....because the whining child keeps trying to shift the goalposts.

The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single port of
any kind on mobile devices.

That is a fact.

On 04/11/2021 02:13, Alan wrote:
>
> The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single port of
> any kind on mobile devices.
>
> That is a fact.

However, the EU's move seems to be very popular with its citizens in
particular and inhabitants of some of wider Europe in general, because:

1) An overwhelming majority of MEPs voted for it, and they usually have
some idea of what their constituents want.

2) Most people here from Europe who have posted on the issue have
supported it.

3) Most of the readers' comments on the BBC news article reporting the
EU's move, that were actually about the topic of the article as opposed
to side issues, were for it.

Those too are facts.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-11-03 8:16 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 04/11/2021 02:13, Alan wrote:
>>
>> The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single port of
>> any kind on mobile devices.
>>
>> That is a fact.
>
> However, the EU's move seems to be very popular with its citizens in
> particular and inhabitants of some of wider Europe in general, because:

>
> 1)  An overwhelming majority of MEPs voted for it, and they usually have
> some idea of what their constituents want.

The MEPs did not vote for a mandated, common charging port.

You're either lying or moving the goalposts.

>
> 2)  Most people here from Europe who have posted on the issue have
> supported it.

Self-selected.

>
> 3)  Most of the readers' comments on the BBC news article reporting the
> EU's move, that were actually about the topic of the article as opposed
> to side issues, were for it.

And I've discussed why self-selected groups aren't statistically valid.

>
> Those too are facts.
>

Moving the goalposts.

We have no information at all on whether the EU's citizens find the idea
of a common charging point popular.

Please confine yourself to my topic if you want to post on my thread.

Or don't the rules you define for others apply to you?

:-)

On 04/11/2021 03:19, Alan wrote:
>
> On 2021-11-03 8:16 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 04/11/2021 02:13, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>> The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single port
>>> of any kind on mobile devices.
>>>
>>> That is a fact.
>>
>> However, the EU's move seems to be very popular with its citizens in
>> particular and inhabitants of some of wider Europe in general, because:
>>
>> 1)  An overwhelming majority of MEPs voted for it, and they usually
>> have some idea of what their constituents want.
>
> The MEPs did not vote for a mandated, common charging port.
>
> You're either lying or moving the goalposts.

They voted to ask the Commission to come up with a suitable set of
standards, which they knew would be highly likely to mandate a common
charging port.

>> 2)  Most people here from Europe who have posted on the issue have
>> supported it.
>
> Self-selected.

It's a majority of those who have posted.

>> 3)  Most of the readers' comments on the BBC news article reporting
>> the EU's move, that were actually about the topic of the article as
>> opposed to side issues, were for it.
>
> And I've discussed why self-selected groups aren't statistically valid.

And I've told you that they are all the data we have, so if you want to
disprove that data, you have to go and find a more reliable source of
data. Go do it, or shut the fuck up.

>> Those too are facts.
>
> Moving the goalposts.

Just debunking your propaganda.

> We have no information at all on whether the EU's citizens find the idea
> of a common charging point popular.
>
> Please confine yourself to my topic if you want to post on my thread.
>
> Or don't the rules you define for others apply to you?

Every every attempt to shift the goalposts, every piece of dishonesty,
every lie you tell here, will be debunked.

Anyhow, I thought you said you were bored. That was obviously another
lie, because here you are, still chundering through your arse.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-11-03 8:50 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 04/11/2021 03:19, Alan wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-11-03 8:16 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/11/2021 02:13, Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single port
>>>> of any kind on mobile devices.
>>>>
>>>> That is a fact.
>>>
>>> However, the EU's move seems to be very popular with its citizens in
>>> particular and inhabitants of some of wider Europe in general, because:
>>>
>>> 1)  An overwhelming majority of MEPs voted for it, and they usually
>>> have some idea of what their constituents want.
>>
>> The MEPs did not vote for a mandated, common charging port.
>>
>> You're either lying or moving the goalposts.
>
> They voted to ask the Commission to come up with a suitable set of
> standards, which they knew would be highly likely to mandate a common
> charging port.

You have no idea what they new or expected.

>
>>> 2)  Most people here from Europe who have posted on the issue have
>>> supported it.
>>
>> Self-selected.
>
> It's a majority of those who have posted.

