f



"Unhackable" Apple Confirms Malware-Infected Apps Found And Removed From Its Chinese App Store

Apple has confirmed a security breach in its Chinese App Store 
which saw nearly forty popular applications infected with 
malware � a result of app developers being tricked into 
downloading a compromised version of Apple�s Xcode developer 
tool kit. The breach, first discovered by researchers at Alibaba 
Mobile Security, affected a number of popular apps in the 
region, including WeChat, Didi Kuaidi (an Uber-like service), 
business card scanning app CamCard, and several others.

According to U.S.-based security firm Palo Alto Networks, which 
refers to the malware as �XcodeGhost,� 39 iOS applications were 
affected. The malware could potentially impact hundreds of 
millions of users, the company said.

The breach was surprising, given Apple�s historically stringent 
app review policies. However, in this case, the malware authors 
capitalized on developers� demand for Apple�s official Xcode 
software. A compromised version of the Xcode software was 
uploaded to Baidu�s cloud storage site, promising a faster 
download than the official version hosted on Apple�s own 
website, which is slowed due to China�s Great Firewall.

But to even install this affected version of the Xcode software, 
developers had to ignore a warning which indicated the software 
was damaged and should be moved to the trash:

In other words, Apple�s Gatekeeper technology, which prevents 
non-App Store and unsigned versions of programs, like Xcode, 
from being installed, was doing its job. Developers, however, 
ultimately chose to ignore the warnings and proceed to install 
and use the compromised software.

Then, when app developers used this version of Xcode to code 
their apps, their apps would then become infected with the 
malware. (Baidu has since taken down the infected software, it 
said.)

Palo Alto Networks explains in a blog post that the malicious 
code uploaded users� device information and app information to 
the attackers� command and control server, which allowed the 
users� devices to then be able to receive instructions from the 
malware�s creator. Some of those instructions included a prompt 
that would be a fake alert that phished for user credentials; a 
way to hijack opening special website URLs, which would allow 
for further exploitation in the iOS system; and the ability to 
write and write data to the user�s clipboard which could be used 
to read the user�s password, in the case the password was copied 
from a password management tool.

One developer said that XcodeGhost had already launched phishing 
attacks aimed at acquiring users� iCloud passwords, Palo Alto 
Networks noted.

It�s unclear who�s behind the attack at present, the security 
firm says, but it did indicate that the techniques used could be 
those that �criminal and espionage groups� would use to gain 
access to iOS devices.

In a statement, Apple confirmed the security issue and says it 
removed the infected apps from the iTunes App Store. The company 
also says it�s working with developers to make sure their apps 
are not at risk and that they�re using the proper version of 
Xcode.

la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.

http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/21/apple-confirms-malware-infected-
apps-found-and-removed-from-its-chinese-app-store/

0
Jeremy
9/21/2015 10:12:03 PM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

2259 Replies
4230 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 38

In article <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>, Jeremy
Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote:

> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.

developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
0
nospam
9/21/2015 10:16:33 PM
nospam wrote:

> In article <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>, Jeremy
> Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote:
> 
>> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
> 
> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.

No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store.
And XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something 
fishy?
0
Peter
9/21/2015 10:37:55 PM
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 00:37:55 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> nospam wrote:
> 
>> In article <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>, Jeremy
>> Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
>> 
>> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
> 
> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store. And
> XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
> fishy?


First thing they should have noticed was getting the Xcode from a 
different source don't you think?



-- 
Lloyd
0
Lloyd
9/21/2015 10:40:26 PM
On 2015-09-21 18:37, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store.
> And XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
> fishy?

Did you even read the article?

QUOTE

But to even install this affected version of the Xcode software,
developers had to ignore a warning which indicated the software
was damaged and should be moved to the trash:

In other words, Apple�s Gatekeeper technology, which prevents
non-App Store and unsigned versions of programs, like Xcode,
from being installed, was doing its job. Developers, however,
ultimately chose to ignore the warnings and proceed to install
and use the compromised software.

ENDQUOTE
0
Alan
9/21/2015 10:42:40 PM
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:42:40 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> On 2015-09-21 18:37, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store. And
>> XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>> fishy?
> 
> Did you even read the article?
> 
> QUOTE
> 
> But to even install this affected version of the Xcode software,
> developers had to ignore a warning which indicated the software was
> damaged and should be moved to the trash:
> 
> In other words, Apple’s Gatekeeper technology, which prevents non-App
> Store and unsigned versions of programs, like Xcode, from being
> installed, was doing its job. Developers, however, ultimately chose to
> ignore the warnings and proceed to install and use the compromised
> software.
> 
> ENDQUOTE

And they got the bad Xcode from other than Apple sources:
http://9to5mac.com/2015/09/20/xcode-ghost-app-store-malware-malicious-
apps/

Not a smart move.

-- 
Lloyd
0
Lloyd
9/21/2015 10:43:45 PM
In article <mtq0oe$vgn$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> >> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
> > 
> > developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
> 
> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store.

$99. big deal.

if the app is any good you'll make that back in no time at all.

> And XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something 
> fishy?

because they dowloaded it from an unofficial source and because
gatekeeper put up an alert saying it's been modified.
0
nospam
9/21/2015 10:49:44 PM
On 2015-09-21, Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 00:37:55 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store. And
>> XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>> fishy?
>
> First thing they should have noticed was getting the Xcode from a 
> different source don't you think?

The normal way to get Xcode is through the App Store application on your
computer. Downloading it this way ensures it is from Apple. Developers
had to go out of their way to get it from untrusted sources instead.

Then, developers who downloaded this illegitimate Xcode installer also
saw a Gatekeeper warning dialog box on their computer telling them that
this copy of Xcode isn't valid and is not signed by Apple and should be
replaced. 

Then those developers had to *disable* or *bypass* Gatekeeper to allow
the application to run on their computers.

Blaming Apple for this level of stupidity is just plain silly. These
developers are fully responsible for their actions.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/21/2015 11:02:23 PM
In article <d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store. And
> >> XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
> >> fishy?
> >
> > First thing they should have noticed was getting the Xcode from a 
> > different source don't you think?
> 
> The normal way to get Xcode is through the App Store application on your
> computer. Downloading it this way ensures it is from Apple. Developers
> had to go out of their way to get it from untrusted sources instead.
> 
> Then, developers who downloaded this illegitimate Xcode installer also
> saw a Gatekeeper warning dialog box on their computer telling them that
> this copy of Xcode isn't valid and is not signed by Apple and should be
> replaced. 
> 
> Then those developers had to *disable* or *bypass* Gatekeeper to allow
> the application to run on their computers.
> 
> Blaming Apple for this level of stupidity is just plain silly. These
> developers are fully responsible for their actions.

and should have their developer status terminated.
0
nospam
9/21/2015 11:03:41 PM
On 9/21/15, 3:16 PM, in article 210920151816339085%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>, Jeremy
> Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote:
> 
>> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
> 
> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.

All malware is the fault of the malware author... but from a user
perspective that does not matter. What matters is how high of a risk is
there in getting malware. Even with this the only two OSs where the user is
at a significant risk are Windows and Android.

So, sure, something iOS users should be aware of, but does not change the
overall picture.  


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/21/2015 11:05:01 PM
On 9/21/15, 3:37 PM, in article mtq0oe$vgn$1@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> nospam wrote:
> 
>> In article <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>, Jeremy
>> Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
>> 
>> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
> 
> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store.
> And XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
> fishy?

When you pirate code you should always be suspicious! I mean, really, Peter,
do you need even THAT explained to you?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/21/2015 11:05:38 PM
On 9/21/15, 3:42 PM, in article
8oWdnba64ux8Gp3LnZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Alan Browne"
<alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2015-09-21 18:37, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store.
>> And XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>> fishy?
> 
> Did you even read the article?
> 
> QUOTE
> 
> But to even install this affected version of the Xcode software,
> developers had to ignore a warning which indicated the software
> was damaged and should be moved to the trash:
> 
> In other words, Apple�s Gatekeeper technology, which prevents
> non-App Store and unsigned versions of programs, like Xcode,
> from being installed, was doing its job. Developers, however,
> ultimately chose to ignore the warnings and proceed to install
> and use the compromised software.
> 
> ENDQUOTE

I did not see that. Thanks.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/21/2015 11:05:58 PM
On 9/21/15, 3:49 PM, in article 210920151849448520%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <mtq0oe$vgn$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>>>> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
>>> 
>>> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
>> 
>> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store.
> 
> $99. big deal.
> 
> if the app is any good you'll make that back in no time at all.
> 
>> And XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>> fishy?
> 
> because they dowloaded it from an unofficial source and because
> gatekeeper put up an alert saying it's been modified.

Comes down to Peter not getting why PIRATED versions of a program might be
bad to use.

Just speechless. 


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/21/2015 11:06:37 PM
On 2015-09-21, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store. And
>> >> XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>> >> fishy?
>> >
>> > First thing they should have noticed was getting the Xcode from a 
>> > different source don't you think?
>> 
>> The normal way to get Xcode is through the App Store application on your
>> computer. Downloading it this way ensures it is from Apple. Developers
>> had to go out of their way to get it from untrusted sources instead.
>> 
>> Then, developers who downloaded this illegitimate Xcode installer also
>> saw a Gatekeeper warning dialog box on their computer telling them that
>> this copy of Xcode isn't valid and is not signed by Apple and should be
>> replaced. 
>> 
>> Then those developers had to *disable* or *bypass* Gatekeeper to allow
>> the application to run on their computers.
>> 
>> Blaming Apple for this level of stupidity is just plain silly. These
>> developers are fully responsible for their actions.
>
> and should have their developer status terminated.

Agreed. They should never be allowed back into the store, IMHO.
That level of dangerous stupidity should not be rewarded.

I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
apps from all iOS devices as well. 

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/21/2015 11:11:38 PM
On 2015-09-21, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/21/15, 3:16 PM, in article 210920151816339085%nospam@nospam.invalid,
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>, Jeremy
>> Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
>> 
>> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
>
> All malware is the fault of the malware author... but from a user
> perspective that does not matter.

The users in this case were software developers who downloaded Xcode
from untrusted sources, then used it to create apps to distribute to
other users.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/21/2015 11:13:15 PM
On 09/21/15 15:12, Jeremy Bentham so wittily quipped:
> Apple has confirmed a security breach in its Chinese App Store 
> which saw nearly forty popular applications infected with 
> malware � a result of app developers being tricked into 
> downloading a compromised version of Apple�s Xcode developer 
> tool kit. The breach, first discovered by researchers at Alibaba 
> Mobile Security, affected a number of popular apps in the 
> region, including WeChat, Didi Kuaidi (an Uber-like service), 
> business card scanning app CamCard, and several others.

<snip>

hmm... more cross-posting.  great for including more people in
discussions, but it also invites a lot of trolls.  yeah we know who they
are and where they hang out, heh.

/me expects one of the typical trolls to attempt to troll _ME_ now, or
accuse _ME_ of trolling.  They follow such predictable patterns.


0
Big
9/21/2015 11:13:34 PM
On 9/21/15, 4:13 PM, in article d6bh8bF9nopU4@mid.individual.net, "Jolly
Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-21, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 9/21/15, 3:16 PM, in article 210920151816339085%nospam@nospam.invalid,
>> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>, Jeremy
>>> Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
>>> 
>>> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
>> 
>> All malware is the fault of the malware author... but from a user
>> perspective that does not matter.
> 
> The users in this case were software developers who downloaded Xcode
> from untrusted sources, then used it to create apps to distribute to
> other users.

Ah, I see what you mean.

But then there are also the users of THEIR software.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/21/2015 11:14:26 PM
On 2015-09-21, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/21/15, 4:13 PM, in article d6bh8bF9nopU4@mid.individual.net, "Jolly
> Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-21, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/21/15, 3:16 PM, in article 210920151816339085%nospam@nospam.invalid,
>>> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>, Jeremy
>>>> Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
>>>> 
>>>> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
>>> 
>>> All malware is the fault of the malware author... but from a user
>>> perspective that does not matter.
>> 
>> The users in this case were software developers who downloaded Xcode
>> from untrusted sources, then used it to create apps to distribute to
>> other users.
>
> Ah, I see what you mean.
>
> But then there are also the users of THEIR software.

Right. And for that, I believe these developers who acted so carelessly
by putting the security and privacy of all iOS users at risk should be
penalized by Apple.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/21/2015 11:17:11 PM
In article <slrnn01bsg.19ov.timmcn@sugaree.local>, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> "Unhackable?"  Other than a few folks who don't understand these things, 
> there are no claims that Apple OSes are unhackable.  For a long time the 
> market share of Apple products was so small that no one bothered to hack 
> Apple apps or the OSes- there was such a low probability of return that 
> it wasn't worth the cost.  Times have changed and Apple is now a 
> reasonable target in the Mac space and certainly in the iOS space.  
> There is no surprise that there is malware and no surprise that some of 
> it has gotten through the App Store.  Still fairly small potatoes 
> compared to the Android security flaws that are exposing at least a 
> billion Android users... ouch.
> 
> Any Apple user not paying attention to the risk of being hacked is just 
> as big a fool as the Android and Windows users not paying attention.

This "problem" has absolutely nothing to do with Apple / iOS being
hackable anyway. It's also just another storm in a teacup / mountain
out of a molehill bandwagon that the anti-Apple nutters are jumping on.

It's simply a few stupid developers in China who downloaded a corrupted
version of XCode from a pirate website, and then used it to create iOS
apps which unknowingly have (rather pathetically useless) "spyware" in
them that were then put on the App Store.
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/20/xcodeghost-chinese-malware-faq/

There's a list of affected apps (a "whopping" 50 or so of them out of
many thousands!) that you should delete at 
http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/what-you-need-to-know-about-ios-malw
are-xcodeghost.1918784/#post-21896151
Some more may be added as they are discovered, and some have already
been fixed.
0
Your
9/22/2015 1:01:01 AM
In article <mtqtpf$sm3$2@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 1:17 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <mtq0oe$vgn$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
> > <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> nospam wrote:
> >>> In article <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>, Jeremy
> >>> Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
> >>>
> >>> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
> >>
> >> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store.
> >> And XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
> >> fishy?
> >
> > They downloaded XCode from an unauthorized source (i.e., pirated), not
> > from Apple.
> 
> Why would they do that?  What's the motivation?

Reportedly, because Apple's servers are slow in China (no doubt partly
due to government censoring), so some impatient developers there
stupidly downloaded an altered version of XCode from pirate websites
instead.
0
Your
9/22/2015 1:01:01 AM
"Unhackable?"  Other than a few folks who don't understand these things, 
there are no claims that Apple OSes are unhackable.  For a long time the 
market share of Apple products was so small that no one bothered to hack 
Apple apps or the OSes- there was such a low probability of return that 
it wasn't worth the cost.  Times have changed and Apple is now a 
reasonable target in the Mac space and certainly in the iOS space.  
There is no surprise that there is malware and no surprise that some of 
it has gotten through the App Store.  Still fairly small potatoes 
compared to the Android security flaws that are exposing at least a 
billion Android users... ouch.

Any Apple user not paying attention to the risk of being hacked is just 
as big a fool as the Android and Windows users not paying attention.
0
Tim
9/22/2015 1:32:00 AM
In article <mtq0oe$vgn$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> nospam wrote:
> 
> > In article <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>, Jeremy
> > Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
> > 
> > developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
> 
> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store.
> And XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something 
> fishy?

They downloaded XCode from an unauthorized source (i.e., pirated), not
from Apple.
0
Michelle
9/22/2015 6:17:31 AM
On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-21, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store. And
>>>>> XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>>>>> fishy?
>>>>
>>>> First thing they should have noticed was getting the Xcode from a
>>>> different source don't you think?
>>>
>>> The normal way to get Xcode is through the App Store application on your
>>> computer. Downloading it this way ensures it is from Apple. Developers
>>> had to go out of their way to get it from untrusted sources instead.
>>>
>>> Then, developers who downloaded this illegitimate Xcode installer also
>>> saw a Gatekeeper warning dialog box on their computer telling them that
>>> this copy of Xcode isn't valid and is not signed by Apple and should be
>>> replaced.
>>>
>>> Then those developers had to *disable* or *bypass* Gatekeeper to allow
>>> the application to run on their computers.
>>>
>>> Blaming Apple for this level of stupidity is just plain silly. These
>>> developers are fully responsible for their actions.
>>
>> and should have their developer status terminated.
>
> Agreed. They should never be allowed back into the store, IMHO.
> That level of dangerous stupidity should not be rewarded.
>
> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
> apps from all iOS devices as well.

Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm 
sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just 
rent my devices from Apple, Inc...

0
Nobody
9/22/2015 6:50:41 AM
On 9/22/2015 1:17 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtq0oe$vgn$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>, Jeremy
>>> Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
>>>
>>> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
>>
>> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store.
>> And XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>> fishy?
>
> They downloaded XCode from an unauthorized source (i.e., pirated), not
> from Apple.

Why would they do that?  What's the motivation?

0
Nobody
9/22/2015 6:51:28 AM
On 9/21/2015 5:16 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>, Jeremy
> Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> wrote:
>
>> la la la la yadda yadda, Apple blames developers.
>
> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.

How did the App Store get absolved?  I thought it was supposed to be 
checking for stuff like this.

0
Nobody
9/22/2015 6:55:41 AM
In article <mtqu1d$sm3$3@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> > developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
> 
> How did the App Store get absolved?  I thought it was supposed to be 
> checking for stuff like this.

they are now.
0
nospam
9/22/2015 7:15:41 AM
In article <mtqtpf$sm3$2@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> > They downloaded XCode from an unauthorized source (i.e., pirated), not
> > from Apple.
> 
> Why would they do that?  What's the motivation?

it's faster.
0
nospam
9/22/2015 7:15:42 AM
In article <mtqto2$sm3$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm 
> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just 
> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...

apple said they would remove an app only in extreme situations. no such
situation has occurred yet.

google can also delete apps from android devices for the same reason,
but unlike apple, google *has* removed some apps.
0
nospam
9/22/2015 7:15:42 AM
On 9/22/2015 2:15 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <mtqu1d$sm3$3@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
>>
>> How did the App Store get absolved?  I thought it was supposed to be
>> checking for stuff like this.
>
> they are now.

