In article <trj7jh$1fucd$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> It's only 105 pages. If I missed anything, for either iOS or Android,
> I'm happy to add it.

evidence shows otherwise.

many people have both posted and emailed *numerous* corrections and
additions, yet you ignore all of it.

your document is *full* of highly misleading and outright false claims.
very little of it is correct.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <trj7jh$1fucd$2@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's only 105 pages. If I missed anything, for either iOS or Android,
>> I'm happy to add it.
>
> evidence shows otherwise.
>
> many people have both posted and emailed *numerous* corrections and
> additions, yet you ignore all of it.
>
> your document is *full* of highly misleading and outright false claims.
> very little of it is correct.
>

Maybe he doesn’t see your corrections because he’s blocked so many people.

In article <trjjr8$1i1av$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Maybe he doesn¹t see your corrections because he¹s blocked so many people.

he's a coward who blocks and insults anyone who debunks his easily
refuted claims (*with* references he falsely states are never
provided).

On 2023-02-03, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <trj7jh$1fucd$2@dont-email.me>, sms
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's only 105 pages. If I missed anything, for either iOS or
>>> Android, I'm happy to add it.
>>
>> evidence shows otherwise.
>>
>> many people have both posted and emailed *numerous* corrections and
>> additions, yet you ignore all of it.
>>
>> your document is *full* of highly misleading and outright false
>> claims. very little of it is correct.
>
> Maybe he doesn’t see your corrections because he’s blocked so many
> people.

That's *his* problem.

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

JR

On 2/3/2023 10:30 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> Maybe he doesn’t see your corrections because he’s blocked so many people.

Very few people actually.

There's an e-mail address in the document that's the best way to tell me
about any errors or omissions, which works much better than me looking
for Usenet posts.

I've made numerous additions as a result of people e-mailing me. Of
course since our favorite trolls keep their identities secret, I don't
know if any of those e-mails came from them.

In article <trjmhm$1icad$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> There's an e-mail address in the document that's the best way to tell me
> about any errors or omissions, which works much better than me looking
> for Usenet posts.

so you claim, yet people have done that and you deliberately ignore it
because the corrections do not fit your narrative.

> I've made numerous additions as a result of people e-mailing me.

so you claim, yet the reality is that it's almost none.

you've mentioned changing a couple of minor things, but that's about it.

nospam wrote:

>In article <trjmhm$1icad$1@dont-email.me>, sms
><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> There's an e-mail address in the document that's the best way to
>>tell me about any errors or omissions, which works much better
>>than me looking for Usenet posts.
>
>so you claim, yet people have done that and you deliberately ignore it
>because the corrections do not fit your narrative.
>
>> I've made numerous additions as a result of people e-mailing me.
>
>so you claim, yet the reality is that it's almost none.
>
>you've mentioned changing a couple of minor things, but that's about
>it.

Well, it IS his document so he can say whatever he wants. Maybe you
should ask for your money back if he charged anything for reading it.

In article <xn0nxnwor3fgri2009@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, it IS his document so he can say whatever he wants.

yes he can, just as people can (and do) refute his bullshit.

> Maybe you
> should ask for your money back if he charged anything for reading it.

the problem isn't money. it's that he's deliberately and knowingly
misleading people. it's not new either. he's done this before with
other products.

On 2/3/2023 1:17 PM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> Well, it IS his document so he can say whatever he wants. Maybe you
> should ask for your money back if he charged anything for reading it.

It's clear why he's so upset about that document, but he can't find
anything that's incorrect. Others have, and I've made some changes as
result. But it's true that there have been only a few changes and that's
because nearly everything in the document is backed up by references and
citations, it's not opinions or speculation.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <xn0nxnwor3fgri2009@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, it IS his document so he can say whatever he wants.
>
> yes he can, just as people can (and do) refute his bullshit.
>
>> Maybe you
>> should ask for your money back if he charged anything for reading it.
>
> the problem isn't money. it's that he's deliberately and knowingly
> misleading people. it's not new either. he's done this before with
> other products.
>

Obviously the response to this should be a competing document written by
you and other approved partners with the correct information. That way
whenever he posts his document you could post the correct document right
behind it. This way people can make their own decisions about which has
more factual information. If you really wanted it to be widely accepted
take input from everyone and make it a group document. I’ve seen this done
in other groups, for instance when it comes to the group FAQ. If you
undertook such an endeavor your credibility would skyrocket and his would
sink to the bottom of the ocean.

On 2/3/2023 1:42 PM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> Obviously the response to this should be a competing document written by
> you and other approved partners with the correct information. That way
> whenever he posts his document you could post the correct document right
> behind it. This way people can make their own decisions about which has
> more factual information.

LOL, good idea, but I think that that is highly unlikely to happen.

Based on nospams history on Usenet, expecting "factual information" from
him is not realistic. Also note that he's unable to point out anything
that's incorrect in the document that I created, and that was done
intentionally by me, not just because of nospam but because of other
trolls. Nearly every item on the list is backed up by indisputable
references and citations and that upsets them greatly.

