On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 07:55:41 +1100, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> nospam wrote:
>
>>> There were death threats, which were reported to the FBI made by "Rod
>>> Speed" (& by nospam)
>> i did not make a death threat to you or anyone else.
>>
>>> The FBI said they'd investigate and I said I'd be changing the nym.
>> bullshit.
>>> My credibility is my most important personal assess so read this
>>> please:
>> then you're flat broke.
>
> Stop it nospam.
> Death threats are a serious thing, your childish trolls notwithstanding.
>
> People like Ken Blake are too stupid to understand any adult concept,
> but I expect you to own up to your own words, nospam. You wrote them.
>
> Don't deny your own words, nospam. Only a fool (or a liar) denies a fact
> which is inherently easily proven.
>
> Read your own post on 07/31/2021, nospam.
> <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/8ae5w37EK9k/m/nclaqyUJAgAJ>
>
> You said, and I quote, that my death "can be arranged" by you.
>
> However... Your death threat wasn't anywhere near as overt as that of
> Rod Speed.
> *You buggers are very quiet.*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/alt.home.repair/c/5ridvlPuAGU> "I'll
> organise a death squad if you like, the email is real,
> its not munged either."
>
> I take all death threats seriously, nospam.
> Especially from people who are clearly deranged, as Rod Speed must be.
>
> And I report all these death threats to the FBI.
>
> It's a simple phone call to report these threats to the FBI.
> And if you think I didn't report them, then you'd be mistaken, nospam.
>
> I have no idea if the FBI contacted their counterparts in NZ where Rod
> Speed claims to live;

No I do not.

> but rest assured, I reported it the moment I saw it.

And they clearly tossed it in the round filing cabinet under their desk.

> I take all death threats seriously, nospam.
> Even from you.

But clearly the FBI doesnt with your childish snivelling.

On 2023-01-17, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> He used that nickname for quite a long time, till many people
>> killfilled him and he had to change again
>
> *You own the intelligence of a worm.*

Arlen's full "adult" maturity on display, everyone!

--
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

On 1/17/2023 1:02 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<snip>

> ROTFL!  :-DD

Even if "Rod Speed" or "nospam" really did make threats, no one takes
anything they post seriously, and certainly the FBI would not.

sms wrote:

> Even if "Rod Speed" or "nospam" really did make threats, no one takes
> anything they post seriously, and certainly the FBI would not.

Say that when someone threatens you directly - or your wife & 2 kids Steve.

Say that when they know the school where your boy taught music, for
example, my point being solely that you can say that because it's not you.

I take EVERY threat against my life seriously, and I _did_ contact the FBI.

They took it seriously enough to assign someone to the case, who contacted
me for details, which I provided to the best of my ability.

You know I would do that so you know this as my credibility is stellar.

Jolly Roger wrote:

> full "adult" maturity on display, everyone!

What's interesting about iKooks like Jolly Roger isn't so much that they
can't ever add value to any conversation, but that they 'think' they can.

Jolly Roger is one of those sad little people who have been told their
entire life that they're stupid - which - well - which is obvious to all.

As a result, Jolly Roger (and all iKooks) suffer from low self esteem.
Hence, any time they can gang up on someone else, it makes them feel good.

Which is what Jolly Roger is doing now.

On 2023-01-18 01:11, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> Even if "Rod Speed" or "nospam" really did make threats, no one takes
>> anything they post seriously, and certainly the FBI would not.
>
> Say that when someone threatens you directly - or your wife & 2 kids Steve.

Really? When you are so intelligent that you use faked names?
Or are you telling that they know who you really are despite your
efforts to the contrary? And if you know they do, then why insist in
disguising your identity?

>
> Say that when they know the school where your boy taught music, for
> example, my point being solely that you can say that because it's not you.
>
> I take EVERY threat against my life seriously, and I _did_ contact the FBI.
>
> They took it seriously enough to assign someone to the case, who contacted
> me for details, which I provided to the best of my ability.

No, they contacted you to have a good laugh at you.
You are being delusional.

>
> You know I would do that so you know this as my credibility is stellar.

ROTFL!

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Really? When you are so intelligent that you use faked names?
> Or are you telling that they know who you really are despite your
> efforts to the contrary? And if you know they do, then why insist in
> disguising your identity?

Hi Carlos,

Can I speak to you bluntly - at your own level of cognizance please?
I'll use simple sentences for you.

So that you stand a chance of understanding what you do not understand.
OK?

Here goes...

You have such low IQ that you will _never_ understand the gift is in the
package not in the wrapping paper. I get it that you can't comprehend.

To you, the whole gift is the (inherently meaningless) wrapping paper.
To me, the headers are virtually meaningless.

If I write a tutorial, for example, and you know I've written so many we
can't even count them, is all the value of the tutorial in the header?

