nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> However, regular security updates are a failure of software quality control
>> according to you. Why is it OK for microsoft and google, but not Apple??
>
> because he's a troll.

What's revealing is the apologists (1) _hate_ facts about Apple, and,
therefore, the Apologists (2) call all facts they hate, to be trolls.

And yet... they're facts which no adult would (or could) deny.
Tell me even once that I've ever said what you (and Chris) claimed I said.

Notice you can't, which proves, yet again, the entire belief system of all
you apologists, is based literally on exactly _zero_ (0) actual facts.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> asked
>>> However, regular security updates are a failure of software quality control
>>> according to you. Why is it OK for microsoft and google, but not Apple??
>>
>> because he's a troll.
>
> An adult troll :D

The record shows the apologists turned into instant kindergarten children
when they were faced with the fact their claims were brazenly fabricated.

*The backup to the claim Chris says he referenced - simply does not exist!*

Not only does this brazenly fabricated claim of Chris' prove the apologists
base their _entire_ belief system on exactly _zero_ (0) actual facts...

But it shows, yet again, they have no adult defense to facts about Apple.
They are desperate to defend all they _hate_ about Apple - to the death!
--
Facts instantly destroy the entire belief system of the Apple apologists.

Brian Gordon <briang@panix.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Brian Gordon <briang@panix.com> wrote

>>> platform, let alone tested. They seem to have adopted
>>> the Microsoft model - charge people to be beta testers.

>> They don’t charge anyone and neither did MS with Win10 and 11.

> A matter of opinion.

Nope, matter of fact on the charge question.

> They charge you for a poorly tested product

Microsoft doesn’t with most people with Win10 and 11.

And you are paying for the hardware, not iOS upgrades with apple.

> so that you can use it and find the bugs they didn't.
> That's pretty much a beta test that you pay to get.

Nope with that last claim about paying for.

In message <sisjot$j8b$1@reader1.panix.com> Brian Gordon <briang@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <irck5vFg0tpU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Brian Gordon <briang@panix.com> wrote
>> [...]
>>> platform, let alone tested. They seem to have adopted the Microsoft
>>> model -
>>> charge people to be beta testers.
>>
>>They don’t charge anyone and neither did MS with Win10 and 11.
>>

> A matter of opinion.

no, it's not. The OS doesn't cost anything and no one is charged for
using it.

> They charge you for a poorly tested product

They do not charge you, at all. Where do you get this bullshit?

> That's pretty much a beta test that you pay to get.

You do not pay for any beta. What meds are you failing to take?

--
'Things either exist or they don't,' said Jeremy. 'I am very clear
about that. I have medicine.' --The Thief of Time

Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> asked
>> You can prove that, of course.
>
> Chris,
>
> Nobody has _ever_ found the facts I've posted to ever be wrong, Chris.

I have. Many times. However, it conveniently ignore them.

> That's not because I'm intelligent - it's because I am an actual adult.
>
> My belief systems are _based_ on facts, Chris.
> You can disagree with my factual assessments, Chris - but not the facts.

If you have facts, you don't need belief systems.

You've not shown any facts.

> No adult disagrees on the facts, Chris.
> What they differ on is the assessment of those facts.
>
> Because assessments require a weighting system that is individualistic.
> But facts are facts are facts are facts.

Still waiting on them...

> Only children dispute facts (e.g., "There is a Santa Claus!").
>
> I'm rather well educated at the graduate level in difficult subjects.
> You don't succeed in Silicon Valley startups being like you, Chris.
>
> It's only you rather child-like (clearly ignorant) apologists who always
> form your entire belief systems about Apple based on exactly zero (0) facts.

I agree that sums up the number of facts you've provided.

> It's why you deny all facts you simply _hate_ about Apple products, Chris.
> Facts instantly _destroy_ your purely imaginary belief system about Apple.
>
> The imaginary belief system Apple fed you on billboards is a lie, Chris.
>
> *Stop sending us Apple bugs, we have enough already*
> <https://www.cyberscoop.com/ios-zero-day-zerodium-high-supply/>

It's funny how you hold news articles to such a high standard. You've
inferred something from a news article which doesn't support your claim.
It's not a fact. It's a supposition.