What is true is that there are still some Android features listed that
have now become available on some newer iPhones. Eventually I'll go
through the list and remove those items and renumber everything, but
it's only a few items like that.

In article <trjv4i$1ju8r$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Obviously the response to this should be a competing document written by
> you and other approved partners with the correct information.

no. the proper thing to do is for both android and ios users to
*collaborate* on a single document and learn from each other.

nobody knows every single feature of both platforms.

as with everything, there are advantages and disadvantages for each.

that's the very opposite of what he does (intentionally so).

> undertook such an endeavor your credibility would skyrocket and his would
> sink to the bottom of the ocean.

with his claims such as apple's face id doesn't work in the dark, his
credibility is already at the bottom of the ocean.

In article <trk0nl$1k3fr$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Based on nospams history on Usenet, expecting "factual information" from
> him is not realistic.

as usual, you resort to ad hominem attacks.

> Also note that he's unable to point out anything
> that's incorrect in the document that I created,

very much false.

both myself and others have repeatedly pointed out *many* things that
are incorrect, which you continue to ignore.

> and that was done
> intentionally by me, not just because of nospam but because of other
> trolls.

calling anyone who corrects your disinformation as a troll does not
help your credibility.

it's nothing more than an ad hominem attack, because the facts are
*not* on your side.

the reason you want full control is so that you can further a
narrative, and you're not even hiding it.

> Nearly every item on the list is backed up by indisputable
> references and citations and that upsets them greatly.

rubbish. nearly every item can easily be disputed, with credible links
and/or step by step instructions on how to do what is claimed to be
impossible.

> What is true is that there are still some Android features listed that
> have now become available on some newer iPhones. Eventually I'll go
> through the list and remove those items and renumber everything, but
> it's only a few items like that.

how about you go through it and add all of the things iphones can do
that android cannot, ones which you conveniently neglected to mention.

oh, right, it's because it doesn't fit your narrative.

In article <trjug4$1jk6j$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> It's clear why he's so upset about that document, but he can't find
> anything that's incorrect.

yes i can and have, as have others.

as i've said before, most of what's in it is outright false or at best,
highly misleading. nearly all of it is incorrect.

you're too much of a coward to actually discuss anything because you
know you'll be raked over the coals for your bullshit and easily
disputed claims. instead, you ignore and bash those who correct what's
false.

you hide behind a google doc for which you have full control, refusing
to make any changes when presented to you, while falsely claiming you
have done so.

> Others have, and I've made some changes as
> result.

very few. almost none, in fact.

> But it's true that there have been only a few changes and that's
> because nearly everything in the document is backed up by references and
> citations, it's not opinions or speculation.

your 'references and citations' have been cherry-picked to further a
narrative.

one example is citing a fingerprint sensor manufacturer who sates that
fingerprint sensors, theirs in particular, are better than face
recognition. obviously, they're going to claim their product is better
than the competition.

you also neglect to mention that they are comparing it with generic
face recognition that uses older technology (2d photos) and *not* the
far more advanced system that apple uses for face id (3d depth sensor
and a neural engine with multiple models).

you also falsely claim that the in-screen fingerprint sensors found on
various android phones are more secure, yet *numerous* tests show
otherwise, along with those sensors being slow and unreliable, more so
than a dedicated sensor.

another one of your claims was that one model of iphone sales were low
(i don't recall which one), citing a report made within a couple of
weeks of its announcement, which is far too soon for even a reasonable
prediction of what sales will be in the future, let alone actual sales
numbers to report.

you further claim that a variety of things can't be done on an iphone,
yet in nearly every case, it's because you don't know how to do it and
wrongly *assume* it can't be done.

and then there's the absurd craziness, such as apple's face id
requiring room light because it doesn't work in the dark. literally
*everyone* who has an iphone with face id knows just how ridiculous and
outright false that is. face id actually works *better* in the dark,
for reasons that should be obvious. bright sunlight is when it might
have trouble, also for obvious reasons, the very opposite of your
claim.

the reality is that the 'document' full of disinformation which is
easily shown to be false, all with *credible* links, just like the
other 'documents' you've created in years past for other product
categories.

On 2023-02-03 16:17, badgolferman wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <trjmhm$1icad$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There's an e-mail address in the document that's the best way to
>>> tell me about any errors or omissions, which works much better
>>> than me looking for Usenet posts.
>>
>> so you claim, yet people have done that and you deliberately ignore it
>> because the corrections do not fit your narrative.
>>
>>> I've made numerous additions as a result of people e-mailing me.
>>
>> so you claim, yet the reality is that it's almost none.
>>
>> you've mentioned changing a couple of minor things, but that's about
>> it.
>
>
> Well, it IS his document so he can say whatever he wants. Maybe you
> should ask for your money back if he charged anything for reading it.