No.
None of the value (other than the subject line of course) is there.
*The header is meaningless.*

If Joe wrote the tutorial, it would be the same value.
If Bill wrote the tutorial, it would be the same value.
If Jane wrote the tutorial, it would be the same value.

People with extremely low IQ's, like you and Ken Blake for example, can't
comprehend that the pretty wrapping paper isn't the gift of the tutorial.

All you _care_ about, is the meaningless wrapping paper, Carlos.
I used to wonder why you put so much value into a meaningless header.

And then I realized, years ago, the reason is you don't have the mental
capacity to ever add value - so you only care about what you understand.

You have such a low IQ that you've _never_ written anything of value.
Your whole life.

You can't add value, Carlos.
All you _can_ do is claim that you don't like the wrapping paper changing.

It confuses you.
Your tiny abnormal brain can't handle the overload of input, Carlos.

Your intelligence is so abnormal that the wrapping paper is what bothers
you instead of the value painstakingly added, over hours, in the body.

In summary...

People with abnormally low intelligence, like you and Ken Blake, Carlos,
can't understand this concept of the value is not in the header fields.

You will never understand because you don't contribute any value ever.
You can't.

I apologize for telling you the truth about yourself, but it needed to be
told because people like you and Ken Blake can't add value to any thread.

You just can't.
You're too stupid, Carlos.

I realize you won't get this, so you will respond with a kindergarten
response, but trust me, I know you better than you know yourself.

You're too stupid to understand what I said above but it's as simple as the
value of a message is NOT in the header - it's in the body of that message.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:57:56 +1100, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote:

> On 2023-01-18 01:11, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> sms wrote:
>>
>>> Even if "Rod Speed" or "nospam" really did make threats, no one takes
>>> anything they post seriously, and certainly the FBI would not.
>> Say that when someone threatens you directly - or your wife & 2 kids
>> Steve.
>
> Really? When you are so intelligent that you use faked names?

He is so absolutely paranoid that he won't use anything
except cash so in theory no one can work out who he is.

In reality he has spelt out very explicitly where
he has used wifi to get around the lack of decent
cellphone coverage that it would be trivial to ask
his neighbours who he actually is given that it
was him that provided their wifi service.

> Or are you telling that they know who you really are despite your
> efforts to the contrary? And if you know they do, then why insist in
> disguising your identity?

Because he is that rabidly paranoid.

>> Say that when they know the school where your boy taught music, for
>> example, my point being solely that you can say that because it's not
>> you.
>> I take EVERY threat against my life seriously, and I _did_ contact the
>> FBI.
>> They took it seriously enough to assign someone to the case, who
>> contacted
>> me for details, which I provided to the best of my ability.
>
> No, they contacted you to have a good laugh at you.
> You are being delusional.

Yep. Bet they have one hell of a file on him.

>> You know I would do that so you know this as my credibility is stellar.

> ROTFL!

On 2023-01-18 05:44, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:57:56 +1100, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-18 01:11, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>> sms wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even if "Rod Speed" or "nospam" really did make threats, no one
>>>> takes anything they post seriously, and certainly the FBI would not.
>>>  Say that when someone threatens you directly - or your wife & 2 kids
>>> Steve.
>>
>> Really? When you are so intelligent that you use faked names?
>
> He is so absolutely paranoid that he won't use anything
> except cash so in theory no one can work out who he is.
>
> In reality he has spelt out very explicitly where
> he has used wifi to get around the lack of decent
> cellphone coverage that it would be trivial to ask
> his neighbours who he actually is given that it
> was him that provided their wifi service.

It would be nice if somebody posted his real name and location :-DD

>
>> Or are you telling that they know who you really are despite your
>> efforts to the contrary? And if you know they do, then why insist in
>> disguising your identity?
>
> Because he is that rabidly paranoid.

Yeah, but one can be paranoid and be intelligent about it, or silly. He
is the later.

>
>>>  Say that when they know the school where your boy taught music, for
>>> example, my point being solely that you can say that because it's not
>>> you.
>>>  I take EVERY threat against my life seriously, and I _did_ contact
>>> the FBI.
>>>  They took it seriously enough to assign someone to the case, who
>>> contacted
>>> me for details, which I provided to the best of my ability.
>>
>> No, they contacted you to have a good laugh at you.
>> You are being delusional.
>
> Yep. Bet they have one hell of a file on him.
>
>>>  You know I would do that so you know this as my credibility is stellar.
>
>> ROTFL!

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> It would be nice if somebody posted his real name and location

Again, you show you have too low of an IQ Carlos to figure out what isn't
even hidden, given I've posted in the various newsgroups my home, my
rooftop, my pool, my barn, my corral, my landscaping, my improvements, etc.

You'd just have to correlate all the various headers, which, I realize, is
beyond your level of capabilities, but it's not beyond the level of a
robotic scooper to grab all the headers and use them to aggregate posts.