Yes. That's what self-selected groups leads to.

>
>>> 3)  Most of the readers' comments on the BBC news article reporting
>>> the EU's move, that were actually about the topic of the article as
>>> opposed to side issues, were for it.
>>
>> And I've discussed why self-selected groups aren't statistically valid.
>
> And I've told you that they are all the data we have, so if you want to
> disprove that data, you have to go and find a more reliable source of
> data.  Go do it, or shut the fuck up.

Bad data is bad data.

>
>>> Those too are facts.
>>
>> Moving the goalposts.
>
> Just debunking your propaganda.

Moving the goalposts.

>
>> We have no information at all on whether the EU's citizens find the
>> idea of a common charging point popular.
>>
>> Please confine yourself to my topic if you want to post on my thread.
>>
>> Or don't the rules you define for others apply to you?
>
> Every every attempt to shift the goalposts, every piece of dishonesty,
> every lie you tell here, will be debunked.

So your rules don't apply to you.

Got it.

>
> Anyhow, I thought you said you were bored.  That was obviously another
> lie, because here you are, still chundering through your arse.

I was bored with one post, liar.

On 04/11/2021 04:19, Alan wrote:
>
> On 2021-11-03 8:50 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 04/11/2021 03:19, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2021-11-03 8:16 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 04/11/2021 02:13, Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single port
>>>>> of any kind on mobile devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a fact.
>>>>
>>>> However, the EU's move seems to be very popular with its citizens in
>>>> particular and inhabitants of some of wider Europe in general, because:
>>>>
>>>> 1)  An overwhelming majority of MEPs voted for it, and they usually
>>>> have some idea of what their constituents want.
>>>
>>> The MEPs did not vote for a mandated, common charging port.
>>>
>>> You're either lying or moving the goalposts.
>>
>> They voted to ask the Commission to come up with a suitable set of
>> standards, which they knew would be highly likely to mandate a common
>> charging port.
>
> You have no idea what they new or expected.

I do, from the official EU report, as someone with such a 'very good
memory' cannot fail to have forgotten, again.

>>>> 2)  Most people here from Europe who have posted on the issue have
>>>> supported it.
>>>
>>> Self-selected.
>>
>> It's a majority of those who have posted.
>
> Yes. That's what self-selected groups leads to.

But it's still better than self-selected Lewis and one self-selected
troll, you.

>>>> 3)  Most of the readers' comments on the BBC news article reporting
>>>> the EU's move, that were actually about the topic of the article as
>>>> opposed to side issues, were for it.
>>>
>>> And I've discussed why self-selected groups aren't statistically valid.
>>
>> And I've told you that they are all the data we have, so if you want
>> to disprove that data, you have to go and find a more reliable source
>> of data.  Go do it, or shut the fuck up.
>
> Bad data is bad data.

But it's still the best data we have, because you still haven't bothered
to get off your lazy arse and find any better. How's that coming along,
BTW?

>>>> Those too are facts.
>>>
>>> Moving the goalposts.
>>
>> Just debunking your propaganda.
>
> Moving the goalposts.

Just debunking your propaganda.

>>> We have no information at all on whether the EU's citizens find the
>>> idea of a common charging point popular.
>>>
>>> Please confine yourself to my topic if you want to post on my thread.
>>>
>>> Or don't the rules you define for others apply to you?
>>
>> Every every attempt to shift the goalposts, every piece of dishonesty,
>> every lie you tell here, will be debunked.
>
> So your rules don't apply to you.
>
> Got it.

You've got only a turd for a brain.

>> Anyhow, I thought you said you were bored.  That was obviously another
>> lie, because here you are, still chundering through your arse.
>
> I was bored with one post, liar.

Then if you were bored with one post, you should be even more bored by
nearly 400, 370 to be exact.

Every every attempt to shift the goalposts, every piece of dishonesty,
every lie you tell here, will be debunked.

You are a contemptible, dishonest arsehole, and I'm going to keep on
rubbing your face in your own shit until you give over.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Am 04.11.21 um 03:13 schrieb Alan:
> ...because the whining child keeps trying to shift the goalposts.
>
> The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single port of
> any kind on mobile devices.
>
> That is a fact.

That is the job of the legislators not of the voting people. Whether you
like it or not, soon it will be law.