You mean they were lying about checking before?

0
Nobody
9/22/2015 9:36:33 AM
nospam wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> In article <mtqtpf$sm3$2@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> > They downloaded XCode from an unauthorized source (i.e., pirated), not
>> > from Apple.
>> 
>> Why would they do that?  What's the motivation?
>
> it's faster.

More likely, it's that you don't need an Apple login (and whatever else that
entails) to get the download package.

I snipped the rest of the newsgroups because some of those Apple fans are
annoying little bastards.

-- 
He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
		-- J.R.R. Tolkien
0
Chris
9/22/2015 10:07:35 AM
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:07:35 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> nospam wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> In article <mtqtpf$sm3$2@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > They downloaded XCode from an unauthorized source (i.e., pirated),
>>> > not from Apple.
>>> 
>>> Why would they do that?  What's the motivation?
>>
>> it's faster.
> 
> More likely, it's that you don't need an Apple login (and whatever else
> that entails) to get the download package.
>
From a couple stories I read it seems that downloading in China from the 
Apple Store can be tedious for them, so they opted for 'mirrors'.  How 
much of that is true or not is open for conjecture though.
 
> I snipped the rest of the newsgroups because some of those Apple fans
> are annoying little bastards.

As opposed to the wide-loads here?




-- 
Lloyd
0
Lloyd
9/22/2015 12:12:57 PM
> In article <mtqto2$sm3$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
>> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>
> apple said they would remove an app only in extreme situations. no such
> situation has occurred yet.
>
> google can also delete apps from android devices for the same reason,
> but unlike apple, google *has* removed some apps.

  Doesn't make any difference.  I am the master of my life, not the 
government, not Apple.  I will try to never buy a product that a 
company can alter.  My new W8.1 tablet has updates turned off.  My 
internet connection goes through an ssh connection to keep my isp 
from logging every place I go.  I use a mixmyn.net email address 
and communicate with other friends and family using AAMDirect.
  I almost made the mistake of going to an Apple computer back in 
the 90's.  Fortunately, I had to use another company's Apple 
computer to access the web and when I saw their hockey puck mouse, 
I said never again to Apple.  People who go with Apple are not from 
my post Nazi Germany era and thereby don't loathe being spyed on.  
The government schools have done a great job of indoctrinating 
students to not despise government and corporate spying.

 A Big 'O "Sieg Heil" to all you Apple users!

0
Jack
9/22/2015 1:34:26 PM
On 9/22/15, 6:34 AM, in article
91777a714f0d3c05732c6cc8035a09ba@remailer.cpunk.us, "Jack Ryan"
<noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote:

>> In article <mtqto2$sm3$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
>>> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>> 
>> apple said they would remove an app only in extreme situations. no such
>> situation has occurred yet.
>> 
>> google can also delete apps from android devices for the same reason,
>> but unlike apple, google *has* removed some apps.
> 
>   Doesn't make any difference.  I am the master of my life, not the
> government, not Apple.  I will try to never buy a product that a
> company can alter.  My new W8.1 tablet has updates turned off.  My
> internet connection goes through an ssh connection to keep my isp
> from logging every place I go.  I use a mixmyn.net email address
> and communicate with other friends and family using AAMDirect.
>   I almost made the mistake of going to an Apple computer back in
> the 90's.  Fortunately, I had to use another company's Apple
> computer to access the web and when I saw their hockey puck mouse,
> I said never again to Apple.  People who go with Apple are not from
> my post Nazi Germany era and thereby don't loathe being spyed on.
> The government schools have done a great job of indoctrinating
> students to not despise government and corporate spying.
> 
>  A Big 'O "Sieg Heil" to all you Apple users!
> 
I say use what you like... but I am pro-choice.

As far as Apple and their mice, I like Macs but hate Apple mice. Utter junk
in my view. So be it... I use a Logitech MX518. My choice. You can use what
you like.

Choice is good.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/22/2015 1:52:43 PM
On 2015-09-21 21:32, Tim McNamara wrote:

> Any Apple user not paying attention to the risk of being hacked is just
> as big a fool as the Android and Windows users not paying attention.

Hear, hear!
0
Alan
9/22/2015 2:05:48 PM
On 2015-09-22 02:50, Nobody wrote:

> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...

Is that arrogance or foolishness?

Sometimes the distinction is very narrow.

While I consider my main home computer to be mine to maintain and watch 
and care for, I would never spend 1/100th of that time caring about my 
freaking phone.  It's an appliance.  No higher in need of care than my 
television.  But - since it is a target for attack - I'd much, much 
rather go for the walled garden of iPhone than the security sieve of 
Android.

If Apple had code in my phone that could be instructed to delete or 
defeat malware on my phone without me knowing it happened I'd be quite 
pleased to find out that is so.

I'll have this iPhone for 4 more years in all likelihood.  I don't want 
to maintain it anymore than syncing - let Apple deal with security as 
much as possible.  Part of the price. (I paid for it in full up front).

And of course - as stated elsewhere - the hack in question was because 
developers downloaded hacked XCode from elsewhere and ignored warnings 
on their Macs to not run it.  Those fools F'd up and they alone are 
responsible for the damage they caused to users.

0
Alan
9/22/2015 2:16:03 PM
On 2015-09-22 05:36, Nobody wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 2:15 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <mtqu1d$sm3$3@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> developers who pirated xcode are at fault.
>>>
>>> How did the App Store get absolved?  I thought it was supposed to be
>>> checking for stuff like this.
>>
>> they are now.
>
> You mean they were lying about checking before?

They weren't checking for the particular attack.  They check 
(automatically) for all sorts of license violations.  (Such as direct 
calls that circumvent Apple spec's methods to access system resources, 
inter-app communications and so on).  They check for known attacks - and 
continuously add to the things that need checking.


0
Alan
9/22/2015 2:21:19 PM
Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> x-posted a long quote to:

alt.comp.freeware, comp.sys.mac.system,
alt.hacker,alt.privacy.anon-server, comp.os.linux.advocacy

Troll alert!

Yrrah
0
Yrrah
9/22/2015 2:22:21 PM
On 2015-09-22 10:16 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2015-09-22 02:50, Nobody wrote:
> 
>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
>> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
> 
> Is that arrogance or foolishness?

Foolishness. Nobody routinely posts evidence of his retardation on
comp.os.linux.advocacy. In this case, Apple is giving itself the right
to delete malware from a user's device. If it weren't malware, then yes
Apple would be doing something wrong by removing content a user
explicitly chose to install but in this case, it's helping the user out.
Nobody would rather malware take photos of him when he's masturbating to
pictures of Wretched Stallman or stealing his credit card information
than allow the company to remove a threat and that is the best example
of how intelligent our friend is.

> Sometimes the distinction is very narrow.
> 
> While I consider my main home computer to be mine to maintain and watch
> and care for, I would never spend 1/100th of that time caring about my
> freaking phone.  It's an appliance.  No higher in need of care than my
> television.  But - since it is a target for attack - I'd much, much
> rather go for the walled garden of iPhone than the security sieve of
> Android.

We all would. The only people who truly _prefer_ Android to iOS are
Apple haters and Linux lovers. People would all rather just have the
real deal and that's iOS. Sure, Android comes out with some features
first but nobody cares because their implementation of those features is
always much worse than what Apple comes up with.

> If Apple had code in my phone that could be instructed to delete or
> defeat malware on my phone without me knowing it happened I'd be quite
> pleased to find out that is so.

Same here.

> I'll have this iPhone for 4 more years in all likelihood.  I don't want
> to maintain it anymore than syncing - let Apple deal with security as
> much as possible.  Part of the price. (I paid for it in full up front).
> 
> And of course - as stated elsewhere - the hack in question was because
> developers downloaded hacked XCode from elsewhere and ignored warnings
> on their Macs to not run it.  Those fools F'd up and they alone are
> responsible for the damage they caused to users.

Absolutely.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/22/2015 2:25:08 PM
On 2015-09-22 00:17, Your Name wrote:
> In article <slrnn01bsg.19ov.timmcn@sugaree.local>, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>> Any Apple user not paying attention to the risk of being hacked is just
>> as big a fool as the Android and Windows users not paying attention.
>
> This "problem" has absolutely nothing to do with Apple / iOS being
> hackable anyway. It's also just another storm in a teacup / mountain
> out of a molehill bandwagon that the anti-Apple nutters are jumping on.

Regardless, iOS/OS X are targets for malware, there is malware for both.

Tim's last sentence is absolutely true.

Does this mean one should get anti-malware for their Mac?  That's up to 
them to decide.  I don't.  But I'm not closed to the idea.  As the 
number of active / on the web Macs increases (they're selling 20M per 
year at present) OS X becomes a greater and greater target for attack.

iOS much more so.

Of course the anti-Apple nutters will have their half baked say.  So what?
0
Alan
9/22/2015 2:28:12 PM
In article <V_2dnfY8eZw5_5zLnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

>While I consider my main home computer to be mine to maintain and watch 
>and care for, I would never spend 1/100th of that time caring about my 
>freaking phone.  It's an appliance.

Indeed. It's for making phone calls - the clue is in the name. Hmm, I
suppose I could use it for putting lard on the cat's boil, but on the
whole I'd rather not.

-- 
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
0
Tim
9/22/2015 3:04:18 PM
In comp.sys.mac.system Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> The normal way to get Xcode is through the App Store application on your
> computer. Downloading it this way ensures it is from Apple. Developers
> had to go out of their way to get it from untrusted sources instead.
> 
> Then, developers who downloaded this illegitimate Xcode installer also
> saw a Gatekeeper warning dialog box on their computer telling them that
> this copy of Xcode isn't valid and is not signed by Apple and should be
> replaced. 
> 
> Then those developers had to *disable* or *bypass* Gatekeeper to allow
> the application to run on their computers.

I don't know about that.. I have it enabled, and it never complained
about this (yea, I never checked until now, though, heh) -

$ spctl --assess --verbose /Applications/Xcode.app
/Applications/Xcode.app: a sealed resource is missing or invalid

$ spctl --assess --verbose /Volumes/Xcode/Xcode.app
/Volumes/Xcode/Xcode.app: accepted
source=Apple System

I'd be interested in what results other people get from their
installed copies.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number
0
billy
9/22/2015 4:14:05 PM
In article <mtqto2$sm3$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm 
> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just 
> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...

Don't be an Android customer in that case.
0
Michelle
9/22/2015 4:28:08 PM
In article <V_2dnfY8eZw5_5zLnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> > Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
> > sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
> > rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
> 
> Is that arrogance or foolishness?
> 
> Sometimes the distinction is very narrow.

Notice how he rails about Apple being able to do something, but that
Apple has not done, but completely ignores the fact that Google has
actually done it?

And how he falsely claims that Apple spies on its users?

Best thing to do is ignore this troll.
0
Michelle
9/22/2015 4:37:11 PM
In article <91777a714f0d3c05732c6cc8035a09ba@remailer.cpunk.us>, Jack
Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote:

> >> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
> >> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
> >> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
> >
> > apple said they would remove an app only in extreme situations. no such
> > situation has occurred yet.
> >
> > google can also delete apps from android devices for the same reason,
> > but unlike apple, google *has* removed some apps.
> 
>   Doesn't make any difference. 

yes it does.

you can't bash only apple for having the ability when google *also* has
the ability *and* has used it whereas apple has *not*.

that makes google a bigger offender than apple.
0
nospam
9/22/2015 4:52:10 PM
On 22/09/2015 14:52, Snit wrote:
[....]
> I say use what you like... but I am pro-choice.
>
> As far as Apple and their mice, I like Macs but hate Apple mice. Utter junk
> in my view. So be it... I use a Logitech MX518. My choice. You can use what
> you like.
>
> Choice is good.

I think *my* Magic Mouse is just that - Magic! :-)

http://www.apple.com/uk/shop/product/MB829Z/A/apple-magic-mouse

0
BD
9/22/2015 4:56:50 PM
On 9/22/15, 9:56 AM, in article mts14s$gi8$1@dont-email.me, "~BD~"
<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> On 22/09/2015 14:52, Snit wrote:
> [....]
>> I say use what you like... but I am pro-choice.
>> 
>> As far as Apple and their mice, I like Macs but hate Apple mice. Utter junk
>> in my view. So be it... I use a Logitech MX518. My choice. You can use what
>> you like.
>> 
>> Choice is good.
> 
> I think *my* Magic Mouse is just that - Magic! :-)
> 
> http://www.apple.com/uk/shop/product/MB829Z/A/apple-magic-mouse
> 
This is the one I prefer:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA8BU32M1264>

I use it with SteerMouse which gives me a lot of control over how I use it.
Made this some time back to show some Linux folks:
<https://youtu.be/sdSiYE7lbQI>

But, of course, that is simply what I prefer. Not trying to say you should
not use the rodent of your choice. An eight button mouse with different
settings in different programs is most certainly not for everyone!


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/22/2015 5:07:21 PM
On 2015-09-22 12:52 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <91777a714f0d3c05732c6cc8035a09ba@remailer.cpunk.us>, Jack
> Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote:
> 
>>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>>>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
>>>> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>>>
>>> apple said they would remove an app only in extreme situations. no such
>>> situation has occurred yet.
>>>
>>> google can also delete apps from android devices for the same reason,
>>> but unlike apple, google *has* removed some apps.
>>
>>   Doesn't make any difference. 
> 
> yes it does.
> 
> you can't bash only apple for having the ability when google *also* has
> the ability *and* has used it whereas apple has *not*.
> 
> that makes google a bigger offender than apple.

+1. I'm not sure why these people keep trusting Google when it's clear
that the company is always up to no good. Russia has just hit Google
with anti-trust charges:
<http://www.naturalnews.com/051256_Google_Android_Good_Gopher.html>

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/22/2015 5:14:23 PM
On 2015-09-22 12:37, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> Notice how he rails about Apple being able to do something, but that
> Apple has not done, but completely ignores the fact that Google has
> actually done it?

Good point.  OTOH, if Apple have flagged malware in my iPhone (after 
I've downloaded it) and then prevent its running or out-and-out delete 
it, I'm certainly not going to complain.
0
Alan
9/22/2015 5:39:07 PM
On 2015-09-22, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>
> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?

Yep, an so can Google. The difference is Apple hasn't ever done it
before yet Google has. If you knew what you were talking about you'd
know this already.

> I'm sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware
> than just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...

Ignorant DROIDbois are quite silly.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/22/2015 6:20:15 PM
On 2015-09-22, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <91777a714f0d3c05732c6cc8035a09ba@remailer.cpunk.us>, Jack
> Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote:
>
>> >> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>> >> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
>> >> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>> >
>> > apple said they would remove an app only in extreme situations. no such
>> > situation has occurred yet.
>> >
>> > google can also delete apps from android devices for the same reason,
>> > but unlike apple, google *has* removed some apps.
>> 
>>   Doesn't make any difference. 
>
> yes it does.
>
> you can't bash only apple for having the ability when google *also* has
> the ability *and* has used it whereas apple has *not*.
>
> that makes google a bigger offender than apple.

It also makes "Jack Ryan" a bit of a hypocrite.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/22/2015 6:23:20 PM
On 2015-09-22, A.M <> wrote:
> On 2015-09-22 10:16 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2015-09-22 02:50, Nobody wrote:
>> 
>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
>>> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>> 
>> Is that arrogance or foolishness?
>
> Foolishness. Nobody routinely posts evidence of his retardation on
> comp.os.linux.advocacy. In this case, Apple is giving itself the right
> to delete malware from a user's device. If it weren't malware, then yes
> Apple would be doing something wrong by removing content a user
> explicitly chose to install but in this case, it's helping the user out.

Please note that Apple hasn't actually done this - we are simply talking
about it and hoping they will do it. To my knowledge, there hasn't been 
confirmation that Apple has *ever* done it.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/22/2015 6:25:34 PM
On 2015-09-22, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <V_2dnfY8eZw5_5zLnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
><alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> > Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>> > sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
>> > rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>> 
>> Is that arrogance or foolishness?
>> 
>> Sometimes the distinction is very narrow.
>
> Notice how he rails about Apple being able to do something, but that
> Apple has not done, but completely ignores the fact that Google has
> actually done it?
>
> And how he falsely claims that Apple spies on its users?
>
> Best thing to do is ignore this troll.

Yep. Idiot trolls deserve no attention.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/22/2015 6:26:24 PM
On 2015-09-22, billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
> In comp.sys.mac.system Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> The normal way to get Xcode is through the App Store application on your
>> computer. Downloading it this way ensures it is from Apple. Developers
>> had to go out of their way to get it from untrusted sources instead.
>> 
>> Then, developers who downloaded this illegitimate Xcode installer also
>> saw a Gatekeeper warning dialog box on their computer telling them that
>> this copy of Xcode isn't valid and is not signed by Apple and should be
>> replaced. 
>> 
>> Then those developers had to *disable* or *bypass* Gatekeeper to allow
>> the application to run on their computers.
>
> I don't know about that.. I have it enabled, and it never complained
> about this (yea, I never checked until now, though, heh) -

And you are using a pirated copy of Xcode?

> $ spctl --assess --verbose /Applications/Xcode.app
> /Applications/Xcode.app: a sealed resource is missing or invalid
>
> $ spctl --assess --verbose /Volumes/Xcode/Xcode.app
> /Volumes/Xcode/Xcode.app: accepted
> source=Apple System
>
> I'd be interested in what results other people get from their
> installed copies.

# spctl --assess --verbose /Applications/Xcode.app
/Applications/Xcode.app: accepted
source=Mac App Store

# codesign -vv /Applications/Xcode.app>
/Applications/Xcode.app: valid on disk
/Applications/Xcode.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/22/2015 6:44:31 PM
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:34:26 -0400 (EDT), Jack Ryan
<noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote:

>My internet connection goes through an ssh connection to keep my isp 
>from logging every place I go. 