Meanwhile I think it's humorous that morons like you and Ken Blake think
you're veritable geniuses for figuring out, from the body alone, what was
never hidden from YOU (it's intended to be hidden from robotic algorithms).

BTW, for those reading this who don't understand why I say the fact it
takes low IQ morons like Ken Blake and Carlos a thousand posts to figure
out mine, I assert that if you can't figure out my post in a _single_ post,
then you are so dumb that you don't deserve to be on Usenet being that
dumb.

Seriously.
Here's a post I just made only moments ago in the Android newsgroup by way
of showing the tremendous amount of detail, and the fact that the
screenshots, whether they be of an iPad or Android or Windows, are always
the same fantastically well organized and easily identified annotation.

Still - it takes low IQ people like Ken Blake and Carlos a few hundred of
these posts for them to finally jump up with glee saying "I found you!".

----- < cut here for a representative post made moments ago > -----
>>> On my Samsung Galaxy S10+ (Android 12): Settings > Battery and
>>> device care > Battery > More battery settings > Protect battery
>>> switch to ON" Caption under switch: "To extend the lifespan of
>>> your battery limit the charge to 85%".
>
>> Does your setting look something like this on my free Samsung phone?
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/VL6HGPGc/battery01.jpg> Android Battery
>> Settings
>
> Only your 1st and 4th pages are the same as mine. On my 1st page I found
> it easy to miss the 'Battery' button since it looks more like an
> battery information diagram than a button to press (to me). Thus it was
> awhile before I discovered I could actually push it and found all that
> stuff behind it...

Thanks for responding as that's interesting because it means you don't have
the "Auto optimize daily" and "Auto restart at set times" and "Adaptive
Power Saving" options in that third screen, I guess.
<https://i.postimg.cc/VL6HGPGc/battery01.jpg> Android 12 Battery Settings

The only entry of those three that has an explanation is the last, which
says "Turn power saving on and off automatically based on your usage
pattern".

But at least you have "Adaptive battery", which says "Extend battery life
based on your phone usage", and the ability to turn "Fast charging" on or
off, and, of course, the "protect battery" feature which says "To extend
the lifespan of your battery, limit the maximum charge to 85%".

There are a whole bunch of other default battery settings on my el cheapo
(actually free) Samsung such as a battery setting for each & every app.
<https://i.postimg.cc/8Cm6hqWZ/battery07.jpg> Settings for every app

The more I look, the more battery care settings are in my battery settings
such as this "More battery settings" for "Sleeping apps" where there is an
option to "Put unused apps to sleep" as shown in this screenshot below.
<https://i.postimg.cc/0y9qM0hc/battery17.jpg> Background Usage Limits

I made all of these screenshots just now to show you what options I have
on my el cheapo (free) Samsung of low Total Cost of Ownership because if I
ever sell it, I will get back "something" which is always more than I paid.

Here you can see which apps are sleeping, and which are deep sleeping, and
which apps are be in the never sleeping apps listing as shown here.
<https://i.postimg.cc/28QDSK91/battery18.jpg> Control sleeping apps

Here you can see more power saving options, which changes the screen
refresh rate, and background network usage, syncing and location checking
is curtailed if necessary, and there are even additional limits such as
limiting the CPU speed to 70% and decreasing brightness by 10% and limit
apps and home screen which is described as "For maximum power saving, allow
only selected apps, limit all background activity, turn off Edge panels,
and change to a dark theme", which is grayed out for some reason on mine.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bv69NQSF/battery19.jpg> Limit CPU Speed to 70%

Is that last option grayed out for you too?

What happens if you go to Android 12 > Settings > Battery and device care
and then you _longpress_ on any given item to bring up these extra screens?

AJL wrote:

>> <https://i.postimg.cc/Bv69NQSF/battery19.jpg> Is that last option
>> grayed out for you too?
>
> I don't have a Power Saving switch on screen 2 thus nothing grayed out
> on a later screen. I do have a Wireless power sharing switch on that
> screen that I don't see on yours. Apparently I can wireless charge
> another phone by putting them back to back if needed but have never
> needed or tried it.

Thank you for checking that information out.

My (admittedly free) Android is the cheapest Galaxy made, I think, which is
far more powerful in terms of functionality than any iPhone ever sold, but
it doesn't do wireless charging, so that may be why you have what I don't.

>> What happens if you go to Android 12 > Settings > Battery and device
>> care and then you _longpress_ on any given item to bring up these
>> extra screens?
>
> Long press does nothing extra over what a short press does...

Bummer. My Android is the bottom of the line for Samsung Galaxy devices so
I'd be surprised if it has anything special over the better Galaxy phones.

