flibbertigibbet wrote:

>>If it doesn't do anything that the other file managers do, then I would
>>ask why you let Google spyware onto your phone without a good reason.
>
> I don't know what you mean by Google spyware, and I cannot see how what
> seems like a reputable file manager costing more than L5 can be malicious.
> If you think I'm better off not having it on my devices then I'll remove it
> and get my fiver back before my cooling off time runs out. Thanks.

There are many others who know far more than I do about GSF processes.
<https://i.postimg.cc/mk2CKQdn/gsfid09.jpg> GSF services on Android

But why do you think trusted developers go to the trouble to add a filter
to the replacement Google Play Store clients which expressly filters out
permanently any and all apps on the Google Play Store with GSF in them?
<https://i.postimg.cc/YStB48LH/gsfid03.jpg> Filter out GSF apps

Why do you think trusted developers go to the trouble to create methods for
a normal (non rooted) knowledgeable user to view the GSF ID at will?
<https://i.postimg.cc/G2Cz4GHz/gsfid04.jpg> Evozi Device ID reports GSF ID

And, why do you think they write tools to _change_ that unique GSF ID?
<https://i.postimg.cc/X7ZspnsG/gsfid01.jpg> You can change your GSF ID

Much like knowledgeable users can change & now delete their advertising ID.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhNNQvNN/adid07.jpg> Check Advertising ID
<https://i.postimg.cc/q77fJVdR/adid05.jpg> Reset Advertising ID
<https://i.postimg.cc/XvqM5CSd/adid06.jpg> Delete Advertising ID

My main beef with mobile phone users is most are like sheep led to
slaughter, when it comes to THINKING for themselves about what they are
doing. Instead, I wish people would _think_ when they install Android apps.
<https://i.postimg.cc/G2QP0CFz/aurora15.jpg> FOSS Google Play Store client

MARKETING organizations made it easy to be led to slaughter by the nose.
It's our job to be wary when MARKETING hooks that ring into our noses.

The Google Play Store client is a nose ring MARKETING hooks into our noses.

Personally, from the moment I set up a phone, I disable the default Google
Play Store client & use FOSS replacement Google Play Store clients instead.
<https://i.postimg.cc/CL9GpzVc/aurora01.jpg> FOSS Google Play Store client

These FOSS Google Play Store clients have options MARKETING won't give you.
<https://i.postimg.cc/PrvDyT8Y/aurora03.jpg> Spoof hardware & geolocation

An example is they auto-save all APKs for you whenever you install apps!
<https://i.postimg.cc/Z5kdD2rg/aurora04.jpg> Choose where to download APKs

And, these Google Play Store clients work WITHOUT you needing an account.
<https://i.postimg.cc/NG5pHyBx/aurora10.jpg> No need for a Google Account

For some reason, Google MARKETING doesn't give you those options in the
default Google Play Store client; but the FOSS replacement clients do.

But better yet, they have options to help maintain your privacy from GSF.

In fact, if you use the Google Play Store client to the Google Play Store
repository, you can't easily see which apps contain the Google spyware.

But if you use the FOSS Google Play Store clients to the Google Play Store
repository, they make it VERY CLEAR which apps contain GSF Google spyware.
<https://i.postimg.cc/RF06HBB3/aurora05.jpg> Basic filters for software

Notice in that screenshot there are only
<https://i.postimg.cc/P5YYKT3H/aurora14.jpg> Filter out apps linked to GSF

In order of priority as shown in those Google Play Store client filters:
1. Filter out GSF dependent apps (usually apps with gsf are not allowed)
2. Filter out payware apps (usually payware apps are not allowed to show)
3. Filter out apps with ads (usually apps with ads are not allowed to show)
4. Filter based on ratings (usually 4+ and above is allowed to show)
5. Filter based on number of downloads (usually 1M+ is allowed to show)

Why do you think there are only five app filters with GSF being the first?
<https://i.postimg.cc/7PdGfdQ6/aurora08.jpg> Some filters are not common

Why do you think people go to trouble to change the unique Android GSF ID?
<https://i.postimg.cc/YStB48LH/gsfid03.jpg> Filter out GSF apps

Run a quick search for any of these keywords and let us know what you find.
A. com.google.android.gsf (package)
B. Google Services Framework (APK)
C. com.google.process.gapps (process)

In summary, I consider Google Services Framework to be Google spyware which
less reputable developers tend to link into their Android app source code.

Having said that, I'm sure there are many others (e.g., Andy Burns for one)
who know far more about this pernicious Google spyware than I do, so I
welcome people who know far more than I do to help answer your questions.

In short, if the app you found links in Google Services Framework, and if
it's the _only_ app on the planet that does what you need, then I'd use
that app (if I must); but, conversely, if there are plenty of well written
apps which do NOT link in Google GSF spyware, then I'd use them instead.

It's a simple decision for me, especially as my Google Play Store client
never shows me those poorly written apps in the first place when I search.
<https://i.postimg.cc/RF06HBB3/aurora05.jpg> Filters Google won't give you
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case is to explain why I avoid apps with GSF linked in them.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 02:13:51 +0000, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>flibbertigibbet wrote:
>
>>>If it doesn't do anything that the other file managers do, then I would
>>>ask why you let Google spyware onto your phone without a good reason.
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by Google spyware, and I cannot see how what
>> seems like a reputable file manager costing more than L5 can be malicious.
>> If you think I'm better off not having it on my devices then I'll remove it
>> and get my fiver back before my cooling off time runs out. Thanks.
>
>There are many others who know far more than I do about GSF processes.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/mk2CKQdn/gsfid09.jpg> GSF services on Android

So GSF is an acronym for Google Services Framework. Is that a bad thing?

>But why do you think trusted developers go to the trouble to add a filter
>to the replacement Google Play Store clients which expressly filters out
>permanently any and all apps on the Google Play Store with GSF in them?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/YStB48LH/gsfid03.jpg> Filter out GSF apps

I have no idea why.

>Why do you think trusted developers go to the trouble to create methods for
>a normal (non rooted) knowledgeable user to view the GSF ID at will?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/G2Cz4GHz/gsfid04.jpg> Evozi Device ID reports GSF ID

As above: I don't know.