If he had any balls, he'd "publish" it as a form of Wiki and let it find
its bottom by more people correcting it until it stabilized.

But he'd rather keep his narrative. Can't have reality in there.

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

On 2023-02-03 16:31, sms wrote:
> upset about that document, but he can't find anything that's incorrect.
> Others have, and I've made some changes as result. But it's true that
> there have been only a few changes and that's because nearly everything
> in the document is backed up by references and citations, it's not opinion

Cherry picked references misused and distorted. The SMS way.

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

In article <F_fDL.322956$t5W7.232360@fx13.iad>, Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> > Well, it IS his document so he can say whatever he wants. Maybe you
> > should ask for your money back if he charged anything for reading it.
>
> If he had any balls, he'd "publish" it as a form of Wiki and let it find
> its bottom by more people correcting it until it stabilized.
>
> But he'd rather keep his narrative. Can't have reality in there.

exactly.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <F_fDL.322956$t5W7.232360@fx13.iad>, Alan Browne
> <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>> Well, it IS his document so he can say whatever he wants. Maybe you
>>> should ask for your money back if he charged anything for reading it.
>>
>> If he had any balls, he'd "publish" it as a form of Wiki and let it find
>> its bottom by more people correcting it until it stabilized.
>>
>> But he'd rather keep his narrative. Can't have reality in there.
>
> exactly.
>

You’ll be happy to know I have never looked at his document. I’m capable of
finding problems with my iPhone on my own.

On 2023-02-03 18:17, badgolferman wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <F_fDL.322956$t5W7.232360@fx13.iad>, Alan Browne
>> <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, it IS his document so he can say whatever he wants. Maybe you
>>>> should ask for your money back if he charged anything for reading it.
>>>
>>> If he had any balls, he'd "publish" it as a form of Wiki and let it find
>>> its bottom by more people correcting it until it stabilized.
>>>
>>> But he'd rather keep his narrative. Can't have reality in there.
>>
>> exactly.
>>
>
> You’ll be happy to know I have never looked at his document. I’m capable of
> finding problems with my iPhone on my own.

There's nothing wrong with people making docs, or guides or help lists
or whatever

There's nothing wrong with people doing so and asking others for their
input and/or corrections.

The issue with this dude is he is imposing his narrative on it with
correct and incorrect information and refusing to correct things that
are wrong to some degree.

In short: his document is only to propagate his agenda unchallenged -
misinformation and all.

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

In article <cIgDL.67568$Sgyc.34462@fx40.iad>, Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> The issue with this dude is he is imposing his narrative on it with
> correct and incorrect information and refusing to correct things that
> are wrong to some degree.
>
> In short: his document is only to propagate his agenda unchallenged -
> misinformation and all.

all while claiming how perfect it is and that he is the sole expert on
everything.

There's no point if you have to have an Apple device tor receive anyway.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

nospam wrote:

> RCS is also completely reliant on your phone number being active
> when you send or receive messages.

The very fact *iMessage _requires_ a mothership tracking account* is a
complete privacy betrayal you iKooks are never able to comprehend, nospam.

In article <trgn4b$1bc91$1@news.mixmin.net>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

> The very fact *iMessage _requires_ a mothership tracking account* is a
> complete privacy betrayal

*all* messaging apps require what you call a 'mothership tracking
account'. otherwise, there would be no way to exchange messages.

or do you somehow think that messages can magically reach their
destination without any name or account information?

On 2/3/2023 5:17 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:
> There's no point if you have to have an Apple device tor receive anyway.

Once the server is set up you can use an Android device to send and receive.

If you're referring to the need for some sort of a Mac to run the
AirMessage server on, yes, it's a one time expense but it's well worth
it if you want to use an Android phone when most people you communicate
with are using iPhones. There's a paid service called Beeper which has
it's own servers though I'd be a little wary from a privacy standpoint.

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 21:42:42 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
> Obviously the response to this should be a competing document written by
> you and other approved partners with the correct information.

You will note I wrote up a much more comprehensive section 73a for his
document which, if he doesn't change his, then that tells us everything.

Subject: 73a. Sideloading of Apps.
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:48:19 -0800
Message-ID: <trhlk4$1476o$1@dont-email.me>

> If you
> undertook such an endeavor your credibility would skyrocket and his would
> sink to the bottom of the ocean.

I think some repeat endlessly meaninglessly that all 105 pages are wrong.
They're not.

But some sections are missing so much as to be considered "almost" wrong.

Section 73a is certainly woefully inadequate, which is critical because
section 73a discusses likely the biggest difference between the platforms.

If the author of the document adds what I proposed (none of which is wrong
and all of which is directly related to the platform differences), then
that will be a feather in his cap in terms of supporting his stated motive.

If the author does not add what I proposed, then that tells us he doesn't
care that his document is woefully incorrect in the most important areas.
I did my part.
The rest is up to him to do his part.