BTW, I noticed more battery performance options scattered about in the
settings. For example, do you have Developer options turned on perchance?
<https://i.postimg.cc/3N8zZ1vt/devopt05.jpg> Turning Developer Options on

In my Developer options there is a switch for "Wi-Fi scan throttling" which
says "Saves battery and improves network performance" by reducing the
frequency in which the Wi-Fi radios will scan for new access points.
<https://i.postimg.cc/HkkSDgh1/battery20.jpg> Wi-Fi Scan Throttling

There's also a setting for "Background process limit" and "Don't keep
activities" which will "Destroy every activity as soon as the user leaves
it" in addition to the ability to view and control all running services.
<https://i.postimg.cc/28324Hdp/devopt01.jpg> Settings > Developer options
<https://i.postimg.cc/PrqFSfjR/devopt02.jpg> Useful devoptions switches
<https://i.postimg.cc/7LzRSBkP/devopt03.jpg> More devoptions switches
<https://i.postimg.cc/DZFxLn65/devopt04.jpg> Even more devoptions switches

Luckily the battery is so huge it could jumpstart a car, but still, it's
nice to have all these battery options, and the apps that keep track.

Here, for example, are a few screenshots of what the GSAM app displays.
<https://i.postimg.cc/bNGQrMzn/gsam01.jpg> GSam Battery Monitor on Google
<https://i.postimg.cc/dQN2qvKv/gsam02.jpg> com.gsamlabs.bbm on Google Play
<https://i.postimg.cc/wBzJWjD5/gsam03.jpg> Running GSam Battery Monitor
<https://i.postimg.cc/brr1QVkK/gsam04.jpg> OPTIONAL grant access w/o root
<https://i.postimg.cc/BbRP2SqK/gsam05.jpg> Enable More Stats (via adb)
<https://i.postimg.cc/9MJGwHRd/gsam06.jpg> Battery Usage Since Unplugged
<https://i.postimg.cc/XNPCR8wY/gsam07.jpg> Compare WiFi & Phone power
<https://i.postimg.cc/nzH4LhzV/gsam08.jpg> Battery consumption charts
<https://i.postimg.cc/QxWThTbk/gsam09.jpg> Battery consumption by CPU
<https://i.postimg.cc/MpQbPLNw/gsam10.jpg> Battery consumption by app

And here's just a few of the BBS options for keeping tabs on the battery.
<https://i.postimg.cc/90nTDZTV/battery11.jpg> BetterBatteryStats graphs
<https://i.postimg.cc/T1p5v1ss/battery12.jpg> BBS actions by percentage
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZKXpZP4x/battery13.jpg> BBS comprehensive settings
<https://i.postimg.cc/kXSDQ0PW/battery14.jpg> Some BBS settings options
<https://i.postimg.cc/RCyNnMyM/battery15.jpg> More BBS settings options
<https://i.postimg.cc/fLW05BfD/battery16.jpg> Even more BBS options

We should probably just open a separate thread on the Android newsgroup
for what options exist to manage the battery, since there are so many.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:52:57 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 14:50:04 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2023 3:11 AM, Chris wrote:
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 14:11:51 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>>>>>> <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip to importance]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple used to do home grade routers. What happened?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Presumably they weren't making enough $$$ on them. For the last 20
>>>>>> years I've gotten mine from my ISP and have replaced it as I've moved
>>>>>> to faster (and more costly) tiers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure I'm not the only one by a long shot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, but why pay more? I've only upgraded if I needed to or if the
>>>>> upgrade was about the same price as I'm currently on. I could get much
>>>>> faster speeds, for more cost, but we don't need it. Other than bragging
>>>>> rights I wonder what people actually use their gigabit connections for.
>>>>> 50mbps is sufficient for 95% of people.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> High rate broadband is probably part of triple play (data,phone,TV).
>>>>
>>>> TV viewing can use part of that. Generally, TV viewing
>>>> does not count towards your "data cap".
>>>
>>> Are data caps still a thing? Not had one for many years even on cheap
>>> deals.
>>
>> It is on my phone.
>
>True, but we're talking about home broadband.

OK, sorry, I guess I missed that.

>
>> But my "cheap deal" is probably significantly
>> cheaper that yours. I use Mint and pay $15 a month for Unlimited talk
>> & text with a 4GB per month data cap.
>
>I pay £6 pm for 5GB and unlimited everything else. Unused data is rolled
>over for one month. I rarely use anywhere near 5GB so most months I have
>10GB available.
>
>This is on a 30-day rolling contract.
>
>Oh and I get free international roaming in 50 countries.
>
>
>
>

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 21:06:12 +1100, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote:

> On 2023-01-18 05:44, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:57:56 +1100, Carlos E.R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-18 01:11, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>> sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even if "Rod Speed" or "nospam" really did make threats, no one
>>>>> takes anything they post seriously, and certainly the FBI would not.
>>>> Say that when someone threatens you directly - or your wife & 2 kids
>>>> Steve.
>>>
>>> Really? When you are so intelligent that you use faked names?

>> He is so absolutely paranoid that he won't use anything
>> except cash so in theory no one can work out who he is.