Where are the numbers of zero data in iOS vs any single other OS?

>>> Now, when it suits Jolly Roger, he agrees with me that the frequency of
>>> forced updates that iOS users are forced to endure is indicative of shitty
>>> Quality Control.
>>
>> Doubtful as that's a ridiculous position to hold.
>
> Children hold "ridiculous positions", Chris.
> All the positions of the apologists are "ridiculous position to hold" Chris.
>
> Since their belief systems are purely imaginary, whatever position they hold
> makes no sense in the face of facts, as is what is happening here with you.
>
> *What the market for zero-day exploits tells us about our phones*
> <https://onezero.medium.com/is-android-getting-safer-than-ios-4a2ca6f359d3>

That says nothing about the relationship between the frequency of updates
and the quality of code. Which is the axe you're continually trying to
grind.

Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> asked
>>> If it isn't on an Apple advertisement... you've never heard of it.
>>
>> You seem to be unaware that in the UK we're not bombarded with adverts like
>> you in the US. Apple ads are not very common, some for google and
>> microsoft. Samsung are much more active.
>
> Wow.
>
> This is a surprising adult thing for you to say, Chris, as it's an
> observation I would be unaware of, given I don't travel to the UK often.
>
> So I do thank you for your adult observations and I appreciate them.
>
> I remember tons of London ads, even on the sides of tall buses, but I didn't
> think to look specifically for Apple marketing slogans painted on buildings.
>
> Bear in mind I was using that example to underscore that nobody intelligent
> _believes_ anything Apple says (*Nobody lies like Apple lies*) in an ad.
>
> Apple is a Marketing company.
>
> Apple is astoundingly successful at playing on their customers' fears.
> In doing so, Apple takes advantage of customers' ignorance of basic facts.
>
> Nobody has more zero-day holes than Apple, and yet, people think otherwise.
> That is the result of Apple being a Marketing powerhouse (and not of R&D).
>
> If you sense that I respect the consistently brilliant Apple Marketing team,
> you would be correct in that assessment of the formidable power ads wield.
>
> You may also sense that I despise the atrocious lack of Apple software QA.
> The reason you have so many emergency software releases is you _need_ them.
>>> The fact is:
>>> To update iOS is to use a child's-toy operating system method of update.
>>>
>>> I've never said that major OS release don't have bugs, Chris.
>>> The fact you fabricated it means you form opinions based on zero (0) facts.
>>
>> Quote: Message-Id: <shqvrr$1j81$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>
> Jesus Christ. How _stupid_ can you apologists be when talking to adults?
> Did you think I wouldn't look it up Chris?
> <http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cshqvrr%241j81%241%40gioia.aioe.org%3E>
>
> You just proved again you apologists form assessments from zero (0) facts.
>
>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>>>>> "Apple also has a massive backlog of bugs that it >>> hasnąt fixed,
>>>>> according to the former employee >>> and a current employee, who also
>>>>> spoke on the >>> condition of anonymity because of an NDA."
>>>> that describes every software company.
>>
>>> No nospam.
>>> I get it that you blame every software company for > Apple's flaws.
>>
>> Enjoy wriggling.
>
> What's interesting is you apologists are so much like little children.
> 1. You formed your opinion based on exactly zero (0) facts.
> 2. I asked for a reference that was the basis of your (strong) opinion.
> 3. The cite you gave me didn't support your assessment in the least.
> And then... you moron... and then... you said...
> 4. "Enjoy wriggling"
>
> WTF?

You're proving my point. Wriggle, wriggle.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> asked
> I have. Many times. However, it conveniently ignore them.

And yet, you can't _name_ a single fact supporting your belief system.
Not even one.

*Your apologists' beliefs are based on exactly _zero_ (0) actual facts.*
(It's what defines you all.)

Here is the simplest iron-clad proof of that assessment of you, Chris.
*Name just once you've found my facts posted to this ng to be wrong.*]

Note: You can't.
--
The fact you can't means your entire belief system is based on zero facts.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> asked
> You're proving my point. Wriggle, wriggle.