	Sounds interesting.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012
0
Shadow
9/22/2015 6:51:10 PM
On 2015-09-22 06:50:41 +0000, Nobody said:

> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?

Probably. Amazon can and has:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html>

D.F. Manno

0
Dominic
9/22/2015 9:34:08 PM
In comp.sys.mac.system Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> And you are using a pirated copy of Xcode?

No.

> # spctl --assess --verbose /Applications/Xcode.app
> /Applications/Xcode.app: accepted
> source=Mac App Store

Yea, but the app store blows.  As but one example,
last night I downloaded a copy of 10.10.5 (had to
before it goes away forever).  I also just happened
to have a copy of the 10.10.3 GM Candidate on the
same machine.

Guess where the app store put 10.10.5?

In the very same app dir, _without_ changing its name,
and _without_ changing the comments IDing it as 10.10.3.
NB this was not in the Applications dir, but a completely
separate one (/Uninstalled Software).

  This is somewhat similar to 10.9 finding runnable
  programs anywhere in a filesystem, and offering to
  or actually running them, even when that is not the
  wanted behavior.  If anyone's figured out how to
  croak that, I'd love to hear about it.

So..  I get, to the fullest extent possible, all the
tools I need from the developer web site.  Sadly, less
and less of them are being made available there.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number
0
billy
9/22/2015 10:11:27 PM
In article <mttslv$ghf$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 9/23/2015 12:25 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <d6epusF38r7U9@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> > <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> >>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >>>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> >>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
> >>>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
> >>>>> better...
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
> >>>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
> >>>> right?
> >>>
> >>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
> >>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
> >>
> >> Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
> >> said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
> >> has not. Anything beyond that is your silly creation from your own silly
> >> head.  For this "crime", you label me an "iCultist". You're making
> >> yourself look like quite the fool, with no help from me. Keep trolling.
> >> Haters gonna hate.
> >
> > We refuse to join his Apple bashing; therefore, we're "iCultist".
> 
> You accept in Apple what you equate to "murder" in others, all the while 
> calling those who point this out "hypocrites."  Complete with you 
> snipping and ignoring all inconvenient facts.  Therefore you are an 
> iCultist worshiping at the alter of St. Steve.
> 
I omitted no relevant facts, liar.  You bigots are all alike:  lying
pieces of festering detritus.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 9/22/2015 11:37 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <V_2dnfY8eZw5_5zLnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
>>> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>>
>> Is that arrogance or foolishness?
>>
>> Sometimes the distinction is very narrow.
>
> Notice how he rails about Apple being able to do something, but that
> Apple has not done, but completely ignores the fact that Google has
> actually done it?

I didn't know Google had done it.  Googling the subject brought up two 
worthless free apps that Google deleted in 2010, because they misled users:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365651,00.asp

> And how he falsely claims that Apple spies on its users?

Where did I claim that?

> Best thing to do is ignore this troll.

It seems like you ought to ignore yourself...

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 1:36:34 AM
On 9/22/2015 1:25 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-22, A.M <> wrote:
>> On 2015-09-22 10:16 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-22 02:50, Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>>>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
>>>> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>>>
>>> Is that arrogance or foolishness?
>>
>> Foolishness. Nobody routinely posts evidence of his retardation on
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy. In this case, Apple is giving itself the right
>> to delete malware from a user's device. If it weren't malware, then yes
>> Apple would be doing something wrong by removing content a user
>> explicitly chose to install but in this case, it's helping the user out.
>
> Please note that Apple hasn't actually done this - we are simply talking
> about it and hoping they will do it. To my knowledge, there hasn't been
> confirmation that Apple has *ever* done it.

In researching this, I've found that Google, Microsoft, and Apple all 
have the ability to remotely disable and delete apps on your phone.

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 1:44:46 AM
On 9/22/2015 1:20 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-22, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>
>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>
>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?
>
> Yep, an so can Google. The difference is Apple hasn't ever done it
> before yet Google has. If you knew what you were talking about you'd
> know this already.

I Googled it.   Google did it with two apps back in 2010.  Worthless 
free apps that misled their customers.   Since you imply you do know 
what you're talking about, you must have committed a lie of omission to 
trump up what you're saying about Google.

>> I'm sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware
>> than just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>
> Ignorant DROIDbois are quite silly.

Sorry to hear that.  I don't have an Android phone.

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 1:54:14 AM
On 2015-09-22 02:50:41 -0400, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:

> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-09-21, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the store. And
>>>>>> XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>>>>>> fishy?
>>>>> 
>>>>> First thing they should have noticed was getting the Xcode from a
>>>>> different source don't you think?
>>>> 
>>>> The normal way to get Xcode is through the App Store application on your
>>>> computer. Downloading it this way ensures it is from Apple. Developers
>>>> had to go out of their way to get it from untrusted sources instead.
>>>> 
>>>> Then, developers who downloaded this illegitimate Xcode installer also
>>>> saw a Gatekeeper warning dialog box on their computer telling them that
>>>> this copy of Xcode isn't valid and is not signed by Apple and should be
>>>> replaced.
>>>> 
>>>> Then those developers had to *disable* or *bypass* Gatekeeper to allow
>>>> the application to run on their computers.
>>>> 
>>>> Blaming Apple for this level of stupidity is just plain silly. These
>>>> developers are fully responsible for their actions.
>>> 
>>> and should have their developer status terminated.
>> 
>> Agreed. They should never be allowed back into the store, IMHO.
>> That level of dangerous stupidity should not be rewarded.
>> 
>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
> 
> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm 
> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than 
> just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...

Yeah... we're glad, too.
-- 
"Didn't believe we needed to "Make America Great Again" - until I saw 
the people we're seriously considering putting on the Presidential 
ballot." - Kelly Hines 2015

0
FPP
9/23/2015 2:00:41 AM
On 9/22/15, 6:54 PM, in article mtt0o6$d0l$1@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 9/22/2015 1:20 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-09-22, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>>>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>>>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>> 
>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?
>> 
>> Yep, an so can Google. The difference is Apple hasn't ever done it
>> before yet Google has. If you knew what you were talking about you'd
>> know this already.
> 
> I Googled it.   Google did it with two apps back in 2010.  Worthless
> free apps that misled their customers.   Since you imply you do know
> what you're talking about, you must have committed a lie of omission to
> trump up what you're saying about Google.

What apps? I recall them doing this with a song, I think, but do not recall
any apps.

>>> I'm sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware
>>> than just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>> 
>> Ignorant DROIDbois are quite silly.
> 
> Sorry to hear that.  I don't have an Android phone.
> 



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 2:03:09 AM
On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 2015-09-22 02:50:41 -0400, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:
>
>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-21, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the
>>>>>>> store. And
>>>>>>> XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>>>>>>> fishy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First thing they should have noticed was getting the Xcode from a
>>>>>> different source don't you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> The normal way to get Xcode is through the App Store application on
>>>>> your
>>>>> computer. Downloading it this way ensures it is from Apple. Developers
>>>>> had to go out of their way to get it from untrusted sources instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, developers who downloaded this illegitimate Xcode installer also
>>>>> saw a Gatekeeper warning dialog box on their computer telling them
>>>>> that
>>>>> this copy of Xcode isn't valid and is not signed by Apple and
>>>>> should be
>>>>> replaced.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then those developers had to *disable* or *bypass* Gatekeeper to allow
>>>>> the application to run on their computers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Blaming Apple for this level of stupidity is just plain silly. These
>>>>> developers are fully responsible for their actions.
>>>>
>>>> and should have their developer status terminated.
>>>
>>> Agreed. They should never be allowed back into the store, IMHO.
>>> That level of dangerous stupidity should not be rewarded.
>>>
>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>
>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than
>> just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>
> Yeah... we're glad, too.

Really?  Why?  Are you an Apple, Inc. employee?
0
Nobody
9/23/2015 2:10:10 AM
On 9/22/2015 11:28 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtqto2$sm3$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
>> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>
> Don't be an Android customer in that case.

Or a Microsoft customer.

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 2:16:25 AM
On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 1:20 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-09-22, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>>>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>>>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>>
>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?
>>
>> Yep, an so can Google. The difference is Apple hasn't ever done it
>> before yet Google has. If you knew what you were talking about you'd
>> know this already.
>
> I Googled it.

Um, congrats?

> Google did it with two apps back in 2010.  Worthless free apps that
> misled their customers.   Since you imply you do know what you're
> talking about, you must have committed a lie of omission to trump up
> what you're saying about Google.

I haven't trumped up anything. The fact is Google has removed apps from
user's devices while Apple has not. That's no lie.

>>> I'm sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware
>>> than just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>>
>> Ignorant DROIDbois are quite silly.
>
> Sorry to hear that.  I don't have an Android phone.

Congratulations yet again.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 2:28:16 AM
On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 2015-09-22 02:50:41 -0400, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:
>>
>>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-21, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> In article <d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>>>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>>>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>>
>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than
>>> just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>>
>> Yeah... we're glad, too.
>
> Really?  Why?  Are you an Apple, Inc. employee?

One doesn't have to be an Apple employee to be thankful Apple is doing a
good job of looking out for its customers.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 2:29:35 AM
On 9/22/2015 11:52 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <91777a714f0d3c05732c6cc8035a09ba@remailer.cpunk.us>, Jack
> Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote:
>
>>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>>>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than just
>>>> rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>>>
>>> apple said they would remove an app only in extreme situations. no such
>>> situation has occurred yet.
>>>
>>> google can also delete apps from android devices for the same reason,
>>> but unlike apple, google *has* removed some apps.
>>
>>    Doesn't make any difference.
>
> yes it does.
>
> you can't bash only apple for having the ability when google *also* has
> the ability *and* has used it whereas apple has *not*.
>
> that makes google a bigger offender than apple.

Microsoft, Google and Apple all have this ability, and I don't like it 
in any of them.

Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled 
customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much 
better...
0
Nobody
9/23/2015 2:32:16 AM
On 9/22/2015 9:29 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-22 02:50:41 -0400, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-09-21, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>>>>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>>>>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>>>
>>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>>>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than
>>>> just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>>>
>>> Yeah... we're glad, too.
>>
>> Really?  Why?  Are you an Apple, Inc. employee?
>
> One doesn't have to be an Apple employee to be thankful Apple is doing a
> good job of looking out for its customers.

You don't seem to be following the discussion.  Give it another try.

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 2:33:32 AM
On 9/22/2015 9:28 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 9/22/2015 1:20 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-22, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>>>>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>>>>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>>>
>>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?
>>>
>>> Yep, an so can Google. The difference is Apple hasn't ever done it
>>> before yet Google has. If you knew what you were talking about you'd
>>> know this already.
>>
>> I Googled it.
>
> Um, congrats?

Thanks!

>> Google did it with two apps back in 2010.  Worthless free apps that
>> misled their customers.   Since you imply you do know what you're
>> talking about, you must have committed a lie of omission to trump up
>> what you're saying about Google.
>
> I haven't trumped up anything. The fact is Google has removed apps from
> user's devices while Apple has not. That's no lie.

You're trumping up a triviality.  You're leaving out it was two 
worthless apps in 2010.  That's called a lie of omission.  You're making 
it seem like it's lots of apps on an ongoing basis.

>>>> I'm sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware
>>>> than just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>>>
>>> Ignorant DROIDbois are quite silly.
>>
>> Sorry to hear that.  I don't have an Android phone.
>
> Congratulations yet again.

Thanks yet again!   Now you do something that deserves congratulations...

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 2:37:39 AM
On 23 Sep 2015 02:29:35 GMT
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> > On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, FPP wrote:
> >> On 2015-09-22 02:50:41 -0400, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:
> >>
> >>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>>> On 2015-09-21, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>> In article <d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> >>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App
> >>>> Store; but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted
> >>>> the offending apps from all iOS devices as well.
> >>>
> >>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?
> >>> I'm sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk
> >>> malware than just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
> >>
> >> Yeah... we're glad, too.
> >
> > Really?  Why?  Are you an Apple, Inc. employee?
> 
> One doesn't have to be an Apple employee to be thankful Apple is
> doing a good job of looking out for its customers.
> 

Ahahahhahahahahha, why is this crossposted to iCultist group anyway?
0
Melzzzzz
9/23/2015 2:38:52 AM
On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> You're trumping up a triviality.  You're leaving out it was two 
> worthless apps in 2010.  That's called a lie of omission.  You're making 
> it seem like it's lots of apps on an ongoing basis.

Bullshit. I said nothing about which apps because I didn't care to know
which apps Google removed. I recall seeing the headline, and that's
about it. I also didn't say it was happening on an ongoing basis. You're
the one lying here.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 2:45:59 AM
On 2015-09-23, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On 23 Sep 2015 02:29:35 GMT
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> > On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, FPP wrote:
>> >> On 2015-09-22 02:50:41 -0400, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:
>> >>
>> >>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> >>>> On 2015-09-21, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>> >>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App
>> >>>> Store; but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted
>> >>>> the offending apps from all iOS devices as well.
>> >>>
>> >>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?
>> >>> I'm sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk
>> >>> malware than just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>> >>
>> >> Yeah... we're glad, too.
>> >
>> > Really?  Why?  Are you an Apple, Inc. employee?
>> 
>> One doesn't have to be an Apple employee to be thankful Apple is
>> doing a good job of looking out for its customers.
>
> Ahahahhahahahahha, why is this crossposted to iCultist group anyway?

Because the OP saw fit to cross post it as a troll. He does it
frequently. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 2:47:08 AM
In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> > you can't bash only apple for having the ability when google *also* has
> > the ability *and* has used it whereas apple has *not*.
> >
> > that makes google a bigger offender than apple.
> 
> Microsoft, Google and Apple all have this ability, and I don't like it 
> in any of them.

the main reason is because a malicious app can fuck up the entire
cellular phone system, whether or not they have a smartphone.

you don't have to like it but that means you won't be using a mobile
device.

> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled 
> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much 
> better...

apple has deleted zero.

the ability is for an emergency situation, not for routine deletes.
0
nospam
9/23/2015 2:48:15 AM
On 9/22/2015 9:45 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> You're trumping up a triviality.  You're leaving out it was two
>> worthless apps in 2010.  That's called a lie of omission.  You're making
>> it seem like it's lots of apps on an ongoing basis.
>
> Bullshit. I said nothing about which apps because I didn't care to know
> which apps Google removed. I recall seeing the headline, and that's
> about it.

You went just deep enough to make Google seem bad.  Never mind it was a 
trivial matter.

> I also didn't say it was happening on an ongoing basis.

You implied it.

> You're the one lying here.

Nope.

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 3:22:25 AM
In article <mtt0o6$d0l$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 9/22/2015 1:20 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > On 2015-09-22, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
> >>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
> >>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
> >>
> >> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?
> >
> > Yep, an so can Google. The difference is Apple hasn't ever done it
> > before yet Google has. If you knew what you were talking about you'd
> > know this already.
> 
> I Googled it.   Google did it with two apps back in 2010.  Worthless 
> free apps that misled their customers.   Since you imply you do know 
> what you're talking about, you must have committed a lie of omission to 
> trump up what you're saying about Google.

He said that Google has removed apps from phones, and your research
confirmed that Google did exactly that.  So exactly how did he lie,
even by omission?
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 4:16:48 AM
In article <mtt39j$h06$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> >> Google did it with two apps back in 2010.  Worthless free apps that
> >> misled their customers.   Since you imply you do know what you're
> >> talking about, you must have committed a lie of omission to trump up
> >> what you're saying about Google.
> >
> > I haven't trumped up anything. The fact is Google has removed apps from
> > user's devices while Apple has not. That's no lie.
> 
> You're trumping up a triviality.  You're leaving out it was two 
> worthless apps in 2010.  That's called a lie of omission.  You're making 
> it seem like it's lots of apps on an ongoing basis.

He's not making it seem like any such thing.  The fact is that you
whined that Apple is capable of doing it, even though Apple has never
done it, yet you dismiss Google's having done it as a "triviality". 
The bottom line is that you are a hypocrite.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 4:19:30 AM
In article <d6eh4fF1o53U2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
> >>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than
> >>> just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
> >>
> >> Yeah... we're glad, too.
> >
> > Really?  Why?  Are you an Apple, Inc. employee?
> 
> One doesn't have to be an Apple employee to be thankful Apple is doing a
> good job of looking out for its customers.

Actually, if one is a customer, one should be grateful for that.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 4:24:00 AM
In article <20150923043852.19416f88@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
wrote:

> Ahahahhahahahahha, why is this crossposted to iCultist group anyway?

"iCultist" n/adj.  Derogatory term used by Applephobes to describe
people who have an honest and realistic appreciation for Apple's
products.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 4:26:47 AM
On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 9:45 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> You're trumping up a triviality.  You're leaving out it was two
>>> worthless apps in 2010.  That's called a lie of omission.  You're making
>>> it seem like it's lots of apps on an ongoing basis.
>>
>> Bullshit. I said nothing about which apps because I didn't care to know
>> which apps Google removed. I recall seeing the headline, and that's
>> about it.
>
> You went just deep enough to make Google seem bad.

Nope. All I said was Google has removed apps from user's devices while
Apple hasn't. Anything beyond that is all in your head

> Never mind it was a trivial matter.

Yeah, sure, that's why you brought it up...

>> I also didn't say it was happening on an ongoing basis.
>
> You implied it.

Bullshit, you inferred it. Learn the difference. 

>> You're the one lying here.
>
> Nope.

Yep. You're the one saying I said or meant things I clearly did not.
Stop lying.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 4:28:19 AM
In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled 
> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much 
> better...

I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
right?
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 4:28:26 AM
On 2015-09-23, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <mtt0o6$d0l$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
><nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2015 1:20 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> > On 2015-09-22, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> >> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>> >>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>> >>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>> >>
>> >> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?
>> >
>> > Yep, an so can Google. The difference is Apple hasn't ever done it
>> > before yet Google has. If you knew what you were talking about you'd
>> > know this already.
>> 
>> I Googled it.   Google did it with two apps back in 2010.  Worthless 
>> free apps that misled their customers.   Since you imply you do know 
>> what you're talking about, you must have committed a lie of omission to 
>> trump up what you're saying about Google.
>
> He said that Google has removed apps from phones, and your research
> confirmed that Google did exactly that.  So exactly how did he lie,
> even by omission?

