On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:15:25 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 6:01:41?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:02:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >>> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >>> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >>> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >No point getting angry, Bill. Clearly you've already dug into "my
>> >bullshit posts" and wasted your time doing so, or you wouldn't have
>> >claimed I've failed to understand some critical aspect. I'd just like
>> >to know what that was. The fact that you don't seem able to tell me
>> >would suggest you know of no such aspect and simply made your claim up
>> >out of fresh air.
>
>It might suggest that to you, but you do take your fatuous nonsense more seriously than any sane person would
>
>> I've never regarded you before this as a bare-faced
>> >liar, but if you can't state what that critical aspect was, what other
>> >conclusion could anyone logically come to?
>>
>> [Deafening silence - for the first time ever, Bill Sloman didn't get
>> the last word]
>
>Actually I hit my Google posting limit and couldn't be bothered replicating the post on Eternal September.
>
>> Bill, it's not pleasant to have to accuse someone of being a bare-faced liar, but that's clearly what you are.
>
>You've now posted the accusation twice. so it does seem likely that you do enjoy doing it.
>
>> I suggest you get your facts right and don't resort to untruths next time you fancy your chances taking on the Big Dawg.
>
>You haven't made any kind of case that I got my facts wrong. You are merely objecting that I haven't wasted my time on posting a life-by-line analysis of your fatuous drivel.
>
>I don't take you seriously enough to bother. You rate as the Big Dawg Turd, and I don't have the capacity to expunge your nonsense from the group's posts.
>
>Darius the Dumb does seem to feel that kind of compulsion, but since he never specifies what he dislikes about the posts he objects to he justs wastes more bandwidht than even you can manage.

I rest my case.

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 7:20:46 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:15:25 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 6:01:41?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:02:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >>> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >>> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >>> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>

> >It might suggest that to you, but you do take your fatuous nonsense more seriously than any sane person would
> >
> >> I've never regarded you before this as a bare-faced
> >> >liar, but if you can't state what that critical aspect was, what other
> >> >conclusion could anyone logically come to?
> >>
> >> [Deafening silence - for the first time ever, Bill Sloman didn't get
> >> the last word]
> >
> >Actually I hit my Google posting limit and couldn't be bothered replicating the post on Eternal September.
> >
> >> Bill, it's not pleasant to have to accuse someone of being a bare-faced liar, but that's clearly what you are.
> >
> >You've now posted the accusation twice. so it does seem likely that you do enjoy doing it.
> >
> >> I suggest you get your facts right and don't resort to untruths next time you fancy your chances taking on the Big Dawg.
> >
> >You haven't made any kind of case that I got my facts wrong. You are merely objecting that I haven't wasted my time on posting a line-by-line analysis of your fatuous drivel.
> >
> >I don't take you seriously enough to bother. You rate as the Big Dawg Turd, and I don't have the capacity to expunge your nonsense from the group's posts.
> >
> >Darius the Dumb does seem to feel that kind of compulsion, but since he never specifies what he dislikes about the posts he objects to he just wastes more bandwidth than even you can manage.
>
> I rest my case.

"You haven't made any kind of case that I got my facts wrong. You are merely objecting that I haven't wasted my time on posting a line-by-line analysis of your fatuous drivel."

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:18:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 7:20:46?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:15:25 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 6:01:41?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:02:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >>> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >>> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >It might suggest that to you, but you do take your fatuous nonsense more seriously than any sane person would
>> >
>> >> I've never regarded you before this as a bare-faced
>> >> >liar, but if you can't state what that critical aspect was, what other
>> >> >conclusion could anyone logically come to?
>> >>
>> >> [Deafening silence - for the first time ever, Bill Sloman didn't get
>> >> the last word]
>> >
>> >Actually I hit my Google posting limit and couldn't be bothered replicating the post on Eternal September.
>> >
>> >> Bill, it's not pleasant to have to accuse someone of being a bare-faced liar, but that's clearly what you are.
>> >
>> >You've now posted the accusation twice. so it does seem likely that you do enjoy doing it.
>> >
>> >> I suggest you get your facts right and don't resort to untruths next time you fancy your chances taking on the Big Dawg.
>> >
>> >You haven't made any kind of case that I got my facts wrong. You are merely objecting that I haven't wasted my time on posting a line-by-line analysis of your fatuous drivel.
>> >
>> >I don't take you seriously enough to bother. You rate as the Big Dawg Turd, and I don't have the capacity to expunge your nonsense from the group's posts.
>> >
>> >Darius the Dumb does seem to feel that kind of compulsion, but since he never specifies what he dislikes about the posts he objects to he just wastes more bandwidth than even you can manage.
>>
>> I rest my case.
>
>"You haven't made any kind of case that I got my facts wrong. You are merely objecting that I haven't wasted my time on posting a line-by-line analysis of your fatuous drivel."