>And, why do you think they write tools to _change_ that unique GSF ID?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/X7ZspnsG/gsfid01.jpg> You can change your GSF ID

I really haven't a clue.

>Much like knowledgeable users can change & now delete their advertising ID.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nhNNQvNN/adid07.jpg> Check Advertising ID
> <https://i.postimg.cc/q77fJVdR/adid05.jpg> Reset Advertising ID
> <https://i.postimg.cc/XvqM5CSd/adid06.jpg> Delete Advertising ID
>
>My main beef with mobile phone users is most are like sheep led to
>slaughter, when it comes to THINKING for themselves about what they are
>doing. Instead, I wish people would _think_ when they install Android apps.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/G2QP0CFz/aurora15.jpg> FOSS Google Play Store client
>
>MARKETING organizations made it easy to be led to slaughter by the nose.
>It's our job to be wary when MARKETING hooks that ring into our noses.
>
>The Google Play Store client is a nose ring MARKETING hooks into our noses.
>
>Personally, from the moment I set up a phone, I disable the default Google
>Play Store client & use FOSS replacement Google Play Store clients instead.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/CL9GpzVc/aurora01.jpg> FOSS Google Play Store client
>
>These FOSS Google Play Store clients have options MARKETING won't give you.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/PrvDyT8Y/aurora03.jpg> Spoof hardware & geolocation
>
>An example is they auto-save all APKs for you whenever you install apps!
> <https://i.postimg.cc/Z5kdD2rg/aurora04.jpg> Choose where to download APKs
>
>And, these Google Play Store clients work WITHOUT you needing an account.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/NG5pHyBx/aurora10.jpg> No need for a Google Account
>
>For some reason, Google MARKETING doesn't give you those options in the
>default Google Play Store client; but the FOSS replacement clients do.
>
>But better yet, they have options to help maintain your privacy from GSF.
>
>In fact, if you use the Google Play Store client to the Google Play Store
>repository, you can't easily see which apps contain the Google spyware.
>
>But if you use the FOSS Google Play Store clients to the Google Play Store
>repository, they make it VERY CLEAR which apps contain GSF Google spyware.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/RF06HBB3/aurora05.jpg> Basic filters for software
>
>Notice in that screenshot there are only
> <https://i.postimg.cc/P5YYKT3H/aurora14.jpg> Filter out apps linked to GSF
>
>In order of priority as shown in those Google Play Store client filters:
>1. Filter out GSF dependent apps (usually apps with gsf are not allowed)
>2. Filter out payware apps (usually payware apps are not allowed to show)
>3. Filter out apps with ads (usually apps with ads are not allowed to show)
>4. Filter based on ratings (usually 4+ and above is allowed to show)
>5. Filter based on number of downloads (usually 1M+ is allowed to show)
>
>Why do you think there are only five app filters with GSF being the first?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/7PdGfdQ6/aurora08.jpg> Some filters are not common
>
>Why do you think people go to trouble to change the unique Android GSF ID?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/YStB48LH/gsfid03.jpg> Filter out GSF apps
>
>Run a quick search for any of these keywords and let us know what you find.
>A. com.google.android.gsf (package)
>B. Google Services Framework (APK)
>C. com.google.process.gapps (process)
>
>In summary, I consider Google Services Framework to be Google spyware which
>less reputable developers tend to link into their Android app source code.
>
>Having said that, I'm sure there are many others (e.g., Andy Burns for one)
>who know far more about this pernicious Google spyware than I do, so I
>welcome people who know far more than I do to help answer your questions.

I don't have any questions about GSF. I simply wanted to know if there is a
way to continue viewing my Android Data file, either with a bypass Android's
latest effort to keep customers out of things they don't think they should
be interfering with or with a different file manager. FV File Pro seems to
do just that. Should I dump and get my money back because it contains GSF?

>In short, if the app you found links in Google Services Framework, and if
>it's the _only_ app on the planet that does what you need, then I'd use
>that app (if I must); but, conversely, if there are plenty of well written
>apps which do NOT link in Google GSF spyware, then I'd use them instead.
>
>It's a simple decision for me, especially as my Google Play Store client
>never shows me those poorly written apps in the first place when I search.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/RF06HBB3/aurora05.jpg> Filters Google won't give you

OK. Thanks.

flibbertigibbet wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 02:13:51 +0000, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>flibbertigibbet wrote:
>>
>>>>If it doesn't do anything that the other file managers do, then I would
>>>>ask why you let Google spyware onto your phone without a good reason.
>>>
>>> I don't know what you mean by Google spyware, and I cannot see how what
>>> seems like a reputable file manager costing more than L5 can be malicious.
>>> If you think I'm better off not having it on my devices then I'll remove it
>>> and get my fiver back before my cooling off time runs out. Thanks.
>>
>>There are many others who know far more than I do about GSF processes.
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/mk2CKQdn/gsfid09.jpg> GSF services on Android
>
> So GSF is an acronym for Google Services Framework.

I think of it as "Google Spyware Framework" since that appears to be the
purpose of the code which is _never_ needed in any app that I know of.

Personal hygiene and personal privacy are similar in that it's a never
ending series of "habits" that you practice - or you become disgusting.

Hence, perhaps a more appropriate way of thinking about what the "S" means
is to consider it the "Google Spit Framework (because spit is what it is).

> Is that a bad thing?

Is lack of personal hygiene a bad thing?

IMHO, people who don't practice personal hygiene become disgusting over
time, just as people who don't practice personal privacy become disgusting.

An example is people who allow precise location from Google maps are
disgusting people because they upload _your_ private details to Google.

Likewise, people who use Google's GMail app are disgusting people because
they upload the personal contact information of _your_ kids to Google.

>>But why do you think trusted developers go to the trouble to add a filter
>>to the replacement Google Play Store clients which expressly filters out
>>permanently any and all apps on the Google Play Store with GSF in them?
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/YStB48LH/gsfid03.jpg> Filter out GSF apps
>
> I have no idea why.

People need to "think" when they install and use apps on a mobile device.
They need to "think" why an app is asking for whatever it's asking for.

For example, I was looking for pedometer apps, and most of them required a
login, which is not needed for a pedometer app. Why are they asking for it?