Wriggle wriggle? WTF.
How old are you, Chris?

Apologists are like kindergarten kids who believe _everything_ in ads.
Apple tells these kindergarten apologists that Santa is real.

And these kindergarten apologists _believe_ whatever Apple has told them.
And yet, their _entire_ belief system is _completely_ imaginary.

Just like that of a kindergarten child with who believes in Santa Claus.
1. You apologists claim an entirely imaginary belief system.
2. I provide well-known facts which prove that it's imaginary.

And then you say "wriggle wriggle" Chris?
How _old_ are you apologists?

Five?
--
Apologists act like kindergarten kids who are told Santa isn't real.

Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> asked
>> I have. Many times. However, it conveniently ignore them.
>
> And yet, you can't _name_ a single fact supporting your belief system.
> Not even one.

You're the one who made the assertion. It's up to you support it with
evidence. The fact that you attack everyone who questions you clearly shows
that you have nothing.

> *Your apologists' beliefs are based on exactly _zero_ (0) actual facts.*
> (It's what defines you all.)
>
> Here is the simplest iron-clad proof of that assessment of you, Chris.
> *Name just once you've found my facts posted to this ng to be wrong.*]
>
> Note: You can't.

Most, if not all, of your "facts" are actually opinions or inferences or
extrapolations so they aren't necessarily wrong but are open to differing
conclusions.

Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> asked
>> You're proving my point. Wriggle, wriggle.
>
> Wriggle wriggle? WTF.
> How old are you, Chris?

Again you're falling for the distraction. You're supposed to be evidencing
the number of zero day flaws in Apple OSes. Yet you're more interested in
attacking people.

> Apologists are like kindergarten kids who believe _everything_ in ads.
> Apple tells these kindergarten apologists that Santa is real.
>
> And these kindergarten apologists _believe_ whatever Apple has told them.
> And yet, their _entire_ belief system is _completely_ imaginary.
>
> Just like that of a kindergarten child with who believes in Santa Claus.
> 1. You apologists claim an entirely imaginary belief system.
> 2. I provide well-known facts which prove that it's imaginary.

You can't prove a negative. It's impossible.

How can you say that Santa is imaginary? 10s of millions of kids see Santa
every year and get presents from him.

> And then you say "wriggle wriggle" Chris?
> How _old_ are you apologists?
>
> Five?

In article <sj2nrh$jah$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> > Just like that of a kindergarten child with who believes in Santa Claus.
> > 1. You apologists claim an entirely imaginary belief system.
> > 2. I provide well-known facts which prove that it's imaginary.
>
> You can't prove a negative. It's impossible.
>
> How can you say that Santa is imaginary? 10s of millions of kids see Santa
> every year and get presents from him.

except for 'arlen's house. santa skipped over it.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

> You can't prove a negative. It's impossible.

That’s bullshit, I can trivially prove that there is no full
sized elephant in my car and that I didn’t die this morning.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> You can't prove a negative. It's impossible.
>
> That’s bullshit, I can trivially prove that there is no full
> sized elephant in my car and that I didn’t die this morning.

Go on then. Prove it.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sj2nrh$jah$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
>>> Just like that of a kindergarten child with who believes in Santa Claus.
>>> 1. You apologists claim an entirely imaginary belief system.
>>> 2. I provide well-known facts which prove that it's imaginary.
>>
>> You can't prove a negative. It's impossible.
>>
>> How can you say that Santa is imaginary? 10s of millions of kids see Santa
>> every year and get presents from him.
>
> except for 'arlen's house. santa skipped over it.

Remember that he's an adult. Only children get presents from santa ;)

"Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sj3l6f$gbg$1@dont-email.me...
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> You can't prove a negative. It's impossible.
>>
>> That’s bullshit, I can trivially prove that there is no full
>> sized elephant in my car and that I didn’t die this morning.
>
> Go on then. Prove it.

Just look at it, no full adult elephant would fit.

And if you don’t buy that, weigh it.

And I just proved that I didn’t die this morning.

In comp.sys.mac.apps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> except for 'arlen's house. santa skipped over it.