I didn't. It's all in his silly, little head.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 4:28:41 AM
On 2015-09-23, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <mtt39j$h06$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
><nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Google did it with two apps back in 2010.  Worthless free apps that
>> >> misled their customers.   Since you imply you do know what you're
>> >> talking about, you must have committed a lie of omission to trump up
>> >> what you're saying about Google.
>> >
>> > I haven't trumped up anything. The fact is Google has removed apps from
>> > user's devices while Apple has not. That's no lie.
>> 
>> You're trumping up a triviality.  You're leaving out it was two 
>> worthless apps in 2010.  That's called a lie of omission.  You're making 
>> it seem like it's lots of apps on an ongoing basis.
>
> He's not making it seem like any such thing.  The fact is that you
> whined that Apple is capable of doing it, even though Apple has never
> done it, yet you dismiss Google's having done it as a "triviality". 
> The bottom line is that you are a hypocrite.

Bingo.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 4:29:15 AM
On 9/22/15, 9:26 PM, in article 220920152126472502%michelle@michelle.org,
"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <20150923043852.19416f88@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Ahahahhahahahahha, why is this crossposted to iCultist group anyway?
> 
> "iCultist" n/adj.  Derogatory term used by Applephobes to describe
> people who have an honest and realistic appreciation for Apple's
> products.

Pretty much. I have asked in comp.os.linux.advocacy for those who use the
term to try to actually define what they mean. They cannot.

Meanwhile I have shown it is trivial to show a list of irrational /
unsupported accusations that their cult-like herd accepts almost
universally.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 4:30:36 AM
On 2015-09-23, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
><nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled 
>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much 
>> better...
>
> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
> right?

Only his Bizarro version of reality.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 4:41:26 AM
On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>> better...
>
> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
> right?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365651,00.asp

Google Remotely Deletes Android Apps

By Chloe Albanesius
June 24, 2010 05:58pm EST

Google this week removed two applications from its Android Market, and 
exercised a feature that lets the company remotely delete the apps from 
a user's phones.

Google did not reveal the names of these apps, and said only that they 
were "two free applications built by a security researcher for research 
purposes."

The apps were found to be "intentionally misrepresenting their purpose 
in order to encourage user downloads," Rich Cannings, Android security 
lead, wrote in a blog post. "But they were not designed to be used 
maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data."

As a result, they were removed from the Android Market, but also 
remotely pulled them from the phones on which they were installed.

"In cases where users may have installed a malicious application that 
poses a threat, we've also developed technologies and processes to 
remotely remove an installed application from devices," Cannings wrote. 
"If an application is removed in this way, users will receive a 
notification on their phone."

Google said, however, that these apps did not pose any threat and were 
"practically useless." Most users deleted them shortly after 
downloading, he said. The remote option, Google said, "provides a 
powerful security advantage to help protect Android users in our open 
environment."
------------------------

There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and 
moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
0
Nobody
9/23/2015 4:53:07 AM
On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>>> better...
>>
>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>> right?
>
> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and 
> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...

Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
has not. Anything beyond that is your silly creation from your own silly
head.  For this "crime", you label me an "iCultist". You're making
yourself look like quite the fool, with no help from me. Keep trolling.
Haters gonna hate.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 5:00:12 AM
On 9/22/2015 11:16 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtt0o6$d0l$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2015 1:20 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-22, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>>>>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>>>>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>>>
>>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?
>>>
>>> Yep, an so can Google. The difference is Apple hasn't ever done it
>>> before yet Google has. If you knew what you were talking about you'd
>>> know this already.
>>
>> I Googled it.   Google did it with two apps back in 2010.  Worthless
>> free apps that misled their customers.   Since you imply you do know
>> what you're talking about, you must have committed a lie of omission to
>> trump up what you're saying about Google.
>
> He said that Google has removed apps from phones, and your research
> confirmed that Google did exactly that.  So exactly how did he lie,
> even by omission?

Omission 1: didn't mention this was in 2010 only.

Omission 2: didn't mention this was only two worthless apps.

Omission 3: told me I didn't know what I was talking about, then 
admitted he only glanced at headlines.  In short, omitted the fact he is 
completely ignorant of what the issues are.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365651,00.asp

Google Remotely Deletes Android Apps

By Chloe Albanesius
June 24, 2010 05:58pm EST

Google this week removed two applications from its Android Market, and 
exercised a feature that lets the company remotely delete the apps from 
a user's phones.

Google did not reveal the names of these apps, and said only that they 
were "two free applications built by a security researcher for research 
purposes."

The apps were found to be "intentionally misrepresenting their purpose 
in order to encourage user downloads," Rich Cannings, Android security 
lead, wrote in a blog post. "But they were not designed to be used 
maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data."

As a result, they were removed from the Android Market, but also 
remotely pulled them from the phones on which they were installed.

"In cases where users may have installed a malicious application that 
poses a threat, we've also developed technologies and processes to 
remotely remove an installed application from devices," Cannings wrote. 
"If an application is removed in this way, users will receive a 
notification on their phone."

Google said, however, that these apps did not pose any threat and were 
"practically useless." Most users deleted them shortly after 
downloading, he said. The remote option, Google said, "provides a 
powerful security advantage to help protect Android users in our open 
environment."



0
Nobody
9/23/2015 5:01:26 AM
On 9/23/2015 12:00 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>>>> better...
>>>
>>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>>> right?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365651,00.asp

Google Remotely Deletes Android Apps

By Chloe Albanesius
June 24, 2010 05:58pm EST

Google this week removed two applications from its Android Market, and 
exercised a feature that lets the company remotely delete the apps from 
a user's phones.

Google did not reveal the names of these apps, and said only that they 
were "two free applications built by a security researcher for research 
purposes."

The apps were found to be "intentionally misrepresenting their purpose 
in order to encourage user downloads," Rich Cannings, Android security 
lead, wrote in a blog post. "But they were not designed to be used 
maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data."

As a result, they were removed from the Android Market, but also 
remotely pulled them from the phones on which they were installed.

"In cases where users may have installed a malicious application that 
poses a threat, we've also developed technologies and processes to 
remotely remove an installed application from devices," Cannings wrote. 
"If an application is removed in this way, users will receive a 
notification on their phone."

Google said, however, that these apps did not pose any threat and were 
"practically useless." Most users deleted them shortly after 
downloading, he said. The remote option, Google said, "provides a 
powerful security advantage to help protect Android users in our open 
environment."
------------------------

>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>
> Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
> said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
> has not.

Yes, I noted your lie of omission.

> Anything beyond that is your silly creation from your own silly
> head.  For this "crime", you label me an "iCultist". You're making
> yourself look like quite the fool, with no help from me. Keep trolling.
> Haters gonna hate.

Were you crying while you typed that?

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 5:05:24 AM
On 9/22/2015 11:26 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <20150923043852.19416f88@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ahahahhahahahahha, why is this crossposted to iCultist group anyway?
>
> "iCultist" n/adj.  Derogatory term used by Applephobes to describe
> people who have an honest and realistic appreciation for Apple's
> products.
>

"Applephobes?"

ROTFLMAO!!!!
0
Nobody
9/23/2015 5:13:48 AM
On 9/22/15, 10:00 PM, in article d6epusF38r7U9@mid.individual.net, "Jolly
Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>>>> better...
>>> 
>>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>>> right?
>> 
>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
> 
> Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
> said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
> has not. Anything beyond that is your silly creation from your own silly
> head.  For this "crime", you label me an "iCultist". You're making
> yourself look like quite the fool, with no help from me. Keep trolling.
> Haters gonna hate.

Didn't Apple remove some music at one point? Maybe not...


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 5:16:45 AM
On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 9/22/2015 9:45 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You're trumping up a triviality.  You're leaving out it was two
>>>> worthless apps in 2010.  That's called a lie of omission.  You're making
>>>> it seem like it's lots of apps on an ongoing basis.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. I said nothing about which apps because I didn't care to know
>>> which apps Google removed. I recall seeing the headline, and that's
>>> about it.
>>
>> You went just deep enough to make Google seem bad.
>
> Nope. All I said was Google has removed apps from user's devices while
> Apple hasn't. Anything beyond that is all in your head
>
>> Never mind it was a trivial matter.
>
> Yeah, sure, that's why you brought it up...

You brought up the trivial matter of two worthless apps being deleted in 
2010.  Of course since you only skimmed headlines, you had no idea what 
you were bringing up...

>>> I also didn't say it was happening on an ongoing basis.
>>
>> You implied it.
>
> Bullshit, you inferred it. Learn the difference.

The inference was from what you wrote.

>>> You're the one lying here.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Yep. You're the one saying I said or meant things I clearly did not.
> Stop lying.

You clearly wrote that Google only deleted two worthless apps in 2010, 
and none since then?   No you didn't.

"The fact is Google has removed apps from
user's devices while Apple has not."

That's the lie of omission you wrote.

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 5:23:40 AM
In article <mttb7j$bf8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> > <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
> >> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
> >> better...
> >
> > I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
> > I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
> > right?
> 
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365651,00.asp
> 
> Google Remotely Deletes Android Apps
> 
> By Chloe Albanesius
> June 24, 2010 05:58pm EST
> 
> Google this week removed two applications from its Android Market, and 
> exercised a feature that lets the company remotely delete the apps from 
> a user's phones.
> 
> Google did not reveal the names of these apps, and said only that they 
> were "two free applications built by a security researcher for research 
> purposes."
> 
> The apps were found to be "intentionally misrepresenting their purpose 
> in order to encourage user downloads," Rich Cannings, Android security 
> lead, wrote in a blog post. "But they were not designed to be used 
> maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data."
> 
> As a result, they were removed from the Android Market, but also 
> remotely pulled them from the phones on which they were installed.
> 
> "In cases where users may have installed a malicious application that 
> poses a threat, we've also developed technologies and processes to 
> remotely remove an installed application from devices," Cannings wrote. 
> "If an application is removed in this way, users will receive a 
> notification on their phone."
> 
> Google said, however, that these apps did not pose any threat and were 
> "practically useless." Most users deleted them shortly after 
> downloading, he said. The remote option, Google said, "provides a 
> powerful security advantage to help protect Android users in our open 
> environment."
> ------------------------
> 
> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and 
> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...

OK, change "murdered" to "shot in the arm".  The point that you are so
desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
ANDROID PHONES.  The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
is that Google removed them.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 5:24:18 AM
In article <d6epusF38r7U9@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> > On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> >> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
> >>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
> >>> better...
> >>
> >> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
> >> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
> >> right?
> >
> > There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and 
> > moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
> 
> Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
> said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
> has not. Anything beyond that is your silly creation from your own silly
> head.  For this "crime", you label me an "iCultist". You're making
> yourself look like quite the fool, with no help from me. Keep trolling.
> Haters gonna hate.

We refuse to join his Apple bashing; therefore, we're "iCultist".
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 5:25:17 AM
In article <mttbuk$6jv$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> > Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
> > said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
> > has not.
> 
> Yes, I noted your lie of omission.

He omitted nothing relevant.  I note your irrational Applephobia.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 5:26:26 AM
In article <mttbn6$ji0$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> > He said that Google has removed apps from phones, and your research
> > confirmed that Google did exactly that.  So exactly how did he lie,
> > even by omission?
> 
> Omission 1: didn't mention this was in 2010 only.

Irrelevant.

> Omission 2: didn't mention this was only two worthless apps.

Irrelevant.

> Omission 3: told me I didn't know what I was talking about, then 
> admitted he only glanced at headlines.  In short, omitted the fact he is 
> completely ignorant of what the issues are.

Bullshit.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 5:28:05 AM
In article <mttced$jo9$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 9/22/2015 11:26 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <20150923043852.19416f88@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ahahahhahahahahha, why is this crossposted to iCultist group anyway?
> >
> > "iCultist" n/adj.  Derogatory term used by Applephobes to describe
> > people who have an honest and realistic appreciation for Apple's
> > products.
> >
> 
> "Applephobes?"
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!


Yup, Applephobes, AKA, Apple haters, AKA anti-Apple bigots.  A perfect
description of you and your sock puppets.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 5:29:52 AM
In article <mttd0s$476$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> "The fact is Google has removed apps from
> user's devices while Apple has not."
> 
> That's the lie of omission you wrote.

Keep bleating about lies of omission; your continual stressing
irrelevancies, and your continual spamming these newsgroups with that
same article clearly show that you don't have a leg to stand on, just
like homophobes, anti-Semites, Islamaphobes, anti-Choicers, militant
atheists, Tea Partiers, etc.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 5:33:48 AM
On 9/22/15   PDT 7:28 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2015-09-22 00:17, Your Name wrote:
>> In article <slrnn01bsg.19ov.timmcn@sugaree.local>, Tim McNamara
>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>> Any Apple user not paying attention to the risk of being hacked is just
>>> as big a fool as the Android and Windows users not paying attention.
>>
>> This "problem" has absolutely nothing to do with Apple / iOS being
>> hackable anyway. It's also just another storm in a teacup / mountain
>> out of a molehill bandwagon that the anti-Apple nutters are jumping on.
>
> Regardless, iOS/OS X are targets for malware, there is malware for both.
>
> Tim's last sentence is absolutely true.
>
> Does this mean one should get anti-malware for their Mac?  That's up to
> them to decide.  I don't.  But I'm not closed to the idea.  As the
> number of active / on the web Macs increases (they're selling 20M per
> year at present) OS X becomes a greater and greater target for attack.
>
> iOS much more so.
>
> Of course the anti-Apple nutters will have their half baked say.  So what?

I think they already have. Thank you- or whomever- for trimming out the 
troll groups.
0
John
9/23/2015 5:38:12 AM
In article <D22783CD.5CC60%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> Didn't Apple remove some music at one point? Maybe not...

you may be thinking of an issue where apple's fairplay drm was hacked,
which apple *had* to fix or they risked losing the contracts with the
record companies who were forcing them to use drm at that time.

included in that fix was removing any music that had hacked drm and
*only* music with hacked drm. 

music that did *not* have the hacked drm was *not* removed, including
anything purchased from the itunes store as well as any music the user
encoded on their own and even pirated music, neither of which have any
drm at all.

again, only hacked drm songs were removed, and apple was obligated to
do so.

apple never wanted drm but the record industry wouldn't let them sell
music without it, and they pretty much called the shots. after a while
the music industry realized that online sales wasn't such a bad thing
and drm eventually went away.
0
nospam
9/23/2015 5:56:00 AM
On 9/22/15, 10:56 PM, in article 230920150156003557%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <D22783CD.5CC60%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> Didn't Apple remove some music at one point? Maybe not...
> 
> you may be thinking of an issue where apple's fairplay drm was hacked,
> which apple *had* to fix or they risked losing the contracts with the
> record companies who were forcing them to use drm at that time.
> 
> included in that fix was removing any music that had hacked drm and
> *only* music with hacked drm.

Could be. I was thinking they removed a song based just on some licensing
deal... could be wrong though.

> music that did *not* have the hacked drm was *not* removed, including
> anything purchased from the itunes store as well as any music the user
> encoded on their own and even pirated music, neither of which have any
> drm at all.
> 
> again, only hacked drm songs were removed, and apple was obligated to
> do so.
> 
> apple never wanted drm but the record industry wouldn't let them sell
> music without it, and they pretty much called the shots. after a while
> the music industry realized that online sales wasn't such a bad thing
> and drm eventually went away.

That I recall. Apple had a large open letter about DRM.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 6:16:07 AM
On 2015-09-23 02:10:10 +0000, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:

> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 2015-09-22 02:50:41 -0400, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:
>> 
>>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-21, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> In article <d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the
>>>>>>>> store. And
>>>>>>>> XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>>>>>>>> fishy?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> First thing they should have noticed was getting the Xcode from a
>>>>>>> different source don't you think?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The normal way to get Xcode is through the App Store application on
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> computer. Downloading it this way ensures it is from Apple. Developers
>>>>>> had to go out of their way to get it from untrusted sources instead.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Then, developers who downloaded this illegitimate Xcode installer also
>>>>>> saw a Gatekeeper warning dialog box on their computer telling them
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> this copy of Xcode isn't valid and is not signed by Apple and
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> replaced.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Then those developers had to *disable* or *bypass* Gatekeeper to allow
>>>>>> the application to run on their computers.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Blaming Apple for this level of stupidity is just plain silly. These
>>>>>> developers are fully responsible for their actions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> and should have their developer status terminated.
>>>> 
>>>> Agreed. They should never be allowed back into the store, IMHO.
>>>> That level of dangerous stupidity should not be rewarded.
>>>> 
>>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>>>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>>>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>> 
>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than
>>> just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>> 
>> Yeah... we're glad, too.
> 
> Really?  Why?  Are you an Apple, Inc. employee?

I like to think we keep the collective Apple user IQ higher that way...
-- 
Q: How do you know when <NoBody@nowhere.com> is lying?  A: Ubiquitous 
<weberm@polaris.net> fingers are moving.
<NoBody@nowhere.com> reveals himself and Klaus Schadenfreude 
<klausschadenfreude@null.net> to be sockpuppets of sickpuppy Ubiquitous 
<weberm@polaris.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=142705573800
http://fc00.deviantart.net/images3/i/2004/181/4/a/The_Lurking_Sock_Puppet.jpg

0
FPP
9/23/2015 8:15:21 AM
FPP wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 02:10:10 +0000, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:
> 
>> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-22 02:50:41 -0400, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:
>>> 
>>>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-09-21, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the
>>>>>>>>> store. And
>>>>>>>>> XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>>>>>>>>> fishy?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> First thing they should have noticed was getting the Xcode from a
>>>>>>>> different source don't you think?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The normal way to get Xcode is through the App Store application on
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> computer. Downloading it this way ensures it is from Apple.
>>>>>>> Developers had to go out of their way to get it from untrusted
>>>>>>> sources instead.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Then, developers who downloaded this illegitimate Xcode installer
>>>>>>> also saw a Gatekeeper warning dialog box on their computer telling
>>>>>>> them that
>>>>>>> this copy of Xcode isn't valid and is not signed by Apple and
>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>> replaced.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Then those developers had to *disable* or *bypass* Gatekeeper to
>>>>>>> allow the application to run on their computers.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Blaming Apple for this level of stupidity is just plain silly. These
>>>>>>> developers are fully responsible for their actions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> and should have their developer status terminated.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Agreed. They should never be allowed back into the store, IMHO.
>>>>> That level of dangerous stupidity should not be rewarded.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App
>>>>> Store; but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the
>>>>> offending apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>>> 
>>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>>>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than
>>>> just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>>> 
>>> Yeah... we're glad, too.
>> 
>> Really?  Why?  Are you an Apple, Inc. employee?
> 
> I like to think we keep the collective Apple user IQ higher that way...

