nospam wrote:

>> Still, you're correct that it's important to correct their errors.
>
> yes it is very important, which is why so many people continually do
> that in response to your overwhelming number of false and misleading
> posts.

Steve filters out the fact so the only way to get to him is to email him
from a throwaway address, and then, it has been my experience, he does fix
the 10% or so of facts that he has wrong in that sheet (the rest is true).

>> Point
>> out that they are wrong, and explain why in a calm, rational manner,
>> without personal attacks, using factual information with cites and
>> references. That's what works.
>
> that's what they do, but apparently it doesn't work, because you
> continue to spew the same debunked bullshit and ignore anything that
> refutes it.

At this point, his document is about 90% correct - which is still way
better than anything nospam says - so I consider it a reasonable document.

>> You're probably not going to ever get the trolls to admit that they're
>> spreading false information.
>
> you certainly won't.

You're the one who claimed dozens of imaginary iOS functionalities, so it's
hard for anyone to believe what you say about spreading false information.

> whenever you're confronted with proof, you move the goalposts.

I wonder if you realize yourself that every time Apple is found to have a
flaw, you desperately google to find that same flaw in other companies?

>> But at least the regular people, that
>> actually are interested in reality, get the facts.
>
> the regular people see that you continue to lie.

I have studied you (and Steve) for years, nospam, where I first met Steve
on the home repair newsgroup (which has since turned to political trash).

Steve helped me find chlorine at a good price in Saratoga for my pool
(which consumes a _lot_ of chemicals as it's huge for a residence), which
means Steve has likely saved me hundreds of dollars in chemicals alone.

My point is that Steve _does_ provide about 90% correct factual value.
You nospam? Hmmm...

If it's _not_ related to Apple, you're actually pretty good with facts.
But you're _terrible_ with facts if it pertains to a known Apple flaw.

Unfortunately, there are _many_ of them, so your overall rate is ~ 10%.

In article <teo6nn$529$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> At this point, his document is about 90% correct

no, it's about 90% *incorrect*. likely more.

his claims are incredibly trivial to refute, *with* cites, contrary to
his (yet another) bogus claim that others don't provide anything to
back it up. many of them don't even pass the sniff-test, without even
the need for cites, such as the infamous one of face id not working in
the dark (although there are cites for that).

there are a few things that are indeed true, but that's the rare
exception. as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day
(although with digital clocks, that's no longer true).

he deliberately ignores *substantial* ios functionality to further his
narrative, roughly 100 items by my count, many of which no other device
can do at this time.

some of it is stupid stuff, such as screen-body ratio. who decides
which phone to get solely based on its screen-body ratio?

he constantly lies about key ios functionality that android does not
have, such as face id, falsely claiming that it doesn't work in the
dark, when in fact, that's where face id works best. even a grade
school child could explain why, in addition to actual documentation
from apple and others.

he is intentionally deceptive, such as comparing generic 2d facial
recognition, which apple does *not* use (but android does) versus
fingerprint sensors to 'prove' that apple's face id isn't any good. he
deliberately ignores how apple's face id actually works, namely an
infrared dot projector (which is how it can work in the dark) to
generate a 3d map of a person's face and then use multiple machine
learning models to analyze it.

> I wonder if you realize yourself that every time Apple is found to have a
> flaw, you desperately google to find that same flaw in other companies?

that's to prove the sheer hypocrisy of the trolls.

to a troll, if apple does something, it's automatically bad, but when
google, microsoft, etc., do the *same* thing, it's no big deal, or even
a feature.