Another example was I was looking for a pool chemistry app, and most of
them required a login. Again, why does pool chemistry need a login account?

It's the same with Apple or Google requiring a login to the mothership just
to download and install an app from their respective app stores.

You need to think _why_ they want you to log into their app store so that
Apple can insert tracking information into every app, and so that Google
can keep track of every app you install and on which device.

Luckily Android has privacy which is impossible on iOS in that regard, but
I suspect that iOS has privacy Google doesn't have in terms of GSF code.

If anyone on this ng knows whether GSF code is inserted into Apple IPAs,
that would be useful information to know as GSF is basically spyware, IMHO.

>>Why do you think trusted developers go to the trouble to create methods for
>>a normal (non rooted) knowledgeable user to view the GSF ID at will?
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/G2Cz4GHz/gsfid04.jpg> Evozi Device ID reports GSF ID
>
> As above: I don't know.

Let's put it this way, since I'm trying to help people "think" about GSF.

Can order food off a menu at a restaurant without a waiter spitting in it?
Hopefully the answer is "yes", right?

But the GSF is "spit" in your soup, simply because you can get the same
soup _without_ the GSF spit in that soup - which is why I filter it out.

That's why I asked you why you chose an app with GSF "spit" in the soup
when you could have gotten plenty of apps _without_ GSF "spit" in them.

Unfortunately, in the case of the Apple restaurant, they _always_ spit in
your soup in terms of adding tracking information to everything you order.

>>And, why do you think they write tools to _change_ that unique GSF ID?
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/X7ZspnsG/gsfid01.jpg> You can change your GSF ID
>
> I really haven't a clue.

The GSF_ID is a unique tracking ID that is on all Android phones (we're not
talking about rooted phones here) just as Apple tracks every user on iOS.

Both Apple & Google have a vested interest in tracking your every move.

They both track multiple ways, one of which is they insert unique numbers
into your phone (and in the case of Apple, into every single app you use).

What you need to do is practice personal hygiene when cleaning that stuff.

For example, on Android, I used to "wash my hands" of the advertising ID.
<https://i.postimg.cc/t4YpKqZ2/adid03.jpg> Resetting the advertising ID

But hygiene gets easier over time, where nowadays I just delete it instead.
<https://i.postimg.cc/XvqM5CSd/adid06.jpg> Delete Advertising ID

Also on Android I periodically change the GSF_ID to add some entropy.
<https://i.postimg.cc/pLPCKSb8/gsfid08.jpg> Android /user/serial/gsf IDs

Unfortunately, to my knowledge, on iOS you are stuck with your unique IDs.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg> Apple requires a unique ID

>>Having said that, I'm sure there are many others (e.g., Andy Burns for one)
>>who know far more about this pernicious Google spyware than I do, so I
>>welcome people who know far more than I do to help answer your questions.
>
> I don't have any questions about GSF. I simply wanted to know if there is a
> way to continue viewing my Android Data file, either with a bypass Android's
> latest effort to keep customers out of things they don't think they should
> be interfering with or with a different file manager. FV File Pro seems to
> do just that. Should I dump and get my money back because it contains GSF?

Most people take the first app that works in the first search they run,
which, if you think about it, is almost never going to be the best app.

What I do, instead, is set my search filters to intelligent criteria first.
<https://i.postimg.cc/RF06HBB3/aurora05.jpg> Don't even see bad apps

In that case, I wouldn't even _see_ the badly written app that you found.
What I see are apps which do what your program does, but they do it right.

All of these read my (non-rooted) root file system partition for example.
X-plore File Manager App
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lonelycatgames.Xplore>
MK Explorer File Manager App
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=pl.mkexplorer.kormateusz>
MiX File Manager App (the free version com.mixexplorer not on Google Play)
<https://mixplorer.com/>
<https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/app-2-2-mixplorer-v6-x-released-fully-featured-file-manager.1523691/#post-23109280>
FX File Manager App
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=nextapp.fx>

For you to use the FV File Manager over them requires knowledge that I do
not have which is what does it do that those above don't already do?
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.folderv.file>

Since I have a good heart and even better intent, all I can say to answer
your question is that half my file managers saw the root partition and half
did not - but all of my file managers are devoid of GSF "spit" in them.
<https://i.postimg.cc/fT7MSr90/root01.jpg> non-rooted, All Files Access=On
<https://i.postimg.cc/05wkPQ5n/root02.jpg> Half of file managers read root
<https://i.postimg.cc/R0hm8Cbc/root03.jpg> & half of file managers do not

>>In short, if the app you found links in Google Services Framework, and if
>>it's the _only_ app on the planet that does what you need, then I'd use
>>that app (if I must); but, conversely, if there are plenty of well written
>>apps which do NOT link in Google GSF spyware, then I'd use them instead.
>>
>>It's a simple decision for me, especially as my Google Play Store client
>>never shows me those poorly written apps in the first place when I search.
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/RF06HBB3/aurora05.jpg> Filters Google won't give you
>
> OK. Thanks.

In summary, personal privacy is no different in principle from personal
hygiene in that people who don't practice it become disgusting over time.

What you need to do is not throw everyone around you under the bus, and one
way of doing that is to practice personal privacy whenever you use a phone.

One way to practice that personal privacy is to shun mothership "spit" in
your soup, which, in this case, is to choose apps without GSF code in them.

As always, my goal is to learn, and teach, where certainly others know far
more than I do about what GSF code does so I ask others to help out more.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to answer the questions posed by the thread OP.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:56:53 +0000, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>flibbertigibbet wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 02:13:51 +0000, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>flibbertigibbet wrote:
>>>
>>>>>If it doesn't do anything that the other file managers do, then I would
>>>>>ask why you let Google spyware onto your phone without a good reason.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what you mean by Google spyware, and I cannot see how what
>>>> seems like a reputable file manager costing more than L5 can be malicious.
>>>> If you think I'm better off not having it on my devices then I'll remove it
>>>> and get my fiver back before my cooling off time runs out. Thanks.
>>>
>>>There are many others who know far more than I do about GSF processes.
>>> <https://i.postimg.cc/mk2CKQdn/gsfid09.jpg> GSF services on Android
>>
>> So GSF is an acronym for Google Services Framework.
>
>I think of it as "Google Spyware Framework" since that appears to be the
>purpose of the code which is _never_ needed in any app that I know of.
>
>Personal hygiene and personal privacy are similar in that it's a never
>ending series of "habits" that you practice - or you become disgusting.
>
>Hence, perhaps a more appropriate way of thinking about what the "S" means
>is to consider it the "Google Spit Framework (because spit is what it is).
>
>> Is that a bad thing?
>
>Is lack of personal hygiene a bad thing?
>
>IMHO, people who don't practice personal hygiene become disgusting over
>time, just as people who don't practice personal privacy become disgusting.
>
>An example is people who allow precise location from Google maps are
>disgusting people because they upload _your_ private details to Google.
>
>Likewise, people who use Google's GMail app are disgusting people because
>they upload the personal contact information of _your_ kids to Google.