Totally untrue.

I have it on good authority Arlen will be getting this for christmas...

https://pages.ripco.net/~blang/IMG_0333.jpg

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

On 2021-09-30, bje@ripco.com <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
> In comp.sys.mac.apps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> except for 'arlen's house. santa skipped over it.
>
> Totally untrue.
>
> I have it on good authority Arlen will be getting this for christmas...
>
> https://pages.ripco.net/~blang/IMG_0333.jpg

"Yeah, baby! Feel the rumble!!"

--
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 9/30/2021 3:13 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sj3l6f$gbg$1@dont-email.me...
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> You can't prove a negative. It's impossible.
>>>
>>> That’s bullshit, I can trivially prove that there is no full
>>> sized elephant in my car and that I didn’t die this morning.
>>
>> Go on then. Prove it.
>
> Just look at it, no full adult elephant would fit.
>
> And if you don’t buy that, weigh it.
>
> And I just proved that I didn’t die this morning.

Nothing personal but why are either of those negatives?

Zaidy036 <Zaidy036@air.isp.spam> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> You can't prove a negative. It's impossible.
>>>>
>>>> That’s bullshit, I can trivially prove that there is no full
>>>> sized elephant in my car and that I didn’t die this morning.
>>>
>>> Go on then. Prove it.
>>
>> Just look at it, no full adult elephant would fit.
>>
>> And if you don’t buy that, weigh it.
>>
>> And I just proved that I didn’t die this morning.
>
> Nothing personal but why are either of those negatives?

You are proving that neither is correct.

I realise that english isn't your first language.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sj3l6f$gbg$1@dont-email.me...
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> You can't prove a negative. It's impossible.
>>>
>>> That’s bullshit, I can trivially prove that there is no full
>>> sized elephant in my car and that I didn’t die this morning.
>>
>> Go on then. Prove it.
>
> Just look at it, no full adult elephant would fit.

I can't see your car.

> And if you don’t buy that, weigh it.
>
> And I just proved that I didn’t die this morning.

How do I know it's you?

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> You can't prove a negative. It's impossible.
>>>>
>>>> That’s bullshit, I can trivially prove that there is no full
>>>> sized elephant in my car and that I didn’t die this morning.
>>>
>>> Go on then. Prove it.
>>
>> Just look at it, no full adult elephant would fit.
>
> I can't see your car.

But I can and you could if you were here/

>> And if you don’t buy that, weigh it.
>>
>> And I just proved that I didn’t die this morning.
>
> How do I know it's you?

Its obvious if you were here.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't prove a negative. It's impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s bullshit, I can trivially prove that there is no full
>>>>> sized elephant in my car and that I didn’t die this morning.
>>>>
>>>> Go on then. Prove it.
>>>
>>> Just look at it, no full adult elephant would fit.
>>
>> I can't see your car.
>
> But I can and you could if you were here/
>
>>> And if you don’t buy that, weigh it.
>>>
>>> And I just proved that I didn’t die this morning.
>>
>> How do I know it's you?
>
> Its obvious if you were here.

So I have to believe you. That's not proof, that's a belief system.

In article <sj3l6f$gbg$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>
> >> How can you say that Santa is imaginary? 10s of millions of kids see Santa
> >> every year and get presents from him.
> >
> > except for 'arlen's house. santa skipped over it.
>
> Remember that he's an adult. Only children get presents from santa ;)
children like to pretend they're adults.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't prove a negative. It's impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That’s bullshit, I can trivially prove that there is no full
>>>>>> sized elephant in my car and that I didn’t die this morning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go on then. Prove it.
>>>>
>>>> Just look at it, no full adult elephant would fit.
>>>
>>> I can't see your car.
>>
>> But I can and you could if you were here/
>>
>>>> And if you don’t buy that, weigh it.
>>>>
>>>> And I just proved that I didn’t die this morning.
>>>
>>> How do I know it's you?
>>
>> Its obvious if you were here.
>
> So I have to believe you.

Nope, you are free to get someone you trust to
do what isn't physically convenient for you to do.

Your original claim is just plain stupid.