I don't think there is anything to "keep". Higher or not
0
Peter
9/23/2015 9:25:19 AM
On 9/23/2015 12:26 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mttbuk$6jv$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
>>> said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
>>> has not.
>>
>> Yes, I noted your lie of omission.
>
> He omitted nothing relevant.  I note your irrational Applephobia.

Have some more Kool-Aid.

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 9:47:11 AM
On 9/23/2015 12:25 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <d6epusF38r7U9@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>>>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>>>>> better...
>>>>
>>>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>>>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>>
>> Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
>> said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
>> has not. Anything beyond that is your silly creation from your own silly
>> head.  For this "crime", you label me an "iCultist". You're making
>> yourself look like quite the fool, with no help from me. Keep trolling.
>> Haters gonna hate.
>
> We refuse to join his Apple bashing; therefore, we're "iCultist".

You accept in Apple what you equate to "murder" in others, all the while 
calling those who point this out "hypocrites."  Complete with you 
snipping and ignoring all inconvenient facts.  Therefore you are an 
iCultist worshiping at the alter of St. Steve.

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 9:50:55 AM
On 9/23/2015 12:56 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <D22783CD.5CC60%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Didn't Apple remove some music at one point? Maybe not...
>
> you may be thinking of an issue where apple's fairplay drm was hacked,
> which apple *had* to fix or they risked losing the contracts with the
> record companies who were forcing them to use drm at that time.
>
> included in that fix was removing any music that had hacked drm and
> *only* music with hacked drm.
>
> music that did *not* have the hacked drm was *not* removed, including
> anything purchased from the itunes store as well as any music the user
> encoded on their own and even pirated music, neither of which have any
> drm at all.
>
> again, only hacked drm songs were removed, and apple was obligated to
> do so.
>
> apple never wanted drm but the record industry wouldn't let them sell
> music without it, and they pretty much called the shots. after a while
> the music industry realized that online sales wasn't such a bad thing
> and drm eventually went away.

So Apple has removed things from their customers phones without 
permission, in spite of iCultist claims "they can do it but never have." 
  The "Apple didn't want to do it, the big meanies made them" is the 
type of hilarity everybody has come to expect from iCultists...

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 9:54:39 AM
On 9/23/2015 12:24 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mttb7j$bf8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>>>> better...
>>>
>>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>>> right?
>>
>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365651,00.asp
>>
>> Google Remotely Deletes Android Apps
>>
>> By Chloe Albanesius
>> June 24, 2010 05:58pm EST
>>
>> Google this week removed two applications from its Android Market, and
>> exercised a feature that lets the company remotely delete the apps from
>> a user's phones.
>>
>> Google did not reveal the names of these apps, and said only that they
>> were "two free applications built by a security researcher for research
>> purposes."
>>
>> The apps were found to be "intentionally misrepresenting their purpose
>> in order to encourage user downloads," Rich Cannings, Android security
>> lead, wrote in a blog post. "But they were not designed to be used
>> maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data."
>>
>> As a result, they were removed from the Android Market, but also
>> remotely pulled them from the phones on which they were installed.
>>
>> "In cases where users may have installed a malicious application that
>> poses a threat, we've also developed technologies and processes to
>> remotely remove an installed application from devices," Cannings wrote.
>> "If an application is removed in this way, users will receive a
>> notification on their phone."
>>
>> Google said, however, that these apps did not pose any threat and were
>> "practically useless." Most users deleted them shortly after
>> downloading, he said. The remote option, Google said, "provides a
>> powerful security advantage to help protect Android users in our open
>> environment."
>> ------------------------
>>
>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>
> OK, change "murdered" to "shot in the arm".

You didn't save any face that way.

> The point that you are so
> desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
> APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
> ANDROID PHONES.

I'm obfuscating with facts and truth?  You iCultists are a strange bunch 
indeed.

> The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
> is that Google removed them.

It's not irrelevant at all.  Google removed them for the same reasons 
Apple has a kill switch in the first place.  But they removed nothing of 
consequence.

Google never removed music from owners phones without permission. 
Apple did.  Oh, no!  We found skeletons in Apple's closet... I wonder 
how many "murdered people" are in there... or where they just "shot in 
the arm?"
0
Nobody
9/23/2015 10:02:08 AM
On 2015-09-23 10:02:08 +0000, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:

> On 9/23/2015 12:24 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <mttb7j$bf8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>>>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>>>>> better...
>>>> 
>>>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>>>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>>>> right?
>>> 
>>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365651,00.asp
>>> 
>>> Google Remotely Deletes Android Apps
>>> 
>>> By Chloe Albanesius
>>> June 24, 2010 05:58pm EST
>>> 
>>> Google this week removed two applications from its Android Market, and
>>> exercised a feature that lets the company remotely delete the apps from
>>> a user's phones.
>>> 
>>> Google did not reveal the names of these apps, and said only that they
>>> were "two free applications built by a security researcher for research
>>> purposes."
>>> 
>>> The apps were found to be "intentionally misrepresenting their purpose
>>> in order to encourage user downloads," Rich Cannings, Android security
>>> lead, wrote in a blog post. "But they were not designed to be used
>>> maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data."
>>> 
>>> As a result, they were removed from the Android Market, but also
>>> remotely pulled them from the phones on which they were installed.
>>> 
>>> "In cases where users may have installed a malicious application that
>>> poses a threat, we've also developed technologies and processes to
>>> remotely remove an installed application from devices," Cannings wrote.
>>> "If an application is removed in this way, users will receive a
>>> notification on their phone."
>>> 
>>> Google said, however, that these apps did not pose any threat and were
>>> "practically useless." Most users deleted them shortly after
>>> downloading, he said. The remote option, Google said, "provides a
>>> powerful security advantage to help protect Android users in our open
>>> environment."
>>> ------------------------
>>> 
>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>> 
>> OK, change "murdered" to "shot in the arm".
> 
> You didn't save any face that way.
> 
>> The point that you are so
>> desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
>> APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
>> ANDROID PHONES.
> 
> I'm obfuscating with facts and truth?  You iCultists are a strange 
> bunch indeed.
> 
>> The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
>> is that Google removed them.
> 
> It's not irrelevant at all.  Google removed them for the same reasons 
> Apple has a kill switch in the first place.  But they removed nothing 
> of consequence.
> 
> Google never removed music from owners phones without permission. Apple 
> did.  Oh, no!  We found skeletons in Apple's closet... I wonder how 
> many "murdered people" are in there... or where they just "shot in the 
> arm?"

Oh, shut the fuck up.

You don't use Apple products, but you appear to be overly concerned 
with Apple's abilities.

Why don't you shuffle off and go troll a Linux group for a while...

I certainly can't be bothered "debating" anything with you - which is 
why I haven't.

You're the classic troll.  Killfiles were invented with you in mind.  Welcome.
-- 
"Don't Believe Everything You Read on the Internet" -Albert Einstein

0
FPP
9/23/2015 10:28:14 AM
On 09/23/2015 02:28 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mttbn6$ji0$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> He said that Google has removed apps from phones, and your research
>>> confirmed that Google did exactly that.  So exactly how did he lie,
>>> even by omission?
>>
>> Omission 1: didn't mention this was in 2010 only.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> Omission 2: didn't mention this was only two worthless apps.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> Omission 3: told me I didn't know what I was talking about, then
>> admitted he only glanced at headlines.  In short, omitted the fact he is
>> completely ignorant of what the issues are.
>
> Bullshit.
>

This back and forth is distracting us from the core issue, that being 
Apple miserably failed to keep the lemmings in the walled garden safe. 
If one serious threat has been uncovered, probably there are many 
lurking under the surface.  Apple has taken a serious hit to its 
pristine image as a result will probably build a higher wall for the garden.

Icultists and other android haters have taken every opportunity to 
denounce android as being very prone to malware attacks. Probably, a 
valid case could be made concerning the issue simply because android is 
more open in nature.  Android devices are a lot easier to root and 
side-load apps from other sources not approved by Google.

There is a lot of the FUD published in the media on a constant basis on 
how a android devices can be compromised. A series of unusual tasks have 
to be performed on the device, which anybody in their right mind will 
not do.  My android phone of 2 ½ years has been doing just fine with a 
handful of useful apps from Google play.


0
sbd
9/23/2015 12:12:39 PM
In message <220920152224189621%michelle@michelle.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <mttb7j$bf8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> > In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> > <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>> >> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>> >> better...
>> >
>> > I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>> > I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>> > right?
>> 
>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365651,00.asp
>> 
>> Google Remotely Deletes Android Apps
>> 
>> By Chloe Albanesius
>> June 24, 2010 05:58pm EST
>> 
>> Google this week removed two applications from its Android Market, and 
>> exercised a feature that lets the company remotely delete the apps from 
>> a user's phones.
>> 
>> Google did not reveal the names of these apps, and said only that they 
>> were "two free applications built by a security researcher for research 
>> purposes."
>> 
>> The apps were found to be "intentionally misrepresenting their purpose 
>> in order to encourage user downloads," Rich Cannings, Android security 
>> lead, wrote in a blog post. "But they were not designed to be used 
>> maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data."
>> 
>> As a result, they were removed from the Android Market, but also 
>> remotely pulled them from the phones on which they were installed.
>> 
>> "In cases where users may have installed a malicious application that 
>> poses a threat, we've also developed technologies and processes to 
>> remotely remove an installed application from devices," Cannings wrote. 
>> "If an application is removed in this way, users will receive a 
>> notification on their phone."
>> 
>> Google said, however, that these apps did not pose any threat and were 
>> "practically useless." Most users deleted them shortly after 
>> downloading, he said. The remote option, Google said, "provides a 
>> powerful security advantage to help protect Android users in our open 
>> environment."
>> ------------------------
>> 
>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and 
>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...

> OK, change "murdered" to "shot in the arm".  The point that you are so
> desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
> APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
> ANDROID PHONES.  The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
> is that Google removed them.

Facts? Are you trying to argue facts with a shithead troll?

As you said in another post, he's just another variation on fundie
zealot, and thus immune to facts.


-- 
"I don't care if Bill Gates is the world's biggest philanthropist. The
pain he has inflicted on the world in the past 20 years through lousy
products easily outweighs any good he has done.... Apple is as arrogant
as Microsoft but at least its stuff works as advertised" - Graem Philipson
0
Lewis
9/23/2015 12:42:01 PM
On 2015-09-23 01:38, John McWilliams wrote:
> On 9/22/15   PDT 7:28 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2015-09-22 00:17, Your Name wrote:
>>> In article <slrnn01bsg.19ov.timmcn@sugaree.local>, Tim McNamara
>>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Any Apple user not paying attention to the risk of being hacked is just
>>>> as big a fool as the Android and Windows users not paying attention.
>>>
>>> This "problem" has absolutely nothing to do with Apple / iOS being
>>> hackable anyway. It's also just another storm in a teacup / mountain
>>> out of a molehill bandwagon that the anti-Apple nutters are jumping on.
>>
>> Regardless, iOS/OS X are targets for malware, there is malware for both.
>>
>> Tim's last sentence is absolutely true.
>>
>> Does this mean one should get anti-malware for their Mac?  That's up to
>> them to decide.  I don't.  But I'm not closed to the idea.  As the
>> number of active / on the web Macs increases (they're selling 20M per
>> year at present) OS X becomes a greater and greater target for attack.
>>
>> iOS much more so.
>>
>> Of course the anti-Apple nutters will have their half baked say.  So
>> what?
>
> I think they already have. Thank you- or whomever- for trimming out the
> troll groups.

Wasn't me - I rarely trim out groups unless they're racist/hate groups.
0
Alan
9/23/2015 1:02:23 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > [trolling deleted]
> > 
> > Nope, again, that's all in your head.... You're making
> > yourself look like quite the fool, with no help from me. 
> > Keep trolling.  Haters gonna hate.
> 
> We refuse to join his Apple bashing; therefore, we're "iCultist".

Unfortunately, said disagreement is merely feeding the troll
the attention that they crave.

This particular troll spent some time in <comp.sys.mac.advocacy> 
before moving on to <comp.os.linux.advocacy> and is now trying to
infect <comp.sys.mac.system> through the crossposts.

The most permanent solution would probably be a bullet.  For 
anyone who wants to go that route, I'll volunteer to collect
to reimburse their ammo expenses...but not their lawyer ;-) 

On the topic, the OP's subject line makes a false flag claim
in order to try to troll and make this OEM's clean-up efforts
appear to be insignificant and worthless/etc.  

The reality is that no one is doing better, particularly since
the competitors do have similar tools to employ for proactive 
disinfection being pushed to users, with some (eg, Google) having
already chosen to employ this 'Nuclear Option' for when their
normal cultivation of their Apps garden has failed them. 


-hh
0
hh
9/23/2015 1:19:22 PM
On 2015-09-23 12:16 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtt0o6$d0l$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/22/2015 1:20 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-22, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App Store;
>>>>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>>>>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>>>
>>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?
>>>
>>> Yep, an so can Google. The difference is Apple hasn't ever done it
>>> before yet Google has. If you knew what you were talking about you'd
>>> know this already.
>>
>> I Googled it.   Google did it with two apps back in 2010.  Worthless 
>> free apps that misled their customers.   Since you imply you do know 
>> what you're talking about, you must have committed a lie of omission to 
>> trump up what you're saying about Google.
> 
> He said that Google has removed apps from phones, and your research
> confirmed that Google did exactly that.  So exactly how did he lie,
> even by omission?

Anything which shows Google to be a tyrannical corporation is
automatically a lie according to the Linux advocates. Since Google is
Linux's only friend with a healthy economic portfolio, it's very
important for them to protect it from the truth.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 2:01:50 PM
On 2015-09-23 1:16 AM, Snit wrote:
> On 9/22/15, 10:00 PM, in article d6epusF38r7U9@mid.individual.net, "Jolly
> Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>>>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>>>>> better...
>>>>
>>>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>>>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>>
>> Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
>> said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
>> has not. Anything beyond that is your silly creation from your own silly
>> head.  For this "crime", you label me an "iCultist". You're making
>> yourself look like quite the fool, with no help from me. Keep trolling.
>> Haters gonna hate.
> 
> Didn't Apple remove some music at one point? Maybe not...

They forced U2's latest album on everyone. Amazon was guilty of removing
Nineteen Eighty-Four from people's Kindles.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 2:04:26 PM
On 2015-09-23 1:28 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mttbn6$ji0$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>>> He said that Google has removed apps from phones, and your research
>>> confirmed that Google did exactly that.  So exactly how did he lie,
>>> even by omission?
>>
>> Omission 1: didn't mention this was in 2010 only.
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
>> Omission 2: didn't mention this was only two worthless apps.
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
>> Omission 3: told me I didn't know what I was talking about, then 
>> admitted he only glanced at headlines.  In short, omitted the fact he is 
>> completely ignorant of what the issues are.
> 
> Bullshit.

Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
than capable of providing them with it.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 2:05:16 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Nobody wrote:
>> 
>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and 
>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>
>OK, change "murdered" to "shot in the arm".  The point that you are so
>desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
>APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
>ANDROID PHONES.  The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
>is that Google removed them.

I have to agree.  Nobody's zealous attack on Apple is unfair, and his
arguments evasive.

I'm as much for owners having control of their devices as anyone.  But
where an application is known to be destructive, I think they (Apple
or Google) should have the ability to delete it.

-- 
'OF COURSE it is centrally regulated. Duh. Its called Government and
curriculum.  We realise you're a new FOSS "figurehead" but TRY to
think before making an arse of yourself AGAIN.'  -  "True Linux
advocate" Hadron Quark, claiming that schools and teachers should not
be allowed to deviate from the "standard" (Microsoft, of course)
software that is dicatated to them by centralized authorities
0
chrisv
9/23/2015 2:25:24 PM
In article <mttssv$gs9$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> So Apple has removed things from their customers phones without 
> permission, in spite of iCultist claims "they can do it but never have." 

The fact remains that Apple never removed any *apps*, which is what we
were discussing.  We were not discussing music, you dumbshit.

>   The "Apple didn't want to do it, the big meanies made them" is the 
> type of hilarity everybody has come to expect from iCultists...

When Apple wanted to sell music through the iTunes Music Store (as it
was called then), the record companies wouldn't sign up unless the
music was DRM protected; even a nincompoop like you should be able to
understand that.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 3:32:50 PM
In article <mttseu$g1s$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 9/23/2015 12:26 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <mttbuk$6jv$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> > <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
> >>> said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
> >>> has not.
> >>
> >> Yes, I noted your lie of omission.
> >
> > He omitted nothing relevant.  I note your irrational Applephobia.
> 
> Have some more Kool-Aid.
> 
What Kool-Aid?  You drank it all.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 3:34:52 PM
In article <mtttb0$hqg$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> > The point that you are so
> > desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
> > APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
> > ANDROID PHONES.
> 
> I'm obfuscating with facts and truth?  You iCultists are a strange bunch 
> indeed.

irrelevant facts that do not disprove what we have said, bigot.

> > The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
> > is that Google removed them.
> 
> It's not irrelevant at all.  Google removed them for the same reasons 
> Apple has a kill switch in the first place.  But they removed nothing
> of consequence.