>> In reality he has spelt out very explicitly where
>> he has used wifi to get around the lack of decent
>> cellphone coverage that it would be trivial to ask
>> his neighbours who he actually is given that it
>> was him that provided their wifi service.

> It would be nice if somebody posted his real name and location :-DD

Yep. nospam does appear to know his real location
and it would be very easy to make some phone calls
to his neighbours and I bet given his involvement in
the wifi distribution there, they would at least know
the name he uses there.

>>> Or are you telling that they know who you really are despite your
>>> efforts to the contrary? And if you know they do, then why insist in
>>> disguising your identity?

>> Because he is that rabidly paranoid.

> Yeah, but one can be paranoid and be intelligent about it, or silly. He
> is the later.

He has claimed to clear walking trails near where he lives with a
chainsaw after winter and big storms and has claimed to have
come across illegal marihama crops while doing that and has
claimed to have reported them to the authoritys, so some of the
paranoia may be legitimate, but that doesn't explain the worst of
his rabid obsession and never ever using a card or anything that
can ever identify him, uses cash all the time. Corse most registers
have cameras now and so do ATMs and banks, so that is rather
silly. He also uses phones where he can change the IEMI at will
for the same mindlessly paranoid reasons.

But his family realises how stupid he is and has basically chosen
to tell him to bugger off and use apple hardware even tho he hates
apple, so it likely wouldnt be hard to work out who he is that way.

Interesting that we can observe freaks like him over decades
now from the comfort of our homes. In the past, the Victorians
in England could visit Bedlam for a bit of light entertainment
and poke a stick at the loonys chained to the wall but with
some risk of getting bitten and contacting rabies from them.

We can poke a stick at 'arlen' from the other side of the world
with no risk what so ever.

>>>> Say that when they know the school where your boy taught music, for
>>>> example, my point being solely that you can say that because it's not
>>>> you.
>>>> I take EVERY threat against my life seriously, and I _did_ contact
>>>> the FBI.
>>>> They took it seriously enough to assign someone to the case, who
>>>> contacted
>>>> me for details, which I provided to the best of my ability.
>>>
>>> No, they contacted you to have a good laugh at you.
>>> You are being delusional.
>> Yep. Bet they have one hell of a file on him.
>>
>>>> You know I would do that so you know this as my credibility is
>>>> stellar.
>>
>>> ROTFL!

On 2023-01-18 05:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:

>>> ROTFL!

If you'd stop engaging with them, there'd be less crud here and more
signal. (And yes, you're not alone).

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-01-18 05:44, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:57:56 +1100, Carlos E.R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-18 01:11, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>> sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even if "Rod Speed" or "nospam" really did make threats, no one
>>>>> takes anything they post seriously, and certainly the FBI would not.
>>>>  Say that when someone threatens you directly - or your wife & 2 kids
>>>> Steve.
>>>
>>> Really? When you are so intelligent that you use faked names?
>>
>> He is so absolutely paranoid that he won't use anything
>> except cash so in theory no one can work out who he is.
>>
>> In reality he has spelt out very explicitly where
>> he has used wifi to get around the lack of decent
>> cellphone coverage that it would be trivial to ask
>> his neighbours who he actually is given that it
>> was him that provided their wifi service.
>
> It would be nice if somebody posted his real name and location :-DD

Honestly that would be a dick move. No one should be sharing detailed
personal information about anyone without their consent. Even if it is
Arlen.

Newyana2 wrote:

> Strange. I don't see any answers at all. I checked on AIOE, just
> in case. No answers there. Maybe they were people I block. ("Andy
> Burnelli" is also someone I block.) I never used to block anyone, but
> I got tired of nonsense and rudeness, like this one telling me I'm
> a liar.

Classic Alan Baker...

I knew, from the start, this thread had the hallmark of the iKooks.
*Moving files* by Newyana2
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/MFjtFd_f430>
And...
*Copying files -- Win10 laptop to Android cellphone*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/LbhmR25ySTQ>

1. We've established beyond any reasonable doubt this thread is a troll.
2. We've also established this "new" poster is a brazen liar.
3. Based on this troll's history, it's doubtful the troll even has an
Android, as this thread fit the Alan Baker pattern from the get go.

Here's the classic Alan Baker approach... which, by the way, he used
today and yesterday in this thread, so it's easy to show the iKook MO:
*find my car*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/VYqRnd9t6dM>

Notice what transpired on the _android_ newsgroup (not Apple! Android):
A. Someone asked a question
B. Ten people responded, nine of whom posted rather detailed help
C. One though, Alan Baker, merely posted this, as his first "help"
"Sure! It's called an iPhone!
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/VYqRnd9t6dM/m/pVVUGbCxDQAJ>
D. Then Alan posted yet again his iPhone propaganda to Android threads:
"Or you get an iPhone... "
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/VYqRnd9t6dM/m/BS3p60LnDQAJ>

Notice the iKooks _hate_ that Android isn't crippled like iOS is.
So they post that drivel which is _never_ intended to be helpful.