.... and btw: I see only you whining. For something that is really not
worth it.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 04/11/2021 03.13, Alan wrote:
> ...because the whining child keeps trying to shift the goalposts.
>
> The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single port of
> any kind on mobile devices.
>
> That is a fact.

Fake news.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2021-11-04 2:05 a.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 04/11/2021 04:19, Alan wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-11-03 8:50 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/11/2021 03:19, Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-11-03 8:16 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/11/2021 02:13, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single
>>>>>> port of any kind on mobile devices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the EU's move seems to be very popular with its citizens
>>>>> in particular and inhabitants of some of wider Europe in general,
>>>>> because:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1)  An overwhelming majority of MEPs voted for it, and they usually
>>>>> have some idea of what their constituents want.
>>>>
>>>> The MEPs did not vote for a mandated, common charging port.
>>>>
>>>> You're either lying or moving the goalposts.
>>>
>>> They voted to ask the Commission to come up with a suitable set of
>>> standards, which they knew would be highly likely to mandate a common
>>> charging port.
>>
>> You have no idea what they new or expected.
>
> I do, from the official EU report, as someone with such a 'very good
> memory' cannot fail to have forgotten, again.

Sorry, but the vote generated the report, not vice versa.

>
>>>>> 2)  Most people here from Europe who have posted on the issue have
>>>>> supported it.
>>>>
>>>> Self-selected.
>>>
>>> It's a majority of those who have posted.
>>
>> Yes. That's what self-selected groups leads to.
>
> But it's still better than self-selected Lewis and one self-selected
> troll, you.

By I'm not arguing popularity.

>
>>>>> 3)  Most of the readers' comments on the BBC news article reporting
>>>>> the EU's move, that were actually about the topic of the article as
>>>>> opposed to side issues, were for it.
>>>>
>>>> And I've discussed why self-selected groups aren't statistically valid.
>>>
>>> And I've told you that they are all the data we have, so if you want
>>> to disprove that data, you have to go and find a more reliable source
>>> of data.  Go do it, or shut the fuck up.
>>
>> Bad data is bad data.
>
> But it's still the best data we have, because you still haven't bothered
> to get off your lazy arse and find any better.  How's that coming along,
> BTW?

Bad data is still bad data.

>
>>>>> Those too are facts.
>>>>
>>>> Moving the goalposts.
>>>
>>> Just debunking your propaganda.
>>
>> Moving the goalposts.
>
> Just debunking your propaganda.

Moving the goalposts is what you call it.

>
>>>> We have no information at all on whether the EU's citizens find the
>>>> idea of a common charging point popular.
>>>>
>>>> Please confine yourself to my topic if you want to post on my thread.
>>>>
>>>> Or don't the rules you define for others apply to you?
>>>
>>> Every every attempt to shift the goalposts, every piece of
>>> dishonesty, every lie you tell here, will be debunked.
>>
>> So your rules don't apply to you.
>>
>> Got it.
>
> You've got only a turd for a brain.
>

You really don't like having your hypocrisy thrown up for all to see, do
you?

:-)

>>> Anyhow, I thought you said you were bored.  That was obviously
>>> another lie, because here you are, still chundering through your arse.
>>
>> I was bored with one post, liar.
>
> Then if you were bored with one post, you should be even more bored by
> nearly 400, 370 to be exact.
>
> Every every attempt to shift the goalposts, every piece of dishonesty,
> every lie you tell here, will be debunked.

LOL

>
> You are a contemptible, dishonest arsehole, and I'm going to keep on
> rubbing your face in your own shit until you give over.

LOL

On 2021-11-04 2:45 a.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 04.11.21 um 03:13 schrieb Alan:
>> ...because the whining child keeps trying to shift the goalposts.
>>
>> The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single port of
>> any kind on mobile devices.
>>
>> That is a fact.
>
> That is the job of the legislators not of the voting people. Whether you
> like it or not, soon it will be law.

I agree that it is not the job of the voting people.

But it is also true that no one has presented any good evidence that the
people of the EU want a common charging port.

>
> ... and btw: I see only you whining. For something that is really not
> worth it.

On 2021-11-04 6:44 a.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 04/11/2021 03.13, Alan wrote:
>> ...because the whining child keeps trying to shift the goalposts.
>>
>> The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single port of
>> any kind on mobile devices.
>>
>> That is a fact.
>
> Fake news.
>

Nope.