The fact is that Google removed them, whereas Apple has never removed
any Apps.  Your red herring doesn't work here, bigot.

> Google never removed music from owners phones without permission. 
> Apple did.

Yup, music that Apple had a legal responsibility to remove.  I
understand that "legal" and "responsibility" are not in your lexicon,
so go ahead an look them up, bigot.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 3:41:38 PM
In article <mttuo9$pph$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Don't Believe Everything You Read on the Internet" -Albert Einstein

I believe that Abraham Lincoln said it first.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 3:42:30 PM
In article <mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
> than capable of providing them with it.

*blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
logic, and reality.

I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 3:45:19 PM
On 2015-09-23 11:32 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mttssv$gs9$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> So Apple has removed things from their customers phones without 
>> permission, in spite of iCultist claims "they can do it but never have." 
> 
> The fact remains that Apple never removed any *apps*, which is what we
> were discussing.  We were not discussing music, you dumbshit.
>
>>   The "Apple didn't want to do it, the big meanies made them" is the 
>> type of hilarity everybody has come to expect from iCultists...
> 
> When Apple wanted to sell music through the iTunes Music Store (as it
> was called then), the record companies wouldn't sign up unless the
> music was DRM protected; even a nincompoop like you should be able to
> understand that.
]
Nobody understand absolutely nothing. It's just a matter of time before
he defends his general idiocy by calling you "Snit."

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 3:52:58 PM
On 2015-09-23 11:45 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>> than capable of providing them with it.
> 
> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
> logic, and reality.

Wretched Stallman and his team of GNU superheroes haven't come up with
an application to reliably deal with facts, logic and reality yet.

> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.

Please don't. I rather enjoy watching Nobody make an ass of himself.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 3:54:48 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:

> slime wrote:
>>
>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>> than capable of providing them with it.

Fsck you, lying slime.

>*blush*  Thank you.  

If you only knew with a filthy lying bastard "A.M" (formerly known as
"Slimer") is, you would now be running for the shower.

>Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts, logic, and reality.

Not "they".  ONE person, "Nobody", is arguing with you.

>I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.

You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
upon the actions of ONE person.

-- 
"We might not know each other directly but I personally would have
liked to have Snit as a real friend."  -  "Slimer", AKA "A.M"
0
chrisv
9/23/2015 4:11:24 PM
On 9/23/15, 2:54 AM, in article mttssv$gs9$1@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 9/23/2015 12:56 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <D22783CD.5CC60%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Didn't Apple remove some music at one point? Maybe not...
>> 
>> you may be thinking of an issue where apple's fairplay drm was hacked,
>> which apple *had* to fix or they risked losing the contracts with the
>> record companies who were forcing them to use drm at that time.
>> 
>> included in that fix was removing any music that had hacked drm and
>> *only* music with hacked drm.
>> 
>> music that did *not* have the hacked drm was *not* removed, including
>> anything purchased from the itunes store as well as any music the user
>> encoded on their own and even pirated music, neither of which have any
>> drm at all.
>> 
>> again, only hacked drm songs were removed, and apple was obligated to
>> do so.
>> 
>> apple never wanted drm but the record industry wouldn't let them sell
>> music without it, and they pretty much called the shots. after a while
>> the music industry realized that online sales wasn't such a bad thing
>> and drm eventually went away.
> 
> So Apple has removed things from their customers phones without
> permission, in spite of iCultist claims "they can do it but never have."
>   The "Apple didn't want to do it, the big meanies made them" is the
> type of hilarity everybody has come to expect from iCultists...
> 

Good to see you do not think I am an iCultist.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 4:14:31 PM
On 9/23/15, 8:52 AM, in article mtuhp2$5d6$4@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 11:32 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <mttssv$gs9$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> So Apple has removed things from their customers phones without
>>> permission, in spite of iCultist claims "they can do it but never have."
>> 
>> The fact remains that Apple never removed any *apps*, which is what we
>> were discussing.  We were not discussing music, you dumbshit.
>> 
>>>   The "Apple didn't want to do it, the big meanies made them" is the
>>> type of hilarity everybody has come to expect from iCultists...
>> 
>> When Apple wanted to sell music through the iTunes Music Store (as it
>> was called then), the record companies wouldn't sign up unless the
>> music was DRM protected; even a nincompoop like you should be able to
>> understand that.
> ]
> Nobody understand absolutely nothing. It's just a matter of time before
> he defends his general idiocy by calling you "Snit."


Everyone is Snit.
Snit tells unquotable lies.

Those are their main tools in their attacks against me. Weird.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 4:21:41 PM
On 9/23/15, 7:04 AM, in article mtubdi$7rl$7@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 1:16 AM, Snit wrote:
>> On 9/22/15, 10:00 PM, in article d6epusF38r7U9@mid.individual.net, "Jolly
>> Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>>>>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>>>>>> better...
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>>>>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>>>>> right?
>>>> 
>>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>>> 
>>> Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
>>> said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
>>> has not. Anything beyond that is your silly creation from your own silly
>>> head.  For this "crime", you label me an "iCultist". You're making
>>> yourself look like quite the fool, with no help from me. Keep trolling.
>>> Haters gonna hate.
>> 
>> Didn't Apple remove some music at one point? Maybe not...
> 
> They forced U2's latest album on everyone. Amazon was guilty of removing
> Nineteen Eighty-Four from people's Kindles.

It was the 1984 book I was thinking of! Thanks... my mistake.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 4:23:32 PM
On 9/23/15, 9:11 AM, in article t1j50blu6le0smdh4cv4g2neocnocsdhqk@4ax.com,
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>> slime wrote:
>>> 
>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>>> than capable of providing them with it.
> 
> Fsck you, lying slime.

Such amazing class you show!

>> *blush*  Thank you.
> 
> If you only knew with a filthy lying bastard "A.M" (formerly known as
> "Slimer") is, you would now be running for the shower.
> 
>> Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts, logic, and reality.
> 
> Not "they".  ONE person, "Nobody", is arguing with you.

So you claim to not be?
 
>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
> 
> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
> upon the actions of ONE person.

You and your herd act with one voice in most cases.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 4:27:47 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <mtttb0$hqg$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> > The point that you are so
>> > desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
>> > APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
>> > ANDROID PHONES.
>> 
>> I'm obfuscating with facts and truth?  You iCultists are a strange bunch
>> indeed.
> 
> irrelevant facts that do not disprove what we have said, bigot.
> 
>> > The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
>> > is that Google removed them.
>> 
>> It's not irrelevant at all.  Google removed them for the same reasons
>> Apple has a kill switch in the first place.  But they removed nothing
>> of consequence.
> 
> The fact is that Google removed them, whereas Apple has never removed
> any Apps.  Your red herring doesn't work here, bigot.
> 
>> Google never removed music from owners phones without permission.
>> Apple did.
> 
> Yup, music that Apple had a legal responsibility to remove.  I
> understand that "legal" and "responsibility" are not in your lexicon,
> so go ahead an look them up, bigot.

Apple has no "legal responsibility" to remove any content from a device they 
don't own. The owner has. Apple should in fact be sued into oblivion if they 
do something like that
0
Peter
9/23/2015 4:30:05 PM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:30:05 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>> In article <mtttb0$hqg$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> > The point that you are so desperately trying to obfuscate is that
>>> > APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas
>>> > GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM ANDROID PHONES.
>>> 
>>> I'm obfuscating with facts and truth?  You iCultists are a strange
>>> bunch indeed.
>> 
>> irrelevant facts that do not disprove what we have said, bigot.
>> 
>>> > The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact is that
>>> > Google removed them.
>>> 
>>> It's not irrelevant at all.  Google removed them for the same reasons
>>> Apple has a kill switch in the first place.  But they removed nothing
>>> of consequence.
>> 
>> The fact is that Google removed them, whereas Apple has never removed
>> any Apps.  Your red herring doesn't work here, bigot.
>> 
>>> Google never removed music from owners phones without permission.
>>> Apple did.
>> 
>> Yup, music that Apple had a legal responsibility to remove.  I
>> understand that "legal" and "responsibility" are not in your lexicon,
>> so go ahead an look them up, bigot.
> 
> Apple has no "legal responsibility" to remove any content from a device
> they don't own. The owner has. Apple should in fact be sued into
> oblivion if they do something like that


Not correct Petey!


-- 
Lloyd
0
Lloyd
9/23/2015 4:31:15 PM
On 9/23/15, 9:30 AM, in article mtujuo$ekb$2@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>> In article <mtttb0$hqg$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> The point that you are so
>>>> desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
>>>> APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
>>>> ANDROID PHONES.
>>> 
>>> I'm obfuscating with facts and truth?  You iCultists are a strange bunch
>>> indeed.
>> 
>> irrelevant facts that do not disprove what we have said, bigot.
>> 
>>>> The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
>>>> is that Google removed them.
>>> 
>>> It's not irrelevant at all.  Google removed them for the same reasons
>>> Apple has a kill switch in the first place.  But they removed nothing
>>> of consequence.
>> 
>> The fact is that Google removed them, whereas Apple has never removed
>> any Apps.  Your red herring doesn't work here, bigot.
>> 
>>> Google never removed music from owners phones without permission.
>>> Apple did.
>> 
>> Yup, music that Apple had a legal responsibility to remove.  I
>> understand that "legal" and "responsibility" are not in your lexicon,
>> so go ahead an look them up, bigot.
> 
> Apple has no "legal responsibility" to remove any content from a device they
> don't own. The owner has. Apple should in fact be sued into oblivion if they
> do something like that

What agreement do you think they are going against?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 4:37:20 PM
On 2015-09-23 12:27 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 9/23/15, 9:11 AM, in article t1j50blu6le0smdh4cv4g2neocnocsdhqk@4ax.com,
> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> slime wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>>>> than capable of providing them with it.
>>
>> Fsck you, lying slime.
> 
> Such amazing class you show!

I'm sure fecesv will be able to point out what the lie in that paragraph
was.

>>> *blush*  Thank you.
>>
>> If you only knew with a filthy lying bastard "A.M" (formerly known as
>> "Slimer") is, you would now be running for the shower.

I'm looking forward to fecesv providing Michelle with a long list of my
"lies." As of yet, he hasn't been able to provide even one. The best he
was able to do was take an obvious joke and say that it was a lie.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 4:38:51 PM
In article <mtujuo$ekb$2@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> >> Google never removed music from owners phones without permission.
> >> Apple did.
> > 
> > Yup, music that Apple had a legal responsibility to remove.  I
> > understand that "legal" and "responsibility" are not in your lexicon,
> > so go ahead an look them up, bigot.
> 
> Apple has no "legal responsibility" to remove any content from a device they 
> don't own. The owner has. Apple should in fact be sued into oblivion if they 
> do something like that

the issue was that the drm that was required by the record companies at
the time was hacked.

apple was legally obligated to maintain the drm as part of the deal
with the record companies. if apple didn't, the record companies could
cite negligence and cancel the contracts.

that means fixing the hack and as a result of that, any music that had
hacked drm, which the person did not legally own (that's what hacked
means), had to be removed.

this issue came up in a court case and apple prevailed.

in other words, you're wrong. simple as that.
0
nospam
9/23/2015 4:45:55 PM
On 9/23/15, 9:38 AM, in article mtukf3$fse$3@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 12:27 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 9/23/15, 9:11 AM, in article t1j50blu6le0smdh4cv4g2neocnocsdhqk@4ax.com,
>> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> 
>>>> slime wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>>>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>>>>> than capable of providing them with it.
>>> 
>>> Fsck you, lying slime.
>> 
>> Such amazing class you show!
> 
> I'm sure fecesv will be able to point out what the lie in that paragraph
> was.
> 
>>>> *blush*  Thank you.
>>> 
>>> If you only knew with a filthy lying bastard "A.M" (formerly known as
>>> "Slimer") is, you would now be running for the shower.
> 
> I'm looking forward to fecesv providing Michelle with a long list of my
> "lies." As of yet, he hasn't been able to provide even one. The best he
> was able to do was take an obvious joke and say that it was a lie.

And meanwhile the COLA "advocates" lie repeatedly.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 4:52:43 PM
In message <230920150842305233%michelle@michelle.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <mttuo9$pph$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

>> "Don't Believe Everything You Read on the Internet" -Albert Einstein

> I believe that Abraham Lincoln said it first.

It was that so-crates fellow.

-- 
'How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice 'You must be' said the Cat 'or you
wouldn't have come here.'
0
Lewis
9/23/2015 5:08:41 PM
On 2015-09-23 1:08 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <230920150842305233%michelle@michelle.org> 
>   Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> In article <mttuo9$pph$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> "Don't Believe Everything You Read on the Internet" -Albert Einstein
> 
>> I believe that Abraham Lincoln said it first.
> 
> It was that so-crates fellow.

Nah, Socrates created GNU.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 5:15:37 PM
On 2015-09-23, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/22/15, 10:00 PM, in article d6epusF38r7U9@mid.individual.net, "Jolly
> Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>>>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>>>>> better...
>>>> 
>>>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>>>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>>>> right?
>>> 
>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>> 
>> Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
>> said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
>> has not. Anything beyond that is your silly creation from your own silly
>> head.  For this "crime", you label me an "iCultist". You're making
>> yourself look like quite the fool, with no help from me. Keep trolling.
>> Haters gonna hate.
>
> Didn't Apple remove some music at one point? Maybe not...

Red herring. Try staying on topic.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 5:24:50 PM
On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> You clearly wrote that Google only deleted two worthless apps in 2010, 
> and none since then?   No you didn't.
>
> "The fact is Google has removed apps from
> user's devices while Apple has not."
>
> That's the lie of omission you wrote.

You are useless. Bye now.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 5:26:26 PM
On 9/23/15, 10:24 AM, in article d6g5j2FdlhnU10@mid.individual.net, "Jolly
Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-23, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 9/22/15, 10:00 PM, in article d6epusF38r7U9@mid.individual.net, "Jolly
>> Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>>>>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>>>>>> better...
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>>>>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>>>>> right?
>>>> 
>>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>>> 
>>> Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
>>> said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
>>> has not. Anything beyond that is your silly creation from your own silly
>>> head.  For this "crime", you label me an "iCultist". You're making
>>> yourself look like quite the fool, with no help from me. Keep trolling.
>>> Haters gonna hate.
>> 
>> Didn't Apple remove some music at one point? Maybe not...
> 
> Red herring. Try staying on topic.

I was thinking of another company removing 1984 anyway. But had it been
Apple it would show they also remove content.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 5:43:04 PM
On 09/23/15 10:45, nospam wrote:
> In article<mtujuo$ekb$2@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>  wrote:
>
>>>> Google never removed music from owners phones without permission.
>>>> Apple did.
>>>
>>> Yup, music that Apple had a legal responsibility to remove.  I
>>> understand that "legal" and "responsibility" are not in your lexicon,
>>> so go ahead an look them up, bigot.
>>
>> Apple has no "legal responsibility" to remove any content from a device they
>> don't own. The owner has. Apple should in fact be sued into oblivion if they
>> do something like that
>
> the issue was that the drm that was required by the record companies at
> the time was hacked.
>
> apple was legally obligated to maintain the drm as part of the deal
> with the record companies. if apple didn't, the record companies could
> cite negligence and cancel the contracts.
>
> that means fixing the hack and as a result of that, any music that had
> hacked drm, which the person did not legally own (that's what hacked
> means), had to be removed.
>
> this issue came up in a court case and apple prevailed.
>
> in other words, you're wrong. simple as that.

LOL!!!  He is wrong most of the time.  He's an armchair blowhard in cola.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/23/2015 6:11:34 PM
On 09/23/15 09:45, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article<mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M<.m@nsn.s>  wrote:
>
>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>> than capable of providing them with it.
>
> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
> logic, and reality.
>
> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.

That vast majority of linux advocates are in herd mode.  To be a member 
of their herd you have to diss windows and apple.  They'll also diss 
other operating systems.  Sanity isn't one of their strong points.

-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/23/2015 6:17:19 PM
On 09/23/15 10:11, chrisv wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> slime wrote:
>>>
>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>>> than capable of providing them with it.
>
> Fsck you, lying slime.
>
>> *blush*  Thank you.
>
> If you only knew with a filthy lying bastard "A.M" (formerly known as
> "Slimer") is, you would now be running for the shower.
>
>> Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts, logic, and reality.
>
> Not "they".  ONE person, "Nobody", is arguing with you.
>
>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>
> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
> upon the actions of ONE person.
>


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/23/2015 6:18:03 PM
On 2015-09-23, GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
> On 09/23/15 09:45, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article<mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M<.m@nsn.s>  wrote:
>>
>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>>> than capable of providing them with it.
>>
>> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
>> logic, and reality.
>>
>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>
> That vast majority of linux advocates are in herd mode.  To be a member 
> of their herd you have to diss windows and apple.  They'll also diss 
> other operating systems.  Sanity isn't one of their strong points.

This is especially true of "Winston_smith", a regular troll of the iOS
news groups.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 6:18:28 PM
On 09/22/15 23:29, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article<mttced$jo9$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2015 11:26 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article<20150923043852.19416f88@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz<mel@zzzzz.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ahahahhahahahahha, why is this crossposted to iCultist group anyway?
>>>
>>> "iCultist" n/adj.  Derogatory term used by Applephobes to describe
>>> people who have an honest and realistic appreciation for Apple's
>>> products.
>>>
>>
>> "Applephobes?"
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
>
> Yup, Applephobes, AKA, Apple haters, AKA anti-Apple bigots.  A perfect
> description of you and your sock puppets.