You're crazy! My whole family have Google Location turned on all the time so
that we know where each of us are at any given moment. Also, on top of that,
I have a Garmin watch, and whenever I go out for a run or even a long walk I
send a link via WhatsApp to my wife so she can track my whereabouts and even
my heartbeat on her phone. Modern tech like this allows us all to stay close
even when we're far apart.

>>>But why do you think trusted developers go to the trouble to add a filter
>>>to the replacement Google Play Store clients which expressly filters out
>>>permanently any and all apps on the Google Play Store with GSF in them?
>>> <https://i.postimg.cc/YStB48LH/gsfid03.jpg> Filter out GSF apps
>>
>> I have no idea why.
>
>People need to "think" when they install and use apps on a mobile device.
>They need to "think" why an app is asking for whatever it's asking for.
>
>For example, I was looking for pedometer apps, and most of them required a
>login, which is not needed for a pedometer app. Why are they asking for it?
>
>Another example was I was looking for a pool chemistry app, and most of
>them required a login. Again, why does pool chemistry need a login account?
>
>It's the same with Apple or Google requiring a login to the mothership just
>to download and install an app from their respective app stores.
>
>You need to think _why_ they want you to log into their app store so that
>Apple can insert tracking information into every app, and so that Google
>can keep track of every app you install and on which device.
>
>Luckily Android has privacy which is impossible on iOS in that regard, but
>I suspect that iOS has privacy Google doesn't have in terms of GSF code.
>
>If anyone on this ng knows whether GSF code is inserted into Apple IPAs,
>that would be useful information to know as GSF is basically spyware, IMHO.

So, none of your family photos have data location metadata, I suppose.
That's sad man. Look, it's none of my business but I think your paranoia is
stopping you and your family from benefiting in so many ways. Don't you have
any cameras inside your home looking in and out so that your family can see
you and communicate with you. What about Alexa devices? I have one in every
room, even the attic and in the shed so that my family and friends can 'Drop
in' and chat via video.

>>>Why do you think trusted developers go to the trouble to create methods for
>>>a normal (non rooted) knowledgeable user to view the GSF ID at will?
>>> <https://i.postimg.cc/G2Cz4GHz/gsfid04.jpg> Evozi Device ID reports GSF ID
>>
>> As above: I don't know.
>
>Let's put it this way, since I'm trying to help people "think" about GSF.
>
>Can order food off a menu at a restaurant without a waiter spitting in it?
>Hopefully the answer is "yes", right?
>
>But the GSF is "spit" in your soup, simply because you can get the same
>soup _without_ the GSF spit in that soup - which is why I filter it out.
>
>That's why I asked you why you chose an app with GSF "spit" in the soup
>when you could have gotten plenty of apps _without_ GSF "spit" in them.
>
>Unfortunately, in the case of the Apple restaurant, they _always_ spit in
>your soup in terms of adding tracking information to everything you order.

Are you trolling, or something? I don't want to be mean, but come on; no
one's going to spit in your soup. It can happen, sure, but you've got to
trust that nothing sinister is going on, right?

>>>And, why do you think they write tools to _change_ that unique GSF ID?
>>> <https://i.postimg.cc/X7ZspnsG/gsfid01.jpg> You can change your GSF ID
>>
>> I really haven't a clue.
>
>The GSF_ID is a unique tracking ID that is on all Android phones (we're not
>talking about rooted phones here) just as Apple tracks every user on iOS.
>
>Both Apple & Google have a vested interest in tracking your every move.
>
>They both track multiple ways, one of which is they insert unique numbers
>into your phone (and in the case of Apple, into every single app you use).
>
>What you need to do is practice personal hygiene when cleaning that stuff.
>
>For example, on Android, I used to "wash my hands" of the advertising ID.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/t4YpKqZ2/adid03.jpg> Resetting the advertising ID

If it wasn't for targeted advertising I wouldn't have so many great things
that enrich my life and make it so easy to get the things that matter to me
while filtering out the crap that I'm not interested in. You agree with me.
If you didn't agree with the notion of spreading information to a targeted
audience, an audience you feel might want to buy what you're trying to sell,
you wouldn't have included those extra newsgroups in this discussion that I
began to just comp.mobile.android. Are you feeling dirty?

[snip paranoid raving]

I think you're a nut and a hypocrite.

flibbertigibbet <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
> Are you trolling, or something? I don't want to be mean, but come on; no
> one's going to spit in your soup. It can happen, sure, but you've got to
> trust that nothing sinister is going on, right?

Of COURSE he is trolling. This person is a notorious, Apple-hating troll
boy. He uses multiple sock puppets to make it appear that people are
agreeing with him.

Nothing he says is true. He makes up the most absurd lies. Over and over
and over.
> [snip paranoid raving]

Good move.
> I think you're a nut and a hypocrite.

Correct and correct.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 18:15:17 +0000, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:

>flibbertigibbet <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>> Are you trolling, or something? I don't want to be mean, but come on; no
>> one's going to spit in your soup. It can happen, sure, but you've got to
>> trust that nothing sinister is going on, right?
>
>Of COURSE he is trolling. This person is a notorious, Apple-hating troll
>boy. He uses multiple sock puppets to make it appear that people are
>agreeing with him.

Oh crap. Thanks for the heads up. Would 'Andy Burns' be one of them? He blew
quite a lot of smoke up his arse in his last post to me.