You seem to believe that the person who has the last word has won the
debate. That's not how others see it, Bill. The fact is you resorted
to lies to try to win the argument and on this occasion for once, you
got found out.

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:56:15 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:18:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 7:20:46?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:15:25 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 6:01:41?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:02:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> >>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> >>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> >>> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

<snip>

> >> I rest my case.
> >
> >"You haven't made any kind of case that I got my facts wrong. You are merely objecting that I haven't wasted my time on posting a line-by-line analysis of your fatuous drivel."
>
> You seem to believe that the person who has the last word has won the
> debate. That's not how others see it, Bill. The fact is you resorted
> to lies to try to win the argument and on this occasion for once, you
> got found out.

Except that your claim is the lie. Do try to demonstrate it, by reasoned argument, including quoted text - and don't try to text-chop your way to credibility. Search engines make that easy to show up.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:49:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:56:15?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:18:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 7:20:46?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:15:25 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 6:01:41?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:02:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >>> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >> I rest my case.
>> >
>> >"You haven't made any kind of case that I got my facts wrong. You are merely objecting that I haven't wasted my time on posting a line-by-line analysis of your fatuous drivel."
>>
>> You seem to believe that the person who has the last word has won the
>> debate. That's not how others see it, Bill. The fact is you resorted
>> to lies to try to win the argument and on this occasion for once, you
>> got found out.
>
>Except that your claim is the lie. Do try to demonstrate it, by reasoned argument, including quoted text - and don't try to text-chop your way to credibility. Search engines make that easy to show up.

You must think I was born yesterday. I don't need to do any such
thing. All anyone who in the unlikely event gives a shit has to do is
simply read this thread to see who the blatant liar here is. Simple as
that.

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:26:47 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:49:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:56:15?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:18:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 7:20:46?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:15:25 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 6:01:41?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:02:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

<snip>

> >> >> I rest my case.
> >> >
> >> >"You haven't made any kind of case that I got my facts wrong. You are merely objecting that I haven't wasted my time on posting a line-by-line analysis of your fatuous drivel."
> >>
> >> You seem to believe that the person who has the last word has won the
> >> debate. That's not how others see it, Bill. The fact is you resorted
> >> to lies to try to win the argument and on this occasion for once, you
> >> got found out.
> >
> >Except that your claim is the lie. Do try to demonstrate it, by reasoned argument, including quoted text - and don't try to text-chop your way to credibility. Search engines make that easy to show up.
>
> You must think I was born yesterday. I don't need to do any such thing.

If you want to believed you do.,

> All anyone who in the unlikely event gives a shit has to do is simply read this thread to see who the blatant liar here is. Simple as that.

And it turns out to be you. Not that anybody needs to go to the trouble of reading the thread to be aware of that. You've got a reputation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 22:50:39 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:26:47?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:49:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:56:15?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:18:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 7:20:46?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:15:25 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 6:01:41?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:02:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >> >> I rest my case.
>> >> >
>> >> >"You haven't made any kind of case that I got my facts wrong. You are merely objecting that I haven't wasted my time on posting a line-by-line analysis of your fatuous drivel."
>> >>
>> >> You seem to believe that the person who has the last word has won the
>> >> debate. That's not how others see it, Bill. The fact is you resorted
>> >> to lies to try to win the argument and on this occasion for once, you
>> >> got found out.
>> >
>> >Except that your claim is the lie. Do try to demonstrate it, by reasoned argument, including quoted text - and don't try to text-chop your way to credibility. Search engines make that easy to show up.
>>
>> You must think I was born yesterday. I don't need to do any such thing.
>
>If you want to believed you do.,