Looks like he needs a padded cell.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/23/2015 6:19:30 PM
On 09/23/15 03:25, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> FPP wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-23 02:10:10 +0000, Nobody<nobody@invalid.com>  said:
>>
>>> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-22 02:50:41 -0400, Nobody<nobody@invalid.com>  said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-09-21, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>>>>>>> In article<d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>>>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the
>>>>>>>>>> store. And
>>>>>>>>>> XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>>>>>>>>>> fishy?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First thing they should have noticed was getting the Xcode from a
>>>>>>>>> different source don't you think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The normal way to get Xcode is through the App Store application on
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> computer. Downloading it this way ensures it is from Apple.
>>>>>>>> Developers had to go out of their way to get it from untrusted
>>>>>>>> sources instead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then, developers who downloaded this illegitimate Xcode installer
>>>>>>>> also saw a Gatekeeper warning dialog box on their computer telling
>>>>>>>> them that
>>>>>>>> this copy of Xcode isn't valid and is not signed by Apple and
>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>> replaced.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then those developers had to *disable* or *bypass* Gatekeeper to
>>>>>>>> allow the application to run on their computers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Blaming Apple for this level of stupidity is just plain silly. These
>>>>>>>> developers are fully responsible for their actions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and should have their developer status terminated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. They should never be allowed back into the store, IMHO.
>>>>>> That level of dangerous stupidity should not be rewarded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App
>>>>>> Store; but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the
>>>>>> offending apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>>>>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than
>>>>> just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>>>>
>>>> Yeah... we're glad, too.
>>>
>>> Really?  Why?  Are you an Apple, Inc. employee?
>>
>> I like to think we keep the collective Apple user IQ higher that way...
>
> I don't think there is anything to "keep". Higher or not

Guffaw!!!  You've lost all of your marbles a long time ago there, Koldtard.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/23/2015 6:20:18 PM
On 23 Sep 2015 18:18:28 GMT
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-23, GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
> > On 09/23/15 09:45, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >> In article<mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M<.m@nsn.s>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle.
> >>> These Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that
> >>> you're more than capable of providing them with it.
> >>
> >> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to
> >> facts, logic, and reality.
> >>
> >> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
> >
> > That vast majority of linux advocates are in herd mode.  To be a
> > member of their herd you have to diss windows and apple.  They'll
> > also diss other operating systems.  Sanity isn't one of their
> > strong points.
> 
> This is especially true of "Winston_smith", a regular troll of the iOS
> news groups.
> 

GreyCloud is Windroid troll that infest COLA....
0
Melzzzzz
9/23/2015 6:21:25 PM
In article <mtuhsg$5d6$5@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 11:45 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> > 
> >> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
> >> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
> >> than capable of providing them with it.
> > 
> > *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
> > logic, and reality.
> 
> Wretched Stallman and his team of GNU superheroes haven't come up with
> an application to reliably deal with facts, logic and reality yet.
> 
> > I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
> 
> Please don't. I rather enjoy watching Nobody make an ass of himself.

I've had my fun with him; let someone else take over.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 6:33:02 PM
In article <t1j50blu6le0smdh4cv4g2neocnocsdhqk@4ax.com>, chrisv
<chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
> > slime wrote:
> >>
> >> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
> >> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
> >> than capable of providing them with it.
> 
> Fsck you, lying slime.
> 
> >*blush*  Thank you.  
> 
> If you only knew with a filthy lying bastard "A.M" (formerly known as
> "Slimer") is, you would now be running for the shower.
> 
> >Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts, logic, and reality.
> 
> Not "they".  ONE person, "Nobody", is arguing with you.
>
> >I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
> 
> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
> upon the actions of ONE person.

He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 6:35:16 PM
On 2015-09-23 2:11 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
> On 09/23/15 10:45, nospam wrote:
>> In article<mtujuo$ekb$2@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>  wrote:
>>
>>>>> Google never removed music from owners phones without permission.
>>>>> Apple did.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, music that Apple had a legal responsibility to remove.  I
>>>> understand that "legal" and "responsibility" are not in your lexicon,
>>>> so go ahead an look them up, bigot.
>>>
>>> Apple has no "legal responsibility" to remove any content from a
>>> device they
>>> don't own. The owner has. Apple should in fact be sued into oblivion
>>> if they
>>> do something like that
>>
>> the issue was that the drm that was required by the record companies at
>> the time was hacked.
>>
>> apple was legally obligated to maintain the drm as part of the deal
>> with the record companies. if apple didn't, the record companies could
>> cite negligence and cancel the contracts.
>>
>> that means fixing the hack and as a result of that, any music that had
>> hacked drm, which the person did not legally own (that's what hacked
>> means), had to be removed.
>>
>> this issue came up in a court case and apple prevailed.
>>
>> in other words, you're wrong. simple as that.
> 
> LOL!!!  He is wrong most of the time.  He's an armchair blowhard in cola.

Replace "most" by "all."


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 6:35:18 PM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:35:16 -0700
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <t1j50blu6le0smdh4cv4g2neocnocsdhqk@4ax.com>, chrisv
> <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > 
> > > slime wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle.
> > >> These Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that
> > >> you're more than capable of providing them with it.
> > 
> > Fsck you, lying slime.
> > 
> > >*blush*  Thank you.  
> > 
> > If you only knew with a filthy lying bastard "A.M" (formerly known
> > as "Slimer") is, you would now be running for the shower.
> > 
> > >Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts, logic, and reality.
> > 
> > Not "they".  ONE person, "Nobody", is arguing with you.
> >
> > >I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
> > 
> > You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group,
> > based upon the actions of ONE person.
> 
> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.

You are representative of group "iCultists"....
0
Melzzzzz
9/23/2015 6:37:53 PM
Melzzzzz wrote:

> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> some POS that calls itself "GreyCloud" wrote:
>>>
>>> That vast majority of linux advocates (snip lies)
>> 
>> This is especially true of "Winston_smith", a regular troll of the iOS
>> news groups.
>
> GreyCloud is Windroid troll that infest COLA....

"GreyCloud" is an utterly worthless, Linux-hating creep.

If the cola advocates "diss" Apple, it's mostly because Apple fans
come to our newsgroup to "diss" Linux, and tell us that the Apple way
is the best way.  

The cola advocates are not the invading assholes, here.

-- 
"Why do you lie for Lienux?"  -  some piece of shit that calls itself
"GreyCloud"
0
chrisv
9/23/2015 7:01:35 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:

> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
>> upon the actions of ONE person.
>
>He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.

You just proved yourself a lying bigot, "Michelle".  How ironic.

At least "Slimer" likes you.

-- 
"(Desktop Linux is) the technological equivalent of your girlfriend's
fat, ugly, mentally retarded friend."  -  "Slimer"
0
chrisv
9/23/2015 7:07:08 PM
In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
wrote:

> You are representative of group "iCultists"....

"iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
Apple and its products.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 7:09:34 PM
In article <4pt50bhar3ih7h8kva07mejv9buinfq4q8@4ax.com>, chrisv
<chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
> > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
> >> upon the actions of ONE person.
> >
> >He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
> 
> You just proved yourself a lying bigot, "Michelle".  How ironic.

I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.

> At least "Slimer" likes you.

I have no idea of who he is, nor does it matter to me whether he likes
me or not.

But the fact that a reprobate and scoundrel like you doesn't like me
brings me a modicum of pleasure.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 7:12:22 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:

> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> 
>> > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
>> >> upon the actions of ONE person.
>> >
>> >He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>> 
>> You just proved yourself a lying bigot, "Michelle".  How ironic.
>
>I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.

Err, yes you did, and twice now.  The first time I might forgive, but
AGAIN you attack an entire group, this time as "lying bigots",
based-upon ONE persons actions!

Now you are digging your hole even deeper, "Michelle".

>> At least "Slimer" likes you.
>
>I have no idea of who he is, nor does it matter to me whether he likes
>me or not.

Suffering from reading comprehension problems, "Michelle"?  I've told
you that it is the "A.M" asshole's former name.

>But the fact that a reprobate and scoundrel like you doesn't like me
>brings me a modicum of pleasure.

LOL     Poor "Michelle".   Do you think you can save face, if you spew
enough invective?  Do you think that I'm the only one who has noticed
how sleazy you are?

-- 
"GNU/Linux is only slighter better than being infected with the
uncurable ebola virus."  -  "Slimer"
0
chrisv
9/23/2015 7:31:26 PM
On 2015-09-23 2:33 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtuhsg$5d6$5@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 11:45 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>>>> than capable of providing them with it.
>>>
>>> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
>>> logic, and reality.
>>
>> Wretched Stallman and his team of GNU superheroes haven't come up with
>> an application to reliably deal with facts, logic and reality yet.
>>
>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>>
>> Please don't. I rather enjoy watching Nobody make an ass of himself.
> 
> I've had my fun with him; let someone else take over.

The problem with Nobody is that once his back is against the wall, he
goes into his idiotic "Hi Snit!" barrage of posts and believes that he
is somehow winning the argument by doing so.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 7:42:34 PM
On 9/23/15, 12:42 PM, in article mtuv7i$v68$2@dont-email.me, "A.M"
<.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 2:33 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <mtuhsg$5d6$5@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-09-23 11:45 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>> In article <mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>>>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>>>>> than capable of providing them with it.
>>>> 
>>>> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
>>>> logic, and reality.
>>> 
>>> Wretched Stallman and his team of GNU superheroes haven't come up with
>>> an application to reliably deal with facts, logic and reality yet.
>>> 
>>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>>> 
>>> Please don't. I rather enjoy watching Nobody make an ass of himself.
>> 
>> I've had my fun with him; let someone else take over.
> 
> The problem with Nobody is that once his back is against the wall, he
> goes into his idiotic "Hi Snit!" barrage of posts and believes that he
> is somehow winning the argument by doing so.

Hi Snit!


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 7:43:28 PM
On 2015-09-23 3:12 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <4pt50bhar3ih7h8kva07mejv9buinfq4q8@4ax.com>, chrisv
> <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
>>>> upon the actions of ONE person.
>>>
>>> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>>
>> You just proved yourself a lying bigot, "Michelle".  How ironic.
> 
> I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.

fecesv is definitely a lying back of shit. I think the term appears on
his driver's license as well.

>> At least "Slimer" likes you.
> 
> I have no idea of who he is, nor does it matter to me whether he likes
> me or not.

I'm pretty good-looking, you'd enjoy my appreciation. :)

> But the fact that a reprobate and scoundrel like you doesn't like me
> brings me a modicum of pleasure.

As it should. fecesv is a creature who dwells in sewers and perpetually
smells like one.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 7:47:03 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
> 
> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
> Apple and its products.

And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
0
Peter
9/23/2015 8:10:47 PM
On 09/23/15 14:10, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> In article<20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz<mel@zzzzz.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>
>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>> Apple and its products.
>
> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you

Speaking of scum, how are you today?


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/23/2015 8:26:31 PM
On 09/23/15 13:07, chrisv wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> chrisv<chrisv@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>>>
>>> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
>>> upon the actions of ONE person.
>>
>> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>
> You just proved yourself a lying bigot, "Michelle".  How ironic.
>
> At least "Slimer" likes you.
>
But no one likes you, Turdv.

-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/23/2015 8:26:49 PM
On 09/23/15 12:18, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-23, GreyCloud<cumulus@mist.com>  wrote:
>> On 09/23/15 09:45, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article<mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M<.m@nsn.s>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>>>> than capable of providing them with it.
>>>
>>> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
>>> logic, and reality.
>>>
>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>>
>> That vast majority of linux advocates are in herd mode.  To be a member
>> of their herd you have to diss windows and apple.  They'll also diss
>> other operating systems.  Sanity isn't one of their strong points.
>
> This is especially true of "Winston_smith", a regular troll of the iOS
> news groups.
>

I don't know him, but will take it into advisement.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/23/2015 8:27:59 PM
On 09/23/15 12:21, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 23 Sep 2015 18:18:28 GMT
> Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-23, GreyCloud<cumulus@mist.com>  wrote:
>>> On 09/23/15 09:45, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>> In article<mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M<.m@nsn.s>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle.
>>>>> These Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that
>>>>> you're more than capable of providing them with it.
>>>>
>>>> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to
>>>> facts, logic, and reality.
>>>>
>>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>>>
>>> That vast majority of linux advocates are in herd mode.  To be a
>>> member of their herd you have to diss windows and apple.  They'll
>>> also diss other operating systems.  Sanity isn't one of their
>>> strong points.
>>
>> This is especially true of "Winston_smith", a regular troll of the iOS
>> news groups.
>>
>
> GreyCloud is Windroid troll that infest COLA....

Guffaw!!!  So how's the infestation of the immigrants going over there?


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/23/2015 8:28:30 PM
On 09/23/15 13:01, chrisv wrote:
> Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>> Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> some POS that calls itself "GreyCloud" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That vast majority of linux advocates (snip lies)
>>>
>>> This is especially true of "Winston_smith", a regular troll of the iOS
>>> news groups.
>>
>> GreyCloud is Windroid troll that infest COLA....
>
> "GreyCloud" is an utterly worthless, Linux-hating creep.
>
> If the cola advocates "diss" Apple, it's mostly because Apple fans
> come to our newsgroup to "diss" Linux, and tell us that the Apple way
> is the best way.
>
> The cola advocates are not the invading assholes, here.
>


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/23/2015 8:28:58 PM
	I don't follow, BD.
	You mean only ONE windows user is a hypocrite ? I thought most
were.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012
0
Shadow
9/23/2015 8:43:03 PM
On 2015-09-23, GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
> On 09/23/15 12:18, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-09-23, GreyCloud<cumulus@mist.com>  wrote:
>>> On 09/23/15 09:45, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>> In article<mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M<.m@nsn.s>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>>>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>>>>> than capable of providing them with it.
>>>>
>>>> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
>>>> logic, and reality.
>>>>
>>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>>>
>>> That vast majority of linux advocates are in herd mode.  To be a member
>>> of their herd you have to diss windows and apple.  They'll also diss
>>> other operating systems.  Sanity isn't one of their strong points.
>>
>> This is especially true of "Winston_smith", a regular troll of the iOS
>> news groups.
>
> I don't know him, but will take it into advisement.

He changes his name with every new post; so remembering the name won't
help. What he cannot seem to change is his posting style, and the mental
gyrations he goes though each time. Both give him away quickly every
single time. He's a lame troll.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/23/2015 9:04:51 PM
On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>
>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>> Apple and its products.
> 
> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you

Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Kl�wn?

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 9:09:18 PM
On 2015-09-23 4:28 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
> On 09/23/15 12:21, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> On 23 Sep 2015 18:18:28 GMT
>> Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-09-23, GreyCloud<cumulus@mist.com>  wrote:
>>>> On 09/23/15 09:45, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>> In article<mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M<.m@nsn.s>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle.
>>>>>> These Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that
>>>>>> you're more than capable of providing them with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to
>>>>> facts, logic, and reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>>>>
>>>> That vast majority of linux advocates are in herd mode.  To be a
>>>> member of their herd you have to diss windows and apple.  They'll
>>>> also diss other operating systems.  Sanity isn't one of their
>>>> strong points.
>>>
>>> This is especially true of "Winston_smith", a regular troll of the iOS
>>> news groups.
>>>
>>
>> GreyCloud is Windroid troll that infest COLA....
> 
> Guffaw!!!  So how's the infestation of the immigrants going over there?

Countries which haven't taken any in are being forced to do so by the
heads of the European Union.

So far, benefits of being a part of the European Union include losing
control of currency, bankruptcy and now the loss of sovereignty and
identity. I can't imagine why any country would choose to remain in it.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 9:15:12 PM
In article <230920151133029166%michelle@michelle.org>
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> In article <mtuhsg$5d6$5@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>
> > On 2015-09-23 11:45 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > > In article <mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
> > >> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
> > >> than capable of providing them with it.
> > >
> > > *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
> > > logic, and reality.
> >
> > Wretched Stallman and his team of GNU superheroes haven't come up with
> > an application to reliably deal with facts, logic and reality yet.
> >
> > > I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
> >
> > Please don't. I rather enjoy watching Nobody make an ass of himself.
>
> I've had my fun with him; let someone else take over.

0
Anonymous
9/23/2015 9:19:10 PM
In article <tvmdnVFBDPSWlp7LnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@bresnan.com>
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
>
> On 09/23/15 13:07, chrisv wrote:
> > Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >
> >> chrisv<chrisv@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
> >>> upon the actions of ONE person.
> >>
> >> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
> >
> > You just proved yourself a lying bigot, "Michelle".  How ironic.
> >
> > At least "Slimer" likes you.
> >
> But no one likes you, Turdv.
>
> --
> When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
> Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
> could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
> bottom, and have a longer blanket."

0
Nomen
9/23/2015 9:21:16 PM
On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>> 
>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>>> Apple and its products.
>> 
>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
> 
> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Kl�wn?

Peter has no sense of morality.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 9:24:27 PM
A.M wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>
>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>>> Apple and its products.
>> 
>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
> 
> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.

/quote
I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.

He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.

I omitted no relevant facts, liar.  You bigots are all alike:  lying
pieces of festering detritus.

/unquote

> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Klöwn?
> 

Not as low as a certain "Michelle Steiner", it seems

But then I am not stupid enough to believe that apple products are any 
better than something else. For such utter stupidty it needs cretinous scum 
like "Michelle Steiner"
0
Peter
9/23/2015 9:25:35 PM
The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:

> On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>> 
>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>>>> Apple and its products.
>>> 
>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>> 
>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Klöwn?
> 
> Peter has no sense of morality.
> 
 
You mean I would take the money meant for the education of my children in 
order to troll usenet groups 24/7? Or would not do any gainful job to help 
improve the family financial situation?
Or post faked videos as "evidence"? Or claim to be "honest" and "honorable" 
while being as far away from those as humanly possible?

You think I am just like you, Snit Michael Glasser, a disgusting lying swine 
without any morals?
0
Peter
9/23/2015 9:38:39 PM
On 9/23/15, 2:38 PM, in article mtv61a$squ$1@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
> 
>> On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M"
>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>> 
>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>>>>> Apple and its products.
>>>> 
>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>> 
>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>>> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Kl�wn?
>> 
>> Peter has no sense of morality.
>  
> You mean I would take the money meant for the education of my children in
> order to troll usenet groups 24/7? Or would not do any gainful job to help
> improve the family financial situation?
> Or post faked videos as "evidence"? Or claim to be "honest" and "honorable"
> while being as far away from those as humanly possible?
> 
> You think I am just like you, Snit Michael Glasser, a disgusting lying swine
> without any morals?

See: you want attention and fear speaking of technology. WHY?