>Nothing he says is true. He makes up the most absurd lies. Over and over
>and over.
>
>> [snip paranoid raving]
>
>Good move.
>
>> I think you're a nut and a hypocrite.
>
>Correct and correct.

Oh wow, I hate getting caught out like that. Thanks again.

flibbertigibbet wrote:

>>Likewise, people who use Google's GMail app are disgusting people because
>>they upload the personal contact information of _your_ kids to Google.
>
> You're crazy!

No. I use the word "disgusting" for very good reasons.

People who smoke in an elevator are the same kind of "disgusting" people.
You just don't like me calling you disgusting for what you do.

But it's no different than people who litter the sidewalk without thinking
about other people.

You just don't understand but then again, you probably smoke in an
elevator, right?

> My whole family have Google Location turned on all the time so
> that we know where each of us are at any given moment.

I don't doubt it, just as I don't doubt you smoke in an elevator and you
pee in the corner of small alleys when you can't find a bathroom.

People who don't care about other people don't care about other people.
I don't expect you to understand that concept.

But others reading this thread will understand, let's hope.
Uploading my kids' contacts to Google is disgusting behavior, IMHO.

> Also, on top of that,
> I have a Garmin watch, and whenever I go out for a run or even a long walk I
> send a link via WhatsApp to my wife so she can track my whereabouts and even
> my heartbeat on her phone. Modern tech like this allows us all to stay close
> even when we're far apart.

I never once said "modern tech" isn't convenient.
Police love it in fact.

> So, none of your family photos have data location metadata, I suppose.

If you're talking about EXIF location tags, they're all off.
There is a separate setting in most camera apps for exactly this reason.

You see... I'm not the only one who cares about privacy.

> That's sad man. Look, it's none of my business but I think your paranoia is
> stopping you and your family from benefiting in so many ways.

I wonder if you realize you're resorting to ad hominem attacks because I
explained to you patiently about personal privacy and you don't like that?

> Don't you have
> any cameras inside your home looking in and out so that your family can see
> you and communicate with you.

Um... no.
I don't live in the slums.

> What about Alexa devices?

Do I sound like someone who would be so stupid as to own an Alexa?
Do you have any idea how well educated I am?
Probably not.

Suffice to say I know too much about privacy to have an Alexa in my home.

> I have one in every
> room, even the attic and in the shed so that my family and friends can 'Drop
> in' and chat via video.

I'm sure you do.
As I said, I understand people like you rather well.

Do you know I have degrees in not only electrical engineering, but in the
life sciences, which is why I used the personal hygiene point of view.

Do you realize most people "think" you can sterilize things by boiling?
In electrical engineering, people "think" energy flows in wires.

A _lot_ of what people "think" is dead wrong.
They're just uneducated people. That's all.

They don't think.

> Are you trolling, or something? I don't want to be mean, but come on; no
> one's going to spit in your soup. It can happen, sure, but you've got to
> trust that nothing sinister is going on, right?

I use descriptive words. Spit is my descriptive word for the "S" in GSF.
Get over it.

Suffice to assume that my intent is honest and sincere and heart felt.

My question to you is _why_ are you using apps with GSF in them when you
could just as easily be using apps that do NOT incorporate GSF into them?

Don't call me demeaning names because you didn't think of why you do that.
Just think why.

> If it wasn't for targeted advertising I wouldn't have so many great things
> that enrich my life and make it so easy to get the things that matter to me
> while filtering out the crap that I'm not interested in. You agree with me.

I just wanted to help you _find_ an app that did what _you_ asked it to do.
Why must you call me names for helping you?

> If you didn't agree with the notion of spreading information to a targeted
> audience, an audience you feel might want to buy what you're trying to sell,
> you wouldn't have included those extra newsgroups in this discussion that I
> began to just comp.mobile.android. Are you feeling dirty?

I'm spreading the word about privacy.
Each of those newsgroups was related to the word that I was spreading.

Consider me a well meaning and quite knowledgeable evangelist for privacy.

> I think you're a nut and a hypocrite.

Why am I a nut and what did I say that was hypocritical?

a. Fundamentally, you asked for an app that did what you wanted it to do.
b. I gave you that app (four of them, in fact)
c. Then you said your app had GSF in it and I told you what I though of it

Why does _that_ purposefully helpful dialog, which took me quite a long
while to write for you (including a variety of well annotated screenshot),
all for free - make you consider me a nut and hypocrite?

How does answering _all_ your questions make me a nut and hypocrite?
You should be thanking me.

Not calling me names.

HINT: I know why you called me names - as I've been on Usenet for decades.
I'm well aware how people who have no adult response to facts act.

The good news is Usenet is water under the bridge.
If you act like an adult in your response, I'll treat you like an adult.

I teach in high school and that's how I treat the kids too.
Some kids have the capacity to learn; unfortunately, some don't.

Do you have the capacity to learn?
Up to you. Not me.

Good luck.
I wish you well.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to answer all the questions posed by the OP today.

flibbertigibbet wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 18:15:17 +0000, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:
>
>>flibbertigibbet <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>> Are you trolling, or something? I don't want to be mean, but come on; no
>>> one's going to spit in your soup. It can happen, sure, but you've got to
>>> trust that nothing sinister is going on, right?
>>
>>Of COURSE he is trolling. This person is a notorious, Apple-hating troll
>>boy. He uses multiple sock puppets to make it appear that people are
>>agreeing with him.
>
> Oh crap. Thanks for the heads up. Would 'Andy Burns' be one of them? He blew
> quite a lot of smoke up his arse in his last post to me.

Oh Jeezus.... Bob Campbell, whom we _all_ have plonked for being an iKook
troll, tells you that everyone who answers your questions is an "apple
hating" troll...

And then...

You take that single datapoint, and then you say Andy Burns, who is one of
the most knowledgeable people on this newsgroup, blew smoke up your arse?

WTF?
When you agree with the likes of "Bob Campbell", that doesn't look good for
your ability to comprehend an adult discussion, "flibbertigibbet".

HINT: I explained what GSF was, and I provided four apps that did what you
wanted them to do, and what did this Apple iKook Campbell give you?

>>Correct and correct.
>
> Oh wow, I hate getting caught out like that. Thanks again.