The same thing happened in this thread, ostensibly about "copying files".

1. Alan Baker creates a new nym & posts a defeatist Android post;
2. In that defeatist message body, he claims nothing works on Android;
3. At the first chance he gets, he brings in that iOS just works;
4. He repeats this propaganda, daily (which is the iKook MO).

Happens all the time.
It's what these iKooks do.

Do you know why?
I do.

The iKooks all suffer from the same abnormal maladies:
a. They're all of low IQ and almost no formal education to speak of
b. As a result, they're incapable of processing facts like most adults
c. They _believe_ everything Apple says - to the point of cult religion

The problem is that the iPhone is basically like Santa Claus.
And the iKooks are basically like fifth grade held-back low-IQ bullies.

Here's how almost all factual conversations go with these iKooks:
iKook: Santa exists. And he's great! Free gifts on Christmas for the world!
Adult: No it doesn't exist. It's impossible for Apple's claim to be true.
iKook: But I saw Santa at the mall Apple Store. You didn't see him! I did!
Adult: That was just a clever marketing trick; it's an Apple marketing gimmick.
iKook: No. You are wrong! It _was_ Santa. I saw him. You are a dumb fuck (JR)
Adult: Unfortunately, I repeat: Santa is just a marketing gimmick son.
iKook: Liar! You are a dumb fuck. You are a dick head. ftfy (nospam hallmark)
Adult: How could it possibly be that Santa can fly through the sky like that?
iKook: He does! Apple has a whitepaper on it. Apple said it was so! It's real!
Adult: That's just clever Apple marketing, son. Sorry Santa doesn't exist.
iKook: You are an idiot and a troll and a dickhead and a liar! Santa is real!
(This discussion goes on forever with all the iKooks joining in...)
iKook: You are an asshole. Liar! Liar... Liar... Pants on fire!

This is added to the permanent record to explain iKook behavior.

Newyana2 wrote:

> Thanks, everybody. I don't use cellphones much so I
> don't have experience with any of this. I do have developer
> mode enabled, for reasons I don't remember now.
>
> Kenny: No LAN. I don't want to get into that. I've got all computers
> configured for no networking, for security.
>
> Keith: Android 9. No luck with either system seeing the other via bluetooth.
>
> V: USB debugging didn't help. I also enabled something
> in there about allow sharing files. No luck. (I changed
> the name for personal reasons. Kind of a dumb name,
> but I wanted it to be recognizable to the regulars.)
>
> Paul: Sure enough, there's a microSD slot hidden under
> the back. A lot of good it does there! There's no slot
> for it in the cover. So... If I buy a microSD card and
> a reader to hook up to a PC, I could use the card (FAT32?)
> to load up PDFs and then I'll be able to see them in
> Android? I could then cut a hole in the cover and keep
> tape over it, to make the slot usable.

While I faithfully tried to help this "defeatist" supposed Android user who
posted this outlandish troll thread essentially saying that he's the only
one on the planet who can't get a USB cable to work with Android, I suggest
others responding take note this is most likely yet another Alan Baker
thread.

His entire intent is to be defeatist about the simplest things about
Android (like copying files between Windows & Android, which is trivial).

He's acting like it's a huuuuuuuuuuuuge deal, in this post, for example, to
do something as trivial as inserting a $20 card into the sd slot.

Classic iKook.
a. Claim to have a problem that nobody has
b. Throw defeatist hurdles into _every_ suggestion
c. Then claim that if it was the iPhone, it would all "just work"

Just watch.

He hasn't gotten to the point of his intended pre-planned payload, which is
he will claim that "I'm leaving Android forever" and "going to Apple".

It's classic.
They do this once a month or more.

The intent isn't to waste our valuable time trying to help them, but more
to their goal, their intent is to complain about Android not working for
the simplest things (which everyone knows works just fine), and then, the
payload is _always_ that they're giving up in frustration on Android.

And moving to Apple.
Because Android so very much frustrates them.

Like their claim they have to "cut a hole" in the case to insert the sd
card, which, they're so childishly low IQ, they don't even realize how
ridiculous they sound as they are desperate to sound defeatist on Android.

What they really hate, by the way, is this datapoint compiled just today:
*0% of iPhones have key modern hardware capabilities - while from 66%*
*to 78% of Android phone have that key modern hardware functionality*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/vLB-bIF-P5Q>

Seconds after that was posted, guess who the first person to post?
Yup. Alan Baker.

To the fact that three quarters of all current Androids have the headphone
jack and three quarters have the sdcard slot and two thirds have both,
Alan Baker hated those facts, writing...
"That's not a modern feature, nor is there any "standard"
about what sort of headphone jack a smartphone should have. "
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/vLB-bIF-P5Q/m/Xb3P7w_2DQAJ>

What drives these low IQ uneducated iKooks is, as a result of their
inability to process facts like an adult, they _believe_ all Apple
propaganda.

