgolferman, and, in fact, there's plenty of evidence
>> backing up his statement and mine.
>>
>> I think it's very clear to the _adults_ on this newsgroup that I'll
>> agree with anyone who presents a logically sensible opinion based on
>> facts.
>>
>> You guys don't even realize it, but the way these articles come to me
>> is in VIM, where I don't even know whom I'm responding to unless I
>> explicitly look.
>>
>> As badgolferman does, I'll agree with Steve when he's saying
>> something sensible; and I'll disagree with Steve when he says
>> something illogical.
>>
>> Same with nospam. And Jolly Roger. Same even with Hemidactylus, or
>> Alan Browne.
>>
>> Hell, I'd agree with Alan Baker if he ever said something that made
>> sense.
>>
>> If someone says something sensibly logical given their assessment of
>> the facts, I'll agree with them. Only a fool would disagree with
>> facts.
>>
>> That's why they're fools.
>
> You haven’t acknowledged that DKE has flaws as a statistical artifact
> though you weaponized it. You are an intellectually dishonest thug.
> Full stop. Most people, excepting badgolfingman, can smell that
> rotting rat carcass of your reputation here.

Oh, he can smell it too. It's just he *likes* the smell. He gleefully
supports Arlen's lame trolls. His posting record shows that he rarely
disagrees with Arlen's trolls. He tries to be more subtle about it, but
he's not fooling anyone who pays attention.

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

JR

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote

> Oh, he can smell it too. It's just he *likes* the smell. He gleefully
> supports his lame trolls. His posting record shows that he rarely
> disagrees with his trolls. He tries to be more subtle about it, but
> he's not fooling anyone who pays attention.

Please, think of that as a logical adult would think of that, Jolly Roger.

If Steve or nospam or badgolferman or Hank or Alan or Joerg or anyone says
something sensible... and then someone else *agrees* with their sentient
logic, why do you find that act of agreeing with logic so reprehensible?

> > MummyChunk <mummycullen> wrote
> >
> > This is a response to the post seen at:
> >
> Wally J wrote:
>
>
> I get it that you're promoting the web site any way you can.
> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewforum.php?f=367
>
> Do you have a table of contents for other newsgroups?
> Particularly for the Android & news server newsgroups?

I'm not sure which forum id corresponds to which Usenet group at the
site. I believe some are linked and and some of them are not linked
to USENET. There are about 4000 or so forum sections (according to a
posting I saw) but doesn't seem as all of them are public. I
responded to another post that if any group is missing there, the
admin is responsive to adding it. I've asked for many groups over the
years to be added. On another thread I follow, mobile.android was
requested and was added but has yet been filled. Usually takes them a
day or two.

This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=657615796#657615796