Not necessary. I've already proved you to be a blatant liar in this
series of exchanges from earlier in the thread:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
>> >> >> >> >> >> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
>> >> >> >> >> >> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?
>> >
>> >> >> >> >> Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
>> >> >> >> >> wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
>> >> >> >> >> He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
>> >> >> >> >> passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
>> >> >> >> >> TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
>> >> >> >> >> now? (no offence intended).
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Your subject line was "OT: Has your Iphone been Spying on You?"
>> >> >> >> >There is a thick skull around here and it does seem to be yours.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'll try to simplify this for your addled brain, Bill:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Cursitor Doom's addled brain is good at producing simplifications - entirely because it can't do complicated.
>> >> >> >His "simplifications" tend to miss the point.,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> 1. Yes, all of the last 5 generations of Iphone have this capability
>> >> >> >> built in and a remote party with the access this exploit permits can
>> >> >> >> go anywhere they want on your Iphone, see all your data and photos etc
>> >> >> >> and listen in on your calls.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 2. No anti-spyware could have discovered it. It's NOT spyware!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You are alleging that it can be exploited by spyware. Presumably the Iphone doesn't give this access to remote parties (Apple itself excluded ).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Bleating that it could be fooled into doing so is what sells anti-spyware. If it had been fooled into doing so the media would have gone into a frenzy. It hasn't.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> You clearly didn't follow the link and listen to the discussion. OR,
>> >> >> >> you did, but didn't understand a word of it. Only you know which but I
>> >> >> >> think I can guess.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Third option - I can recognise a sales pitch when I see it, even if you can't.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There's a fourth option which I really should have thought of earlier:
>> >> >> you simply can't resist trolling. The plain fact is that a previously
>> >> >> unknown backdoor into Apple Iphones has been discovered, so whenever
>> >> >> the 'authorities' come a-calling with a warrant to spy on someone,
>> >> >> Apple can no longer claim even *they* can't access a locked phone -
>> >> >> which is what they've been claiming up til now.
>> >> >
>> >> >If they've been claiming it and it wasn't true, a whole bunch of Apple executives will be in serious trouble - lying to law enforcement upsets them no end.
>> >>
>> >> Very true. However, Apple would have a defence if they could show that
>> >> the backdoor was ordered by the NSA (or whoever) on the understanding
>> >> that it would only be used in cases involving a severe threat to
>> >> national security and nothing less. That scenario is a distinct
>> >> possibility and mooted by Steve Gibson in the podcast.
>> >
>> >Then they'd have had to tell law enforcement about it. Law enforcement would have had to maintain security about the backdoor.
>> >
>> >> >As usual with you wonderful revelations, you have clearly failed to understand an important part of the story and are touting an implausibly dramatic and inaccurate version.
>> >>
>> >> >You do it quite reliably enough that nobody sensible is ever going to take you seriously.
>> >>
>> >> Pray tell: *which* "important part of the story" have I failed to
>> >> understand in your esteemed opinion? Because AFAICS, it's *you* who've
>> >> failed to understand some of the critical aspects.
>> >
>> >"A Far as You Can See" isn't all that far.
>> >
>> >Your link to
>> >
>> >https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>> >
>> >demonstrates just how shallow your knowledge is - Zero Hedge was quoting a well known climate change denial propaganda source as the the source for a climate change denial propaganda story, and you reposted it as if it were worth taking seriously.
>>
>> I ask again: Pray tell: *which* "important part of the story" have I failed to understand in your esteemed opinion?
>
>Which part of "you aren't ever going to be taken seriously" did you fail to understand? Digging into your bullshit posts is a waste of time.
>Mostly I can blow them out of the water with very little effort. More serious and time consuming analysis isn't justifiable. You are well known to be a twit.

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 9:00:41 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 22:50:39 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:26:47?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:49:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:56:15?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:18:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 7:20:46?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:15:25 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 6:01:41?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:02:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >> >> I rest my case.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"You haven't made any kind of case that I got my facts wrong. You are merely objecting that I haven't wasted my time on posting a line-by-line analysis of your fatuous drivel."
> >> >>
> >> >> You seem to believe that the person who has the last word has won the
> >> >> debate. That's not how others see it, Bill. The fact is you resorted
> >> >> to lies to try to win the argument and on this occasion for once, you
> >> >> got found out.
> >> >
> >> >Except that your claim is the lie. Do try to demonstrate it, by reasoned argument, including quoted text - and don't try to text-chop your way to credibility. Search engines make that easy to show up.
> >>
> >> You must think I was born yesterday. I don't need to do any such thing..
> >
> >If you want to believed you do.
>
> Not necessary. I've already proved you to be a blatant liar in this series of exchanges from earlier in the thread:

You may like to think so. All you have proved is that you don't know what constitutes "proof".

<snip>

>"No point getting angry, Bill. Clearly you've already dug into "my
bullshit posts" and wasted your time doing so, or you wouldn't have
claimed I've failed to understand some critical aspect."

You are assuming that I'd take you seriously enough to do that much work. I don't.

> I'd just like to know what that was.

You'd probably like to have enough sense to be able to understand "critical aspects" whatever they might be. You don't.
Trying to educate you up to that level would require sustained and heroic effort, and you prefer your current state of feckless ignorance.

> The fact that you don't seem able to tell me would suggest you know of no such aspect and simply made your claim up
out of fresh air.

Of course it would suggest that to you. The reality is less flattering than you seem willing to realise.

> I've never regarded you before this as a bare-facedliar, but if you can't state what that critical aspect was, what otherconclusion could anyone logically come to?

Quite a few, but none of them cater you desire to be seen as worth taking seriously. You aren't.

If this was your idea of "proof', it thoroughly pathetic.

I can paraphrase it as "Cursitor Doom imagines he deserves to be taken seriously and gets into a huff when he isn't".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney