On 10/11/2023 23:20, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-11 00:00, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> I have apologised for allowing myself to follow the moving goalposts,
>> I note that you have not apologised for making the original misleading
>> claim.
>
> WRONG. You have to apologize to me for manipulation of quotes and
> perverting what I said.

Bollocks to that, I merely quoted facts in reply to the false claim that
you yourself wrote.

And unlike you hypocrites, when I say EOD, I mean it.

Subthread ignored.

--

Fake news kills!

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

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 18:55, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[...]
> On 09/11/2023 10:17, Java Jive wrote:
> >
> > No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
> > Carlos can read the message, so can Google, and, given Google's track
> > record, most probably they will
>
> ... which, having now done the research outlined in a recent reply that
> Carlos apparently didn't bother to read, I would now accept is probably
> overstated, because they do seem to have made some attempts to clean up
> their act. Nevertheless, as that research indicated, their record for
> snooping is not good, is still pretty much the worst known of all such
> companies, and there is still plenty of legal wiggle-room for them to
> regress, so I still think, even accepting his originally unstated
> context of E2EE, that his faith is misplaced.

Please do not falsify history!

The context of E2EE was *not* "unstated"! The E2EE context was
(quoted) in Carlos' response, full stop.

As I said before, that *you* *snipped* (why?) that context, doesn't
mean it no longer applies. If *you* want to change/ignore/<whatever> the
context, *you* have to *say so*. You didn't, so the context did and does
still apply. No wriggling about it. End of story.

Anyway, for *your* 'argument' the context of E2EE is irrelevant,
because you are talking about Google "snooping" the *decrypted* data, so
it doesn't matter if encryption was used or not. N.B. This is
'reasoning' from *your* perspective, for everybody else, the context was
and is E2EE.

[...]

> >> Yet you replied again.
> >
> > Exactly *which* part(s) of "because..." and "AFAIC" didn't you
> > understand!?
>
> The fact that you both keep saying 'EOD' but then keep replying.

I think it's rather clear: As far as *I*'m concerned, it's end of
discussion. But that does not mean I can't/won't respond if *you*
continue the discussion.

Anyway, there has been some - albeit rather little - progress. On your
main claim, you have backed down a bit "I would now accept is probably
overstated, ...". OTOH, it's rather sad - to put it mildly - that you're
still trying to blame us - and mainly Carlos - for *you* (supposedly)
changing the context without saying so.

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 22:09, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-11-10 22:26, Java Jive wrote:
> >>
> >> Your original quote in its *entirety* read ...
> >>
> >> On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
[...]
> > Every post is part of a thread, a conversation, and you have to look at
> > more posts than one for context. And in my post I left enough material
> > of the ongoing conversation, so that everybody could know what we were
> > talking about.
> >
> > And what I wrote in that post doesn't make sense unless read in the
> > context of RCS and E2EE.
>
> Which is the problem, you stated *explicitly* an absolutist but false
> claim in "no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
> collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity?" but did
> not state equally *explicitly* the context that you wished to apply to it.

Nonsense! He doesn't have to say the current context does still apply.
For the umpteenth time: *You* have to say if you want to change/ignore/
<whatever> the context.

That's how it works in real life and that's how it works on Usenet.

If you think differently, *you* will have to get support for your
outlandish stance.

> > You are intentionally perverting what we said.
>
> No, I'm going by how I - and seemingly most or all others that have
> replied in this subthread, even initially Frank Slootweg judging by his
> first reply to me - initially read your original claim.

Nope. (Of course,) I also assumed the current RCS E2EE context.

As to "and seemingly most or all others": I think you mentioned Ed
Cryer and Joerg Lorenz. IMO Ed's response was uncalled for and very few
- if any - people take Joerg seriously, especially not on RCS (which he
hates with a passion and on which he has been repeatedly proven wrong).
Remain Theo and Jeff who were the lead-ins to this whole mess. Did I
miss anybody?

So it's quite the opposite, you were the odd one out.

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 23:20, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-11-11 00:00, Java Jive wrote:
> >>
> >> I have apologised for allowing myself to follow the moving goalposts,
> >> I note that you have not apologised for making the original misleading
> >> claim.
> >
> > WRONG. You have to apologize to me for manipulation of quotes and
> > perverting what I said.
>
> Bollocks to that, I merely quoted facts in reply to the false claim that
> you yourself wrote.
>
> And unlike you hypocrites,

And that's another apology you owe.

> when I say EOD, I mean it.
>
> Subthread ignored.
>
> --
>
> Fake news kills!

<firmly sitting on hands>

On 2023-11-10, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-11-11 00:00, Java Jive wrote:

I thought I'd seen an EOD ? Must be dreaming. Ok back to the tedium

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:
> On 2023-11-10, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> > On 2023-11-11 00:00, Java Jive wrote:
>
> I thought I'd seen an EOD ? Must be dreaming. Ok back to the tedium

Yes, you're dreaming.

The EOD was mine, not Carlos' and it was a conditional one, which gave
another dispute all by itself. But things have died down now, so happy
dreams!

On this Mon, 6 Nov 2023 17:21:32 +0100, J�rg Lorenz wrote:

> RCS is already dead.

If RCS is dead, why is Apple saying they'll be adding RCS into iOS 18?

On 25.11.23 15:35, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On this Mon, 6 Nov 2023 17:21:32 +0100, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> RCS is already dead.
>
> If RCS is dead, why is Apple saying they'll be adding RCS into iOS 18?

Tactics. It won't change almost nothing.
The *European Digital Markets Act* is looming over all the big tech
companies. RCS is de facto dead.

Android users will be even the bigger losers trying to chat with
iOS-users. Take Signal or something else but certainly not such a gimp.

--
Sent with Betterbird by a Penguin.
Simply better. www.betterbird.eu

Joerg Lorenz, 2023-11-25 16:51:

> On 25.11.23 15:35, Larry Wolff wrote:
>> On this Mon, 6 Nov 2023 17:21:32 +0100, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>
>>> RCS is already dead.
>>
>> If RCS is dead, why is Apple saying they'll be adding RCS into iOS 18?
>
> Tactics. It won't change almost nothing.
> The *European Digital Markets Act* is looming over all the big tech
> companies. RCS is de facto dead.
>
> Android users will be even the bigger losers trying to chat with
> iOS-users. Take Signal or something else but certainly not such a gimp.

More than 1 billion active users does not look very "dead" to me:

<https://blog.google/products/android/7-new-messages-features/>

<https://www.juniperresearch.com/press/rcs-capable-subscribers-to-reach-1bn>

Also an estimated market size of 2 billion USD in 2022 and 14.4 billion
USD within the next 10 years:

<https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/rich-communication-services-market>

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de