For you to say that, when people gave you _hours_ of their valuable time
and four apps that did EXACTLY what you wanted them to do, it tells us that
it's you who is the troll here... not the well educated rest of us.

As I said in my last post, Usenet is water under the bridge. If you act
like an adult, we will treat you as an adult. But if you act like Alan
Baker or Bob Campbell or Dustin Cook or Snit et. al, then we plonk you.

Your choice.

Just remember these facts:
a. You asked a question
b. I gave you _hours_ of my times _answering_ that question.
c. And then you take a well-known iKook like Campbell at _his_ word?

What does that make you?
THINK before you respond please.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, was to answer every question that the OP asked here.

flibbertigibbet <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 18:15:17 +0000, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:
>
>> flibbertigibbet <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>> Are you trolling, or something? I don't want to be mean, but come on; no
>>> one's going to spit in your soup. It can happen, sure, but you've got to
>>> trust that nothing sinister is going on, right?
>>
>> Of COURSE he is trolling. This person is a notorious, Apple-hating troll
>> boy. He uses multiple sock puppets to make it appear that people are
>> agreeing with him.
>
> Oh crap. Thanks for the heads up. Would 'Andy Burns' be one of them? He blew
> quite a lot of smoke up his arse in his last post to me.

Yes, Andy Burnelli. Before that he was Arlen Holder. SMS is another sock
puppet.

He is a simple minded troll boy. Lies and more lies.

On 2022-11-21 20:59, Bob Campbell wrote:
> flibbertigibbet <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 18:15:17 +0000, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:
>>
>>> flibbertigibbet <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>> Are you trolling, or something? I don't want to be mean, but come on; no
>>>> one's going to spit in your soup. It can happen, sure, but you've got to
>>>> trust that nothing sinister is going on, right?
>>>
>>> Of COURSE he is trolling. This person is a notorious, Apple-hating troll
>>> boy. He uses multiple sock puppets to make it appear that people are
>>> agreeing with him.
>>
>> Oh crap. Thanks for the heads up. Would 'Andy Burns' be one of them? He blew
>> quite a lot of smoke up his arse in his last post to me.
>
> Yes, Andy Burnelli. Before that he was Arlen Holder. SMS is another sock
> puppet.
>
> He is a simple minded troll boy. Lies and more lies.
>

To be fair, I don't think that SMS is a sockpuppet of the same person
who posts as "Arlen" or "Andy Burnelli".

In article <tlhmpi$1gsl$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> >
> > Yes, Andy Burnelli. Before that he was Arlen Holder. SMS is another sock
> > puppet.
> >
> > He is a simple minded troll boy. Lies and more lies.
> >
>
> To be fair, I don't think that SMS is a sockpuppet of the same person
> who posts as "Arlen" or "Andy Burnelli".

they're different people, although they troll together.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 04:59:25 +0000, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:

>flibbertigibbet <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 18:15:17 +0000, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:
>>
>>> flibbertigibbet <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>> Are you trolling, or something? I don't want to be mean, but come on; no
>>>> one's going to spit in your soup. It can happen, sure, but you've got to
>>>> trust that nothing sinister is going on, right?
>>>
>>> Of COURSE he is trolling. This person is a notorious, Apple-hating troll
>>> boy. He uses multiple sock puppets to make it appear that people are
>>> agreeing with him.
>>
>> Oh crap. Thanks for the heads up. Would 'Andy Burns' be one of them? He blew
>> quite a lot of smoke up his arse in his last post to me.
>
>Yes, Andy Burnelli. Before that he was Arlen Holder. SMS is another sock
>puppet.
>
>He is a simple minded troll boy. Lies and more lies.

Arlen Holder? Really? Yes, I think you're right. I came here years ago using
my real name and my genuine email address asking questions, and this idiot
Arlen Holder was all over me like a rash telling me, among many other
unrelated things I didn't really want to know, that he was the most
intelligent person I'd ever likely meet and tried to make me believe I ought
to be thankful for all the hard work he'd put into answering my query. So
yes, it has to be Arlen. I should have avoided him when he suggested right
from our first encounter that I must live in a slum surrounded by slum
people simply because I use biometrics to safeguard my devices. He takes
this Usenet thing and himself too seriously. He needs to take a break. I
plonked him in my bozo bin but I'm sure I'll bump into another of his
sock-puppets again.

flibbertigibbet <blah@blah.blah> wrote:>
> Arlen Holder? Really? Yes, I think you're right. I came here years ago using
> my real name and my genuine email address asking questions, and this idiot
> Arlen Holder was all over me like a rash telling me, among many other
> unrelated things I didn't really want to know, that he was the most
> intelligent person I'd ever likely meet and tried to make me believe I ought
> to be thankful for all the hard work he'd put into answering my query. So
> yes, it has to be Arlen. I should have avoided him when he suggested right
> from our first encounter that I must live in a slum surrounded by slum
> people simply because I use biometrics to safeguard my devices. He takes
> this Usenet thing and himself too seriously. He needs to take a break. I
> plonked him in my bozo bin but I'm sure I'll bump into another of his
> sock-puppets again.
>

Yes, he is Arlen. Always bragging about being an “adult” and then proceeds
to act like a child with every post. I may be wrong about sms, but they
generally sing from the same songbook.

He calls me (and many others) a troll, based on calling out his lies. He
doesn’t even know what the word “troll” means.

He is a genuinely pathetic, attention-seeking nutbag.

nospam wrote:

> In article <tlhmpi$1gsl$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yes, Andy Burnelli. Before that he was Arlen Holder. SMS is another sock
>>> puppet.
>>>
>>> He is a simple minded troll boy. Lies and more lies.
>>>
>>
>> To be fair, I don't think that SMS is a sockpuppet of the same person
>> who posts as "Arlen" or "Andy Burnelli".
>
> they're different people, although they troll together.

I think it's hilarious that almost everyone is accused of being me, which
happens when they state facts you iKooks can't form an adult response to.

It's hilarious Andy Burns is accused of being me & that badgolferman also
was recently accused of being me... *simply for stating facts you hate*.

What's really the issue is you invested all your ego into lies that Apple
advertises, and, it turns out that you _hate_ Apple brazenly lied to you.