Fact.

Am 04.11.21 um 16:23 schrieb Alan:
> On 2021-11-04 6:44 a.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 04/11/2021 03.13, Alan wrote:
>>> ...because the whining child keeps trying to shift the goalposts.
>>>
>>> The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single port of
>>> any kind on mobile devices.
>>>
>>> That is a fact.
>>
>> Fake news.
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> Fact.

Irrelevant anyway.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 2021-11-04 9:06 a.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 04.11.21 um 16:23 schrieb Alan:
>> On 2021-11-04 6:44 a.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2021 03.13, Alan wrote:
>>>> ...because the whining child keeps trying to shift the goalposts.
>>>>
>>>> The people of the EU have not cried out for a mandated, single port of
>>>> any kind on mobile devices.
>>>>
>>>> That is a fact.
>>>
>>> Fake news.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Fact.
>
> Irrelevant anyway.
>
>

Very relevant to the point that was under discussion.

It was suggested (by a whining child) that the people of the EU "want
this"...

....where "this" was the mandating of USB-C ports on all portable devices.

And for support it was offered that the EU parliament (note the lack of
a capital "p") had "demanded" "this".

And that was untrue (and when the whining child continued to insist it
had happened after having it pointed out that it was untrue, it became a
"LIE!!!!" :) )

On 04/11/2021 15:23, Alan wrote:
>
> But it is also true that no one has presented any good evidence that the
> people of the EU want a common charging port.

LIAR! You have been presented with three independent lines of
circumstantial evidence which all say the same thing, if you don't want
to accept them, then go and find for yourself other better evidence that
contradicts them, and don't come back until you have. Until you do
this, no-one here is going to take a blind bit of notice of your
pathetic whingeing.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 04/11/2021 16:10, Alan wrote:
>
> It was suggested that the people of the EU "want this", where "this"
> was the mandating of USB-C ports on all portable devices.

LIAR! As you have been told at least three times within the last two
days, my exact words were

On 24/09/2021 23:39, Java Jive wrote:
> Hasn't it occurred to you that EU citizens might actually *WELCOME*
> this move and think: "Not before time!", as most other people here do?

Note: 'this move', being the Commission's proposals not any specific
part thereof, but nevertheless no-one is disputing that it is widely
expected that the final legislation will mandate USB-C, as MEPs knew
very well when they instructed the Commission to act, see below ...

> And for support it was offered that the EU parliament (note the lack of
> a capital "p") had "demanded" "this".

They did, by an overwhelming majority, by instructing the Commission to act:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0024_EN.html

> And that was untrue (and when the whining child continued to insist it
> had happened after having it pointed out that it was untrue, it became a
> "LIE!!!!" :) )

And you're still LYING!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-11-04 9:38 a.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 04/11/2021 16:10, Alan wrote:
>>
>> It was suggested that the people of the EU "want this", where "this"
>> was the mandating of USB-C ports on all portable devices.
>
> LIAR!  As you have been told at least three times within the last two
> days, my exact words were

Sorry, but you were in discussion with me and I was clearly only talking
about the port mandate.

>
> On 24/09/2021 23:39, Java Jive wrote:
> > Hasn't it occurred to you that EU citizens might actually *WELCOME*
> > this move and think: "Not before time!", as most other people here do?
>
> Note: 'this move', being the Commission's proposals not any specific
> part thereof, but nevertheless no-one is disputing that it is widely
> expected that the final legislation will mandate USB-C, as MEPs knew
> very well when they instructed the Commission to act, see below ...

Except the context of our discussion was solely the port mandate and the
port mandate was not a part of what the EU parliament voted on, so
cannot be support for a claim that the EU people are in favour of it
(the mandate).

>
>> And for support it was offered that the EU parliament (note the lack
>> of a capital "p") had "demanded" "this".
>
> They did, by an overwhelming majority, by instructing the Commission to
> act:
> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0024_EN.html

Not on a port mandate, they didn't.

That document is all about a common CHARGER and doesn't mention ports at
all.

You can have a common charger without the need for a common port.

Do you deny that?

>
>> And that was untrue (and when the whining child continued to insist it
>> had happened after having it pointed out that it was untrue, it became
>> a "LIE!!!!" :) )
>
> And you're still LYING!