Which is fine - but as a result of being called stupid their whole lives,
they own low self esteem - which Apple products allow them to regain.

But then they lose their self esteem when the truth about Apple comes out.
It's a vicious cycle for them because of the confluence of three traits:
a. Low IQ & no education, and as a result, they can't process facts
b. As a result, they believe everything Apple leads them to believe
c. To the point that they deny all facts that don't fit into their
purely imaginary belief system about their supposed "superiority"
of what is clearly a crippled product line, compared to Android.

And _that_...

_that_...

_That!_ is what the iKooks hate.

The iKooks are like stunted bullies who believe Santa Claus marketing.

On 2023-01-18 17:58, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Newyana2 wrote:
>
>>   Strange. I don't see any answers at all. I checked on AIOE, just
>> in case. No answers there. Maybe they were people I block. ("Andy
>> Burnelli" is also someone I block.) I never used to block anyone, but
>> I got tired of nonsense and rudeness, like this one telling me I'm
>> a liar.
>
> Classic Alan Baker...

Wow.

You're really quite butthurt by me, huh?

>
> I knew, from the start, this thread had the hallmark of the iKooks.
> *Moving files* by Newyana2
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/MFjtFd_f430>
> And... *Copying files -- Win10 laptop to Android cellphone*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/LbhmR25ySTQ>
>
> 1. We've established beyond any reasonable doubt this thread is a troll.
> 2. We've also established this "new" poster is a brazen liar.
> 3. Based on this troll's history, it's doubtful the troll even has an
> Android, as this thread fit the Alan Baker pattern from the get go.
>
> Here's the classic Alan Baker approach... which, by the way, he used
> today and yesterday in this thread, so it's easy to show the iKook MO:
> *find my car*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/VYqRnd9t6dM>
>
> Notice what transpired on the _android_ newsgroup (not Apple! Android):
> A. Someone asked a question
> B. Ten people responded, nine of whom posted rather detailed help
> C. One though, Alan Baker, merely posted this, as his first "help"
>   "Sure! It's called an iPhone!
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/VYqRnd9t6dM/m/pVVUGbCxDQAJ>
> D. Then Alan posted yet again his iPhone propaganda to Android threads:
>   "Or you get an iPhone... "

Yup.

Enjoyed it, too!

>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/VYqRnd9t6dM/m/BS3p60LnDQAJ>
>
> Notice the iKooks _hate_ that Android isn't crippled like iOS is.
> So they post that drivel which is _never_ intended to be helpful.
>
> The same thing happened in this thread, ostensibly about "copying files".
>
> 1. Alan Baker creates a new nym & posts a defeatist Android post;

Nope.

> 2. In that defeatist message body, he claims nothing works on Android;

Nope.

> 3. At the first chance he gets, he brings in that iOS just works;

It does just work for finding your car. I use it all the time and never
think twice.

> 4. He repeats this propaganda, daily (which is the iKook MO).
I haven't created a nym, Arlen. I had nothing to do with any post other
than the ones under my own name.

If only you could say the same, huh?

nospam wrote:

>> As a current EE I prefer wireless to wires.
>
> go back to school.

Hi nospam,

You have no right to say that.

I checked Steve's resume and he _does_ have an EE degree, as do I (among
others), where you are too uneducated to know how hard EE degrees are.

They're _extremely_ difficult to earn, as the math and physics involved is
deeply complex - which means Steve has the ability to comprehend details.

While there's no evidence inherent in your lame excuses for Apple products
that you have _any_ formal education to speak of, your "claim" that you're
a programmer might mean you have a comp sci degree - but - I doubt you even
went to college, nospam - simply because your posts show lack of education.

Given my assessment of your posts indicates you have _zero_ formal
education, and given I already checked out Steve's education, I'd want to
point out you iKooks will stop at nothing to deprecate people who are
educated (since you're not educated).

I seriously doubt you're even a coder, nospam, since _nothing_ you've ever
written indicates knowledge of coding - and - in fact - almost everything
you write is easily shown to be false, misleading, and just plain wrong.

Hence... since half my goal on this ng is to expose you ignorant despicable
ill-mannered ill-meaning unprepossessing iKooks for what you are, I would
say that when it comes to electrical engineering, Steve knows what he's
talking about (as does badgolferman on electrotechnical topics).

That isn't to say Steve doesn't play his nonsensical wacko far-to-the-left
wacko political shenanigans (which I exposed during the Covid discussions
as I _also_ have a degree in the biological sciences - where it was
instantly evident the iKook "Chris" fabricated his "PhD" in that field
(and yet, Chris was unaware of even the most basic of science terms).

All you iKooks, nospam, completely lack both IQ and education - which is a
huge component of _why_ you're all iKooks - but you have to add your insane
religious attachment to all that Apple spews to make you truly an iKook.