*You iKooks are _desperate_ to deflect attention away from Apple lies.*

flibbertigibbet wrote:

> Yes, I think you're right.

Here's the deal "flibbertigibbet" as I see it and rest assured, I see well.
1. You asked a question
2. I considered you a troll - but gave you the benefit of the doubt
3. I spent hours faithfully answering your questions, in technical detail
a. I provided programs
b. I tested every program
c. I provided screenshots, etc.

And... most importantly, I answered all your questions.
a. Free of charge
b. Out of my own good intentions
c. And honest behavior

Now, you come along and accuse me of acts based on what the iKooks Alan
Baker (IQ 40) and Bob Campbell (likely the same as Alan Baker) tell you?

It doesn't matter that you chose just about the worst app a human being can
choose to solve your problem because what matters is you call me an idiot.

You're right on that.
I'm an idiot for trying to help you, "flibbertigibbet"... that much I know.

Having said that, you've just joined Alan Baker in my killfile, and, while
I'm at it (since it's a PITA to administer), so has his Bob Campbell nym.

Good luck.

NOTE: This thread is not in vain though, as anyone searching for privacy
now and in the future will find the useful information I imparted - and -
in fact, I was able to create a new thread based on substantive tests.
*Why do some file managers read the root partition?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/40arOFaEV9k>
<https://i.postimg.cc/fT7MSr90/root01.jpg> non-rooted, All Files Access=On
<https://i.postimg.cc/05wkPQ5n/root02.jpg> Half of file managers read root
<https://i.postimg.cc/R0hm8Cbc/root03.jpg> & half of file managers do not
and
*Android System Intelligence - Do you clear it periodically?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/2YuJGy6gjG8>
<https://i.postimg.cc/V6k0sgfz/sysintel01.jpg> Android System Intelligence
<https://i.postimg.cc/Pr3LDYgz/sysintel02.jpg> Disable ASI on your phone
<https://i.postimg.cc/x8gXtzcQ/sysintel03.jpg> That stops many activities
<https://i.postimg.cc/VLPzf9Px/sysintel04.jpg> ASI no longer shows up
<https://i.postimg.cc/9FjntrgQ/sysintel05.jpg> Private Compute Services
<https://i.postimg.cc/Qt9yS5rH/sysintel06.jpg> Uploads to Google servers
<https://i.postimg.cc/QdfY3S8F/sysintel07.jpg> FOSS OpenBoard KB learning
<https://i.postimg.cc/s25ctzct/sysintel08.jpg> Summary of the steps taken

Since I'm all about learning, teaching, and helping others on Android,
I'm still actually glad I tried to help this person since I learned from
the effort, and since others will benefit greatly from that new knowledge.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to explain that anyone who ignores helpful advice
from people who honestly tried to help them, and then who takes everything
that Alan Baker & Bob Campbell say as gospel, isn't even worth helping.

These people are a lost cause, mostly due to their extremely low IQ...
!delete-regex From "Dustin Cook"
!delete-regex From "Snit"
!delete-regex From "Good Guy"
!delete-regex From "Alan Baker"
!delete-regex From "Alan"
!delete-regex From "R.Wieser"
!delete-regex From "Ken Blake"
!delete-regex From "RocketSurgeon"
!delete-regex From "Peeler"
!delete-regex From "Joerg Lorenz"
!delete-regex From "Rod Speed"
!delete-regex From "philo"
!delete-regex From "Bob Campbell"
!delete-regex From "flibbertigibbet"

Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:
> flibbertigibbet <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 18:15:17 +0000, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:
> >
> >> flibbertigibbet <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
> >>> Are you trolling, or something? I don't want to be mean, but come on; no
> >>> one's going to spit in your soup. It can happen, sure, but you've got to
> >>> trust that nothing sinister is going on, right?
> >>
> >> Of COURSE he is trolling. This person is a notorious, Apple-hating troll
> >> boy. He uses multiple sock puppets to make it appear that people are
> >> agreeing with him.
> >
> > Oh crap. Thanks for the heads up. Would 'Andy Burns' be one of them? He blew
> > quite a lot of smoke up his arse in his last post to me.

Not Andy Burns, who is one of the good guys, but 'Andy Burnelli', as
Bob points out below.

> Yes, Andy Burnelli. Before that he was Arlen Holder. SMS is another sock
> puppet.

sms is not a sock puppet. He uses a single screen name and his real
name. Maybe you don't like his posts, but that doesn't make him a sock
puppet.

> He is a simple minded troll boy. Lies and more lies.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <tlhmpi$1gsl$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Yes, Andy Burnelli. Before that he was Arlen Holder. SMS is
> > > another sock puppet.
> > >
> > > He is a simple minded troll boy. Lies and more lies.
> >
> > To be fair, I don't think that SMS is a sockpuppet of the same person
> > who posts as "Arlen" or "Andy Burnelli".
>
> they're different people, although they troll together.

They don't "troll together". They mostly disagree and one is often on
the receiving end of insults. Guess which one.

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Bob Campbell wrote:
>
>> Would 'Andy Burns' be one of them?
>> He blew quite a lot of smoke up his arse in his last post to me.
>
> Not Andy Burns, who is one of the good guys

Thanks Frank.

> but 'Andy Burnelli', as Bob points out below.
I'm not sure I remember replying to Bob Campbell ...

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > Bob Campbell wrote:
> >
> >> Would 'Andy Burns' be one of them?
> >> He blew quite a lot of smoke up his arse in his last post to me.
> >
> > Not Andy Burns, who is one of the good guys
>
> Thanks Frank.

You're - *very* - welcome.

> > but 'Andy Burnelli', as Bob points out below.
> I'm not sure I remember replying to Bob Campbell ...

No, you did not reply to Bob Campbell, I did. I was referring to Bob's
"Yes, Andy Burnelli. Before that he was Arlen Holder.". See my full
post to which you replied. Or just don't bother, it's not important.