Nope. I've never lied in this discussion.

On 2021-11-04 9:18 a.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 04/11/2021 15:23, Alan wrote:
>>
>> But it is also true that no one has presented any good evidence that
>> the people of the EU want a common charging port.
>
> LIAR!  You have been presented with three independent lines of
> circumstantial evidence which all say the same thing, if you don't want
> to accept them, then go and find for yourself other better evidence that
> contradicts them, and don't come back until you have.  Until you do
> this, no-one here is going to take a blind bit of notice of your
> pathetic whingeing.
>

And now you've explicitly tied your so-called "evidence" to the common
charging port part of the discussion...

....something which you've been denying was what you were talking about
previously.

In message <sm0ttc$1pgu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:

> But it is also true that no one has presented any good evidence that the
> people of the EU want a common charging port.

Whether or not the people of the EU specifically asked for a common
charging port is irrelevant. People of the EU want better environmental
protection, and the EU recognises a common charging port as a good way
to reduce electronic waste.

David

On 04/11/2021 20:29, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-11-04 9:18 a.m., Java Jive wrote:
>> On 04/11/2021 15:23, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>> But it is also true that no one has presented any good evidence that
>>> the people of the EU want a common charging port.
>>
>> LIAR!  You have been presented with three independent lines of
>> circumstantial evidence which all say the same thing, if you don't
>> want to accept them, then go and find for yourself other better
>> evidence that contradicts them, and don't come back until you have.
>> Until you do this, no-one here is going to take a blind bit of notice
>> of your pathetic whingeing.
>
> And now you've explicitly tied your so-called "evidence" to the common
> charging port part of the discussion...

I've done nothing of the sort, read again what I wrote in my other reply
to you:

Note: 'this move', being the Commission's proposals not any specific
part thereof, but nevertheless no-one is disputing that it is widely
expected that the final legislation will mandate USB-C, as MEPs knew
very well when they instructed the Commission to act ...

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-11-04 2:41 p.m., David Higton wrote:
> In message <sm0ttc$1pgu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> But it is also true that no one has presented any good evidence that the
>> people of the EU want a common charging port.
>
> Whether or not the people of the EU specifically asked for a common
> charging port is irrelevant. People of the EU want better environmental
> protection, and the EU recognises a common charging port as a good way
> to reduce electronic waste.

No, actually.

The EU's report on the subject says that a common port will do nothing
for environmental protection.

On 05/11/2021 02.27, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-11-04 2:41 p.m., David Higton wrote:
>> In message <sm0ttc$1pgu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>            Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But it is also true that no one has presented any good evidence that the
>>> people of the EU want a common charging port.
>>
>> Whether or not the people of the EU specifically asked for a common
>> charging port is irrelevant.  People of the EU want better environmental
>> protection, and the EU recognises a common charging port as a good way
>> to reduce electronic waste.
>
> No, actually.
>
> The EU's report on the subject says that a common port will do nothing
> for environmental protection.

Cites?

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 04/11/2021 20:28, Alan wrote:
>
> On 2021-11-04 9:38 a.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 04/11/2021 16:10, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>> It was suggested that the people of the EU "want this", where "this"
>>> was the mandating of USB-C ports on all portable devices.
>>
>> LIAR!  As you have been told at least three times within the last two
>> days, my exact words were
>
> Sorry, but you were in discussion with me and I was clearly only talking
> about the port mandate.

That's your problem, caused by your idleness in not being arsed to read
my OP and the linked article - no-one but you is to blame for your not
getting off your fat butt and doing even a modicum of due diligence
before wasting the time of everyone else by making over 100 posts which
were about something slightly different than what the thread was
intended to be about. *I* was talking about the EU proposals generally
which I had linked to a report of and quoted from it, a report which
mentions USB-C specifically as being likely to be part of the intended
outcome.

>> On 24/09/2021 23:39, Java Jive wrote:
>>  > Hasn't it occurred to you that EU citizens might actually *WELCOME*
>>  > this move and think: "Not before time!", as most other people here do?
>>
>> Note: 'this move', being the Commission's proposals not any specific
>> part thereof, but nevertheless no-one is disputing that it is widely
>> expected that the final legislation will mandate USB-C, as MEPs knew
>> very well when they instructed the Commission to act, see below ...
>
> Except the context of our discussion was solely the port mandate and the
> port mandate was not a part of  what the EU parliament voted on, so
> cannot be support for a claim that the EU people are in favour of it
> (the mandate).