Interestingly, you, of all the iKooks, nospam, are the "most intelligent",
and, perhaps even the "most educated"... even as both are dismal for you.

In summary, you, of all people, have been dead wrong so many times on the
_simplest_ of things about Apple... that you... have no right whatsoever...
to say Steve needs to "go back to school".

nospam wrote:

> In article <tqju6u$1p2r$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I checked Steve's resume and he _does_ have an EE degree, as do I (among
>> others), where you are too uneducated to know how hard EE degrees are.
>
> i see you're digging yourself another hole.

Look nospam, I'm not ashamed (like you are) to admit what degrees I have,
and what degrees I do not have - where you think it's embarrassing to admit
what you don't know - but I find no shame in admitting what I do not know.

I looked up Steve's resume (which, after all, you must know is not hard to
find on the Internet due to his previous political employment) and it says
he has an EE degree. I believe he has that degree, a priori, & you don't.

I told you on what basis I believe that Steve has earned an EE degree.
Now you tell us all on what basis you have assessed that he has not?

>
>> They're _extremely_ difficult to earn, as the math and physics involved is
>> deeply complex -
>
> maybe for you it's '_extremely- difficult' and 'deeply complex'.

Hehhehheh.... Just like when "Chris" told me he had a PhD in the life
sciences, and yet Chris ridiculed the use of "vehicle" in immunology, which
is about as common a scientific term in microbiology as xtor is in EE.

What's revealing about you poorly educated iKooks, nospam, and what you
just revealed yourself, is you just don't know how much you don't know.

Since you do NOT have any degree, let alone an EE degree (which, let's face
it, is one of the hardest undergraduate degrees to earn, bar none), you
don't have any clue how difficult the topics are in the EE curriculum.

*You're too ignorant*, nospam, to *realize how ignorant you truly are.*

>> which means Steve has the ability to comprehend details.
>
> what he has is the ability to blatantly lie about details while
> sounding like he knows what he's talking about.

I agree with you that Steve makes it sound like he is an expert in cellular
coverage, & yet, he either lied or was ignorant _all_ his FCC maps didn't
say what he said they said (none had _any_ 5G coverage, for example).

Who _lies_ that brazenly?
Who _lies_ that repeatedly?
Who has _never_ admitted his lies, even after we proved them beyond doubt?

Steve.
That's who.

I agree with you that Steve tries to come off as an "expert", and, indeed,
he's pretty damn good at finding good deals, although they're complex as
hell as he's a Verizon-wanna-be using all sorts of MVNOs to get there.

Since I'm an adult (unlike you iKooks), I can easily also agree with you
that Steve comes across as an expert in things like fingerprint readers,
and Face-ID gimmicks, and, in particular, the Covid trackers, which I went
head to head against him and demolished his point of view simply because
Steve does NOT also have a degree in the life sciences, as I do.

Nobody on this newsgroup will I let get away with all that covid nonsense
they came up with - where - with Steve - it was all his political bullshit.

In addition to Steve's wacko far-to-the-left politics with smartphones and
covid, Steve is strangely pro Apple in terms of sleazily changing the
search criteria to NOT prove the vast majority of new Android models have
either portable memory slots or wired headphone slots - two thirds of which
have both. For some reason, Steve is _desperate_ to deny that simple fact.

We can go on, like when Steve just today claimed that the iPhones break so
often (battery, screen & lightning port) that people tend to just replace
them instead of repairing them - and yet - Steve never put any repair costs
into his specious claims that iPhones cost less to own than Androids do.

Just as Steve did when he tried to show the vast majority of Android do not
have what they actually have, in his haste to create a false pre-determined
stand on total ownership costs, Steve _completely ignored_ all the Android
models which do have lower costs of ownership than the flagship models
might.

To Steve, and to you despicable iKooks, the end justifies the means.
And the end, to both Steve and the iKooks, is to promulgate a brazen lie.

At least I always strive to maintain the God's honest truth.
This is something you can't fathom nospam.

To you, it's unfathomable someone would have the credibility I have
because, in your deceitful mind, any lie is fair game to promote if it
serves your cause of defending Apple to the death, like a Samurai.

> if you actually had an
> ee degree (and weren't also a liar), you'd realize just how full of
> shit he is.

First off, your claim that I'm not an EE is now based on the fact that I
don't realize how "full of shit" Steve often is when he posts here?

Are you really that stupid, nospam?
Seriously.

*How many times have I criticized Steve for the things he has said?*

This would be shocking for a normal person to make that claim.
But you're an iKook after all.

*Ignorant of everything you iKooks always prove to be.*

That you are completely ignorant of all that is no longer shocking nospam.

Every argument from you is so easily shot down that it's how I know you
don't own the IQ or education of a normal person, nospam. Seriously.

--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to respond that Steve _can_ handle detail.
He just chooses to lie about it (much like all the iKooks also do).