Frank Slootweg wrote:

>> In article <tlhmpi$1gsl$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> > Yes, Andy Burnelli. Before that he was Arlen Holder. SMS is
>>> > another sock puppet.
>>> >
>>> > He is a simple minded troll boy. Lies and more lies.
>>>
>>> To be fair, I don't think that SMS is a sockpuppet of the same person
>>> who posts as "Arlen" or "Andy Burnelli".
>>
>> they're different people, although they troll together.
>
> They don't "troll together". They mostly disagree and one is often on
> the receiving end of insults. Guess which one.

I think it's funny how many nyms are attributed to me, so what I suggest,
moving forward is people list only nyms that they think are NOT me. OK?

BTW, if you can't figure out my messages in mere seconds, you're an idiot.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> it's funny how many nyms are attributed to me

You have to admit, you've had plenty over the years ...

Andy Burns wrote:

> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>> it's funny how many nyms are attributed to me
>
> You have to admit, you've had plenty over the years ...

Hi Andy,

*I wonder how many people are intelligent enough to understand why?*

HINT: I provide _tremendous_ information in my posts, including
screenshots galore... thousands over the years... and photos of my
home and equipment and farm animals & vehicles (for other newsgroups
and web sites).

Nobody who knows my style will take more than ten seconds to figure
out a post from me. If it takes them more than that, they're idiots.

How long would it take you, Andy, to figure out these are my devices?
<https://i.postimg.cc/k5gv0yw8/vysor34.jpg> Apple iOS & Android mirroring

I don't change the screenshots, Andy.
I change the wrapping paper.

Nobody who knows my homescreen will take more than an instant to figure
out the screenshots are from me, whether on Windows, Linux, iOS or Android.

My pool, for example, like most pools, is unique, and, being on the
top of a mountain, wouldn't be difficult to geolocate by even a mere
novice with a general idea of the location (which I provide in a
general sense as it's necessary information).

Notice one thing, which is I provide the _necessary_ detailed information.
Extremely detailed.

I'm not going to give out my MAC address or my SSID (on purpose), but I'll
give out the signal strength and other nearby signals, geolocation, etc.,
as needed for the topic. (sometimes it accidentally spills, though.)

Which is also the point.
I wonder how many people are intelligent enough to realize these points?

Having said all that, I realize most people are here for _amusement_ and
that means they just bandy about not adding any value at all.

To those who are here merely for amusement, which is most people you must
admit, the headers _are_ important to them so they _easily_ know whom
they're dealing with.

But again, I have to say I don't hide who I am, and yet pretty much
everyone who posts has been accused, one by one, of being me.

As I see it, given my tremendous value, there are only two choices:
a. Obfuscate headers and keep providing tremendously detailed value,
or,
b. Keep the header and provide almost nothing of real value.

What would _you_ prefer?

Said more simply, I could put the value inside wrapping paper that changes,
or I could use the same wrapping paper but I'd have to remove the value.

The wrapping paper isn't the gift.
The gift is the intense amount of real data.

That comes at a price.

And rest assured I'm aware that harvesters deal with headers first.
Heuristics second.

As for heuristics, I'm well aware that photos can be geolocated
by a variety of hugely mechanized means, and I post plenty.

Even without photos, just a screenshot has telltale fingerprints,
which, Lord knows, I use methods to obfuscate, but you can't beat
fourier transforms no matter how hard you try with free PC tools.

Since I provide _immense_ detail in my posts, I try to provide
as close to zero identifiable detail in my headers.

It's wrapping paper which I change when needed.
I even change up news and web (for forums) and vpn and proxy servers
so that any one Internet server doesn't have that treasure trove of meta data.

I wonder who is intelligent enough to realize how simple this is for me
to understand, and yet, always so unfathomably incomprehensible to them?

But then, how many tutorials do _they_ write? (Yes, I know the answer.)
How many pool, car, building, plumbing, etc., tutorials do they write?

Without bragging, I'm famous on the BMW forum, where I autopsied a bimmer
a decade ago and they're _still_ trying to get me to snap more photos.

It's to the point that you can find my autopsy photos simply by
going to Google image search, and, Lord knows, if you find one,
you can easily collect the rest.

My point being I provide value that only one in a million provide.
Who is intelligent enough to understand something even that simple?

I'm not saying you don't provide value.
I'm not even saying that nospam doesn't provide value.

But I am saying my value is tremendous, and it's unique.
And the unique value is the part that requires the bland wrapping paper.

I'd wager a single tutorial by me of this kind of value contains value
that only one in a million (maybe one in ten million) people know, Andy.

Do you realize I can _write_ to the entire visible file system of iOS?
And I wrote the tutorial so that _anyone_ can do so, for free?

How many people know how to do that?
BTW, they always lie and say they do know how.

But then I ask them the trick.
And they don't know it.

Which means I _know_ they lied.
They can't do it.

Which is no big deal (but that's the point - they are not intelligent enough).

Only one person in millions knows this trick, Andy.
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_ios040.jpg> View iOS filesystem
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_ios050.jpg> Including DCIM folder
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_ios060.jpg> For both read & write
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_ios070.jpg> If you know a trick
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_ios080.jpg> This is the trick!
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_ios090.jpg> Which nobody knows!

The people who complain about the wrapping paper can't even _comprehend_ the gift inside.

Would you agree that the header doesn't contain the value.
The body does.

Would you agree that, for some of these people, a _single_ tutorial
of mine is more on-topic technical value than some of these people
(e.g., Joerg Lorenz, Alan Baker, Jolly Roger, etc. but not nospam)
have provided to Usenet in their _entire_ lives?

In summary, I'm content to provide immense detail inside my
content where the price I pay is I need to blur out the headers.

What's the alternative bearing in mind even a _single_ tutorial
from me is absolutely undoubtedly more added value than most of
these people have added to this forum in their entire lives.

If they doubt that, I simply ask them to point to the tutorials
they posted, where I've posted so many (hundreds, thousands? I
don't even know as I posted many thousands under a different
mechanism decades ago before cell phones & web forums).

Is this really difficult to understand for an intelligent person?
*Only a fool believes the value of a gift is in the wrapping paper*

On 2022-11-30 08:50, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>
>>> it's funny how many nyms are attributed to me
>>
>> You have to admit, you've had plenty over the years ...
>
> Hi Andy,
>
>  *I wonder how many people are intelligent enough to understand why?*

Ooh!

You're a trolling little shit?