The context of your discussion was different from everyone else's
because of your own contemptible laziness, that's your problem.

>>> And for support it was offered that the EU parliament (note the lack
>>> of a capital "p") had "demanded" "this".
>>
>> They did, by an overwhelming majority, by instructing the Commission
>> to act:
>> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0024_EN.html
>
> Not on a port mandate, they didn't.
>
> That document is all about a common CHARGER and doesn't mention ports at
> all.
>
> You can have a common charger without the need for a common port.
>
> Do you deny that?

Do you deny that in 2014 when that law was drafted the vast majority of
chargers had captive leads, and therefore "common charger for mobile
radio equipment" inherently implied a common connector?

>>> And that was untrue (and when the whining child continued to insist
>>> it had happened after having it pointed out that it was untrue, it
>>> became a "LIE!!!!" :) )
>>
>> And you're still LYING!
>
> Nope. I've never lied in this discussion.

You've lied constantly throughout all these discussions, here's a list
of just 20 of them, the first I happened to find, led partly by memory
but then finding many others while searching for those I'd remembered.
I suspect that at least I could double or treble that. You are a deeply
dishonest and despicable diarrhoea:

LIE #1

On 25/09/2021 01:40, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-09-24 5:31 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>> "[...] the Commission's research estimating that disposed of and
>> unused charging cables generate more than 11,000 tonnes of waste per
>> year."
> 1. No source.

The source was the linked report in my original post, which you hadn't
bothered to read.

LIE #2

On 28/09/2021 02:53, Alan Baker wrote:
> Apple was already working on the Lisa when they first saw the Alto.

But it was later proved to you that the Alto had been in existence for
almost a decade previously, was a very well known machine in computing
circles, and that Mac people had previously worked at Xerox.

LIE #3

On 29/09/2021 20:03, Alan Baker wrote:
> I never said that a phone cannot have multiple ports.

.... but previously you had written ...

On 28/09/2021 22:50, Alan Baker wrote:
> I've been given multiple examples where the answer was either about a
> non-physical standard, or where the answer was to include both the old
> and new standard together and that is not an option for a piece of
> portable electronics.

LIE #4

Attempting to lie your way out of LIE #3

LIE #5

On 30/09/2021 02:43, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-09-29 5:16 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>> you chose to propagandise Apple in an Android ng, because it is your
>> aim to be as disruptive as possible. Why else would you start two OT
>> threads on the back of mine?
> Nope. I chose to address the fact that mandating a single charging
standard on a device like a phone is stupid.

.... but in fact you had started a thread entitled ..

"The innovation you don't seem to see" beginning ...
On 24/09/2021 18:47, Alan Baker wrote:
> 'The Cinematic Mode on the iPhone 13 Pro model [...]

.... as well as one entitled ...

"How stupid? This stupid!"
On 24/09/2021 18:08, Alan Baker wrote:
> 'But Apple has also argued [...]

LIE #6 - See also LIES #7,#8,#14,#20

On 03/10/2021 20:16, Alan Baker wrote:
> You realize that:
> this is a forum (I'm reading this in comp.mobile.android, but it
applies to both) ABOUT MOBILE PHONES...

Android is an OS that is used on tablets, media players, and other
similar devices, no way is it purely confined to phones.

LIE #7 - See also LIES #6,#8,#14,#20

On 03/10/2021 20:16, Alan Baker wrote:
> my comments have been specifically about the implications for PHONES.

Would that they had been! That would have prevented at least half of
your trolls, because you also introduced: Macs, CPUs, etc, etc.

LIE #8 - See also LIES #6,#7,#14,#20

Repeat of LIE #7 after it had been debunked.

LIE #9

On 01/11/2021 22:58, Alan wrote:
> The final report clearly states that standardizing on USB-C has almost
> no benefits.

That's not the report's conclusion, that was your false conclusion from
not being arsed to read enough of it.

LIE #10

On 02/11/2021 22:25, Alan wrote:
> You first stated that the EU vote had demanded it.

But as these quotes I replied with show, I didn't:

In the previous thread ...

On 24/09/2021 23:39, Java Jive wrote:
> Hasn't it occurred to you that EU citizens might actually *WELCOME*
> this move and think: "Not before time!", as most other people here do?

And (accepting someone else's wrong figures) ....

On 01/11/2021 16:39, Java Jive wrote:
> Claiming 'There is no evidence to support what 700 million Europeans
> want.' when you've already been shown in a previous thread three
> strands of circumstantial evidence that suggest a majority of them
> *do* support it is just plain dishonest, but then we are arguing with
> a known liar, no surprise there.

LIE #11

On 03/11/2021 00:22, Alan wrote:
> I have a very good memory.

But both before and subsequently completely failed to remember salient
points about what gone before, such as:

On 04/11/2021 02:09, Alan wrote:
> I don't recall you posting it before...

.... but ...

On 06/10/2021 21:06, Java Jive wrote:
[A post with three links to significant articles showing that
legislation and/or standardisation doesn't hamper innovation, including
one mentioning his seemingly favourite company, Apple, contrary to their
advertising, were anything but laissez faire in their personnel ethos -
surely you should remember that?]

LIE #12

On 01/11/2021 20:56, Alan wrote:
> Sorry, but your source is lying.

It was an official EU press release, based on what was said in the debate.

LIE #13

Trying to deny LIE #12

LIE #14

On 04/11/2021 03:15, Alan wrote:
> I have always contended (and only been discussing) that mandating a
> standard port on portable devices is stupid.

Whereas originally you were arguing only about mobile phones and
complained that everyone else was trying to move the goalposts by
talking more generally about devices, until it was pointed out to you
that both quotes from my original post that started the thread and the
article linked by it were talking about mobile devices more generally
.... yet above you are claiming that 'I have always contended ...
portable devices'

LIE #15

On 27/09/2021 22:12, Alan Baker wrote:
> UI before the Mac: command line.

Should have read "UI before the Alto: command line."

LIE #16

On 25/09/2021 01:40, Alan Baker wrote:
> I'll do the arithmetic, because I have serious doubts you're bright
> enough to get the correct answer...

On 05/11/2021 01:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 05/11/2021 02.27, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-11-04 2:41 p.m., David Higton wrote:
>>> In message <sm0ttc$1pgu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>>            Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it is also true that no one has presented any good evidence that the
>>>> people of the EU want a common charging port.
>>>
>>> Whether or not the people of the EU specifically asked for a common
>>> charging port is irrelevant.  People of the EU want better environmental
>>> protection, and the EU recognises a common charging port as a good way
>>> to reduce electronic waste.
>>
>> No, actually.
>>
>> The EU's report on the subject says that a common port will do nothing
>> for environmental protection.
>
> Cites?

He's misrepresenting the EU Commission's conclusions, beginning p20 of
below, which were actually based on not a single option such as
mandating a USB-C connector, but packages of them to get the most bang
for buck:

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/90e9a07d-1054-11ec-9151-01aa75ed71a1

"The table below provides a summary of the main impacts of the five
packages, applied to mobile phones only, again using an MCA approach to
combine impacts that have been estimated quantitatively and others that
have been assessed qualitatively:

* Environmental impacts: Packages 3, 4 and 5 provide significant
environmental benefits. These would be highest for package 5. Although
they are in the same broad range as those of the other two (‘+/++’ for
GHG emissions and material use, ‘+’ for e- waste), the estimated
reductions (see chapter 7) are around 10% higher than for package 4, 30%
higher than for package 3, and 50% higher than those that would result
from mandatory unbundling (option 4.a) alone.

* Economic impacts: All packages except package 4 would lead to savings
for consumers; these would be most significant under packages 1 and 2
(which do not entail mandatory unbundling). All packages (especially
package 3) would reduce the benefits for charger manufacturers and
wholesalers; packages 1 and 2 would also lead to reduced benefits for
charger distributors and retailers, while packages 3, 4 and 5 would
increase their benefits (due to the higher standalone charger sales).
Package 4 is the one that generates the smallest negative impacts on the
competitive landscape, innovation, and operating costs for the industry,
whereas package 2 is the most disruptive, with significant impacts on
innovation and operating costs. All the packages may generate small
costs for SMEs in Europe as they all imply the move from USB micro-B
connectors to USB Type-C.

* Social impacts: While packages 1 and 2 would have a minor positive
effect on consumer convenience and lead to very small improvements in
terms of product safety and illicit markets (for the same reasons as
options 1, 2 and 3 individually), packages 3, 4 and (to a slightly
lesser extent) 5 would have minor negative impacts. This is because the
improvements from options 1 and/or 2 and would be likely to alleviate,
but not entirely offset the consumer inconvenience and increased demand
for standalone EPS generated by mandatory unbundling."

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-11-04 7:16 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 05/11/2021 01:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 05/11/2021 02.27, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-04 2:41 p.m., David Higton wrote:
>>>> In message <sm0ttc$1pgu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>>>             Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But it is also true that no one has presented any good evidence
>>>>> that the
>>>>> people of the EU want a common charging port.
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not the people of the EU specifically asked for a common
>>>> charging port is irrelevant.  People of the EU want better
>>>> environmental
>>>> protection, and the EU recognises a common charging port as a good way
>>>> to reduce electronic waste.
>>>
>>> No, actually.
>>>
>>> The EU's report on the subject says that a common port will do nothing
>>> for environmental protection.
>>
>> Cites?
>
> He's misrepresenting the EU Commission's conclusions, beginning p20 of
> below, which were actually based on not a single option such as
> mandating a USB-C connector, but packages of them to get the most bang
> for buck:
>
> https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/90e9a07d-1054-11ec-9151-01aa75ed71a1
>
>
> "The table below provides a summary of the main impacts of the five
> packages, applied to mobile phones only, again using an MCA approach to
> combine impacts that have been estimated quantitatively and others that
> have been assessed qualitatively:
>
> * Environmental impacts: Packages 3, 4 and 5 provide significant
> environmental benefits.  These would be highest for package 5.  Although
> they are in the same broad range as those of the other two (‘+/++’ for
> GHG emissions and material use, ‘+’ for e- waste), the estimated
> reductions (see chapter 7) are around 10% higher than for package 4, 30%
> higher than for package 3, and 50% higher than those that would result
> from mandatory unbundling (option 4.a) alone.
>
> * Economic impacts: All packages except package 4 would lead to savings
> for consumers; these would be most significant under packages 1 and 2
> (which do not entail mandatory unbundling).  All packages (especially
> package 3) would reduce the benefits for charger manufacturers and
> wholesalers; packages 1 and 2 would also lead to reduced benefits for
> charger distributors and retailers, while packages 3, 4 and 5 would
> increase their benefits (due to the higher standalone charger sales).
> Package 4 is the one that generates the smallest negative impacts on the
> competitive landscape, innovation, and operating costs for the industry,
> whereas package 2 is the most disruptive, with significant impacts on
> innovation and operating costs.  All the packages may generate small
> costs for SMEs in Europe as they all imply the move from USB micro-B
> connectors to USB Type-C.
>
> * Social impacts: While packages 1 and 2 would have a minor positive
> effect on consumer convenience and lead to very small improvements in
> terms of product safety and illicit markets (for the same reasons as
> options 1, 2 and 3 individually), packages 3, 4 and (to a slightly
> lesser extent) 5 would have minor negative impacts.  This is because the
> improvements from options 1 and/or 2 and would be likely to alleviate,
> but not entirely offset the consumer inconvenience and increased demand
> for standalone EPS generated by mandatory unbundling."

Page 9 of the same document states the effects of a common port on:

greenhouse gas emissions,

material us,

and electronic waste...

....are all zero to slightly negative.

And you refuse to explain what "synergies" can change that conclusion by
packaging it with something else.

On 2021-11-04 6:43 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 05/11/2021 02.27, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-11-04 2:41 p.m., David Higton wrote:
>>> In message <sm0ttc$1pgu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>>            Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it is also true that no one has presented any good evidence that the
>>>> people of the EU want a common charging port.
>>>
>>> Whether or not the people of the EU specifically asked for a common
>>> charging port is irrelevant.  People of the EU want better environmental
>>> protection, and the EU recognises a common charging port as a good way
>>> to reduce electronic waste.
>>
>> No, actually.
>>
>> The EU's report on the subject says that a common port will do nothing
>> for environmental protection.
>
> Cites?
>

<https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/90e9a07d-1054-11ec-9151-01aa75ed71a1>

Page 9