What the hell is wrong with you?

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 9:40:27 PM
The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:

> On 9/23/15, 2:38 PM, in article mtv61a$squ$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>> 
>>> On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M"
>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz
>>>>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view
>>>>>> on Apple and its products.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>> 
>>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>>>> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Klöwn?
>>> 
>>> Peter has no sense of morality.
>>  
>> You mean I would take the money meant for the education of my children in
>> order to troll usenet groups 24/7? Or would not do any gainful job to
>> help improve the family financial situation?
>> Or post faked videos as "evidence"? Or claim to be "honest" and
>> "honorable" while being as far away from those as humanly possible?
>> 
>> You think I am just like you, Snit Michael Glasser, a disgusting lying
>> swine without any morals?
> 
> See: you want attention and fear speaking of technology. WHY?

Since when has your claim about morality anything to do with "technology", 
disgusting lying swine Snit Michael Glasser?

What the hell is wrong with you?
 

0
Peter
9/23/2015 9:44:11 PM
On 9/23/15, 2:44 PM, in article mtv6bm$squ$2@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
> 
>> On 9/23/15, 2:38 PM, in article mtv61a$squ$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
>> K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>>> 
>>>> On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M"
>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz
>>>>>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view
>>>>>>> on Apple and its products.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>>> 
>>>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>>>>> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Kl�wn?
>>>> 
>>>> Peter has no sense of morality.
>>>  
>>> You mean I would take the money meant for the education of my children in
>>> order to troll usenet groups 24/7? Or would not do any gainful job to
>>> help improve the family financial situation?
>>> Or post faked videos as "evidence"? Or claim to be "honest" and
>>> "honorable" while being as far away from those as humanly possible?
>>> 
>>> You think I am just like you, Snit Michael Glasser, a disgusting lying
>>> swine without any morals?
>> 
>> See: you want attention and fear speaking of technology. WHY?
> 
> Since when has your claim about morality anything to do with "technology",
> disgusting lying swine Snit Michael Glasser?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you?
>  
> 
You did not answer my question and just begged for more attention.

So why don't we stop this idiotic back and forth. Why not talk about
technology?

How about you try to find tasks you think Linux does well and we can compare
them to the competition... though I suspect on even hearing of that idea you
will wet yourself and run off. The very idea of technology is terrifying to
you.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/23/2015 9:50:41 PM
In article <mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me>
"A.M" <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> > Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >
> >> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
> >>
> >> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
> >> Apple and its products.
> >
> > And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>
> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Kl�wn?
>
> --
> A.M

0
Anonymous
9/23/2015 9:55:02 PM
In article <4pt50bhar3ih7h8kva07mejv9buinfq4q8@4ax.com>
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
> > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
> >> upon the actions of ONE person.
> >
> >He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>
> You just proved yourself a lying bigot, "Michelle".  How ironic.
>
> At least "Slimer" likes you.
>
> --
> "(Desktop Linux is) the technological equivalent of your girlfriend's
> fat, ugly, mentally retarded friend."  -  "Slimer"

0
Anonymous
9/23/2015 10:05:11 PM
In article <mtv0si$72k$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
> > In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
> > 
> > "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
> > Apple and its products.
> 
> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you

I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, but you don't have the requisite
equipment.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 10:07:27 PM
In article <mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> > Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
> >>
> >> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
> >> Apple and its products.
> > 
> > And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
> 
> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Klöwn?

His being German has nothing to do with it.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 10:08:07 PM
In article <D228669B.5CEA6%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
> wrote:
> 
> > On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >> 
> >>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
> >>> 
> >>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
> >>> Apple and its products.
> >> 
> >> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
> > 
> > Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
> > How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Klöwn?
> 
> Peter has no sense of morality.

"of morality" is superfluous.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 10:08:41 PM
In article <mtv58q$ocm$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> A.M wrote:
> 
> > On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >> 
> >>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
> >>>
> >>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
> >>> Apple and its products.
> >> 
> >> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
> > 
> > Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
> 
> /quote
> I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.
> 
> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
> 
> I omitted no relevant facts, liar.  You bigots are all alike:  lying
> pieces of festering detritus.
> 
> /unquote
> 
> > How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Klöwn?
> > 
> 
> Not as low as a certain "Michelle Steiner", it seems
> 
> But then I am not stupid enough to believe that apple products are any 
> better than something else. For such utter stupidty it needs cretinous scum 
> like "Michelle Steiner"

Well Michelle Steiner is a much better human being than "Peter
Köhlmann"; for one thing, I'm honest, and for another, I don't attack
people unless I or my friends are attacked first.  Neither can
truthfully be said about you.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 10:13:14 PM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:44:11 +0200, Peter K�hlmann wrote:

> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
> 
>> On 9/23/15, 2:38 PM, in article mtv61a$squ$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
>> K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>>> 
>>>> On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M"
>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz
>>>>>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view
>>>>>>> on Apple and its products.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>>> 
>>>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>>>>> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Kl�wn?
>>>> 
>>>> Peter has no sense of morality.
>>>  
>>> You mean I would take the money meant for the education of my children in
>>> order to troll usenet groups 24/7? Or would not do any gainful job to
>>> help improve the family financial situation?
>>> Or post faked videos as "evidence"? Or claim to be "honest" and
>>> "honorable" while being as far away from those as humanly possible?
>>> 
>>> You think I am just like you, Snit Michael Glasser, a disgusting lying
>>> swine without any morals?
>> 
>> See: you want attention and fear speaking of technology. WHY?
> 
> Since when has your claim about morality anything to do with "technology", 
> disgusting lying swine Snit Michael Glasser?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you?

How long do you have?
Short answer is snit Michael Glasser is an insane, psychopath with
highly narcissistic tendencies and a case of BPD.

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html

QUOTE---->>

Snit Michael Glasser -- Psychopath

Usenet is an Internet system for sharing information that was created
before the World Wide Web, and still exists. It has more than 100,000
subject-oriented sections called "newsgroups". A few of these, for
example comp.os.linux.advocacy [COLA], deal with the computer
software called Linux. 

I sometimes post messages (articles) about Linux to these newsgroups,
particularly COLA. I've also posted messages about the 9-11 research
when challenged. 

A person named: Michael Glasser -- "Prescott Computer Guy" --
calls himself "Snit" in Usenet. He seems to be severely offended by
anyone who disagrees with the official government conspiracy theory
about 9-11, and he also greatly favors Mac computers and discourages
people from using Linux. Apparently in order to pick fights about
these matters, he has invaded COLA and posts more there than anyone
else. Previously, he spent years disrupting the newsgroup
comp.sys.mac.advocacy. 

Snit Michael Glasser exhibits extensive psychopathic behavior --
lying, targeting, scapegoating, stalking, attacking, copious
repetition, severe irrationality, and always more lying. Some have
called him "the biggest liar in Usenet history", the most
"universally hated" person in Usenet, "a liar and a forger", etc. 

Here 163 people condemn his activities. 

As psychopaths often do, Snit Michael Glasser has chosen a principal
target/scapegoat for his lies and hatred. Because of his ideas about
9-11 and about Linux, he's targeted me. He has posted thousands of
lying Usenet articles in COLA attacking me, since the beginning of
April 2013. He's also posted thousands of attacks against Richard
Stallman, one of the principal creators of Linux. 

Snit Michael Glasser uses many different techniques for lying about
me and others. 

As most newsgroups are unmoderated, there are no limits to how many
messages a person can post, or what they can say, such as savage
lying attacks on others. 

Surprisingly, about 4% of the population are psychopaths. Here's some
information about them from researcher Stefan Verstappen: 

Psychopathy in Politics and Finance 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/psychopathy-in-politics-and-finance/5334161 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eKqs7GJ0jdY 

Defense Against the Psychopath: Parts 1, 2 and 3 
Use the index to the right of the video to select another one. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFM0dUpL66c&list=PL65611F66F026774A&index=1 

QUOTE <<<<------
0
scooz
9/23/2015 10:16:51 PM
In article <s1v50b1kd2vuqut81dsoi4hh11p507jclg@4ax.com>, chrisv
<chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >> 
> >> > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
> >> >> upon the actions of ONE person.
> >> >
> >> >He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
> >> 
> >> You just proved yourself a lying bigot, "Michelle".  How ironic.
> >
> >I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.
> 
> Err, yes you did, and twice now.  The first time I might forgive, but
> AGAIN you attack an entire group, this time as "lying bigots",
> based-upon ONE persons actions!
> 
> Now you are digging your hole even deeper, "Michelle".

Bullshit; what group other than lying bigots have I attacked by calling
them lying bigots?

> >> At least "Slimer" likes you.
> >
> >I have no idea of who he is, nor does it matter to me whether he likes
> >me or not.
> 
> Suffering from reading comprehension problems, "Michelle"?  I've told
> you that it is the "A.M" asshole's former name.

Considering that I don't know who "A.M." is, I still have no idea who
he is.  And the fact that a dipshit like you has linked them doesn't
mean that they are the same.

> >But the fact that a reprobate and scoundrel like you doesn't like me
> >brings me a modicum of pleasure.
> 
> LOL     Poor "Michelle".   Do you think you can save face, if you spew
> enough invective?  Do you think that I'm the only one who has noticed
> how sleazy you are?

No one has noticed any such thing; you have may deluded yourself into
thinking that I'm sleazy, but in actuality, you are continuing to
demonstrate your sleaziness.
0
Michelle
9/23/2015 10:17:33 PM
scooz <scooz@myemailisspamfree.net> wrote in
news:wdphhwj7rx4t.qova5wxr3duz.dlg@40tude.net: 

> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:44:11 +0200, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> 
>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>> 
>>> On 9/23/15, 2:38 PM, in article mtv61a$squ$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
>>> K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M"
>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz
>>>>>>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic
>>>>>>>> view on Apple and its products.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points
>>>>>> scum. How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter
>>>>>> the Kl�wn? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Peter has no sense of morality.
>>>>  
>>>> You mean I would take the money meant for the education of my
>>>> children in order to troll usenet groups 24/7? Or would not do any
>>>> gainful job to help improve the family financial situation?
>>>> Or post faked videos as "evidence"? Or claim to be "honest" and
>>>> "honorable" while being as far away from those as humanly possible?
>>>> 
>>>> You think I am just like you, Snit Michael Glasser, a disgusting
>>>> lying swine without any morals?
>>> 
>>> See: you want attention and fear speaking of technology. WHY?
>> 
>> Since when has your claim about morality anything to do with
>> "technology", disgusting lying swine Snit Michael Glasser?
>> 
>> What the hell is wrong with you?
> 
> How long do you have?
> Short answer is snit Michael Glasser is an insane, psychopath with
> highly narcissistic tendencies and a case of BPD.
> 
> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html
> 
> QUOTE---->>
> 
> Snit Michael Glasser -- Psychopath
> 
> Usenet is an Internet system for sharing information that was created
> before the World Wide Web, and still exists. It has more than 100,000
> subject-oriented sections called "newsgroups". A few of these, for
> example comp.os.linux.advocacy [COLA], deal with the computer
> software called Linux. 
> 
> I sometimes post messages (articles) about Linux to these newsgroups,
> particularly COLA. I've also posted messages about the 9-11 research
> when challenged. 
> 
> A person named: Michael Glasser -- "Prescott Computer Guy" --
> calls himself "Snit" in Usenet. He seems to be severely offended by
> anyone who disagrees with the official government conspiracy theory
> about 9-11, and he also greatly favors Mac computers and discourages
> people from using Linux. Apparently in order to pick fights about
> these matters, he has invaded COLA and posts more there than anyone
> else. Previously, he spent years disrupting the newsgroup
> comp.sys.mac.advocacy. 
> 
> Snit Michael Glasser exhibits extensive psychopathic behavior --
> lying, targeting, scapegoating, stalking, attacking, copious
> repetition, severe irrationality, and always more lying. Some have
> called him "the biggest liar in Usenet history", the most
> "universally hated" person in Usenet, "a liar and a forger", etc. 
> 
> Here 163 people condemn his activities. 
> 
> As psychopaths often do, Snit Michael Glasser has chosen a principal
> target/scapegoat for his lies and hatred. Because of his ideas about
> 9-11 and about Linux, he's targeted me. He has posted thousands of
> lying Usenet articles in COLA attacking me, since the beginning of
> April 2013. He's also posted thousands of attacks against Richard
> Stallman, one of the principal creators of Linux. 
> 
> Snit Michael Glasser uses many different techniques for lying about
> me and others. 
> 
> As most newsgroups are unmoderated, there are no limits to how many
> messages a person can post, or what they can say, such as savage
> lying attacks on others. 
> 
> Surprisingly, about 4% of the population are psychopaths. Here's some
> information about them from researcher Stefan Verstappen: 
> 
> Psychopathy in Politics and Finance 
> 
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/psychopathy-in-politics-and-
finance/533416
> 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eKqs7GJ0jdY 
> 
> Defense Against the Psychopath: Parts 1, 2 and 3 
> Use the index to the right of the video to select another one. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=pFM0dUpL66c&list=PL65611F66F026774A&inde
> x=1 
> 
> QUOTE <<<<------
> 

You are spot on regarding snit,but 9-11 conspiracy theories?

Cuckoo! Cuckoo!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogZJmq6nYg0
0
Edward
9/23/2015 10:24:01 PM
The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:

> On 9/23/15, 2:44 PM, in article mtv6bm$squ$2@dont-email.me, "Peter
> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>> 
>>> On 9/23/15, 2:38 PM, in article mtv61a$squ$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
>>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M"
>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz
>>>>>>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic
>>>>>>>> view on Apple and its products.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points
>>>>>> scum. How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the
>>>>>> Klöwn?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Peter has no sense of morality.
>>>>  
>>>> You mean I would take the money meant for the education of my children
>>>> in order to troll usenet groups 24/7? Or would not do any gainful job
>>>> to help improve the family financial situation?
>>>> Or post faked videos as "evidence"? Or claim to be "honest" and
>>>> "honorable" while being as far away from those as humanly possible?
>>>> 
>>>> You think I am just like you, Snit Michael Glasser, a disgusting lying
>>>> swine without any morals?
>>> 
>>> See: you want attention and fear speaking of technology. WHY?
>> 
>> Since when has your claim about morality anything to do with
>> "technology", disgusting lying swine Snit Michael Glasser?
>> 
>> What the hell is wrong with you?
>>  
>> 
> You did not answer my question and just begged for more attention.
> 
> So why don't we stop this idiotic back and forth. Why not talk about
> technology?

Idiot. What has *your* claim about "morality" to do with technology?

Short answer: Nothing. Absolutely nothing

If you want to talk about "technology" start learning the basics about it.
Until then, get lost

0
Peter
9/23/2015 10:32:12 PM
In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:35:16 -0700
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <t1j50blu6le0smdh4cv4g2neocnocsdhqk@4ax.com>, chrisv
> > <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > >
> > > > slime wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle.
> > > >> These Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that
> > > >> you're more than capable of providing them with it.
> > >
> > > Fsck you, lying slime.
> > >
> > > >*blush*  Thank you.
> > >
> > > If you only knew with a filthy lying bastard "A.M" (formerly known
> > > as "Slimer") is, you would now be running for the shower.
> > >
> > > >Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts, logic, and reality.
> > >
> > > Not "they".  ONE person, "Nobody", is arguing with you.
> > >
> > > >I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
> > >
> > > You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group,
> > > based upon the actions of ONE person.
> >
> > He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>
> You are representative of group "iCultists"....

0
Nomen
9/23/2015 10:45:58 PM
In article <d6gifiFho0kU1@mid.individual.net>
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-23, GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
> > On 09/23/15 12:18, Jolly Roger wrote:
> >> On 2015-09-23, GreyCloud<cumulus@mist.com>  wrote:
> >>> On 09/23/15 09:45, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >>>> In article<mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M<.m@nsn.s>   wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
> >>>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
> >>>>> than capable of providing them with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
> >>>> logic, and reality.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
> >>>
> >>> That vast majority of linux advocates are in herd mode.  To be a member
> >>> of their herd you have to diss windows and apple.  They'll also diss
> >>> other operating systems.  Sanity isn't one of their strong points.
> >>
> >> This is especially true of "Winston_smith", a regular troll of the iOS
> >> news groups.
> >
> > I don't know him, but will take it into advisement.
>
> He changes his name with every new post; so remembering the name won't
> help. What he cannot seem to change is his posting style, and the mental
> gyrations he goes though each time. Both give him away quickly every
> single time. He's a lame troll.
>
> --
> 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

0
Nomen
9/23/2015 10:51:33 PM
On 9/23/2015 10:37 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mttslv$ghf$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/2015 12:25 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <d6epusF38r7U9@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>>>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>>>>>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>>>>>>> better...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>>>>>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>>>>>> right?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>>>>
>>>> Nope, again, that's all in your head. No teeth were gnashed. All that I
>>>> said was that while Google has removed apps from user's devices, Apple
>>>> has not. Anything beyond that is your silly creation from your own silly
>>>> head.  For this "crime", you label me an "iCultist". You're making
>>>> yourself look like quite the fool, with no help from me. Keep trolling.
>>>> Haters gonna hate.
>>>
>>> We refuse to join his Apple bashing; therefore, we're "iCultist".
>>
>> You accept in Apple what you equate to "murder" in others, all the while
>> calling those who point this out "hypocrites."  Complete with you
>> snipping and ignoring all inconvenient facts.  Therefore you are an
>> iCultist worshiping at the alter of St. Steve.
>>
> I omitted no relevant facts, liar.

You mean besides the ones you snipped out of this post?  Besides the 
fact Apple has removed non-DRM music from customers' phones in spite of 
your denials of Apple ever removing things without permission of the owner?

> You bigots are all alike:  lying
> pieces of festering detritus.

I'm no "bigot." So you are the "liar" here.  You iCultists sure get 
nasty when you're not allowed to evade the truth.

Here's something else to help your mood:  Apple has the ability to kill 
programs, but hasn't used it yet to protect people from malware they 
know about.  They've only used it to remove non-DRM music from 
customers' phones.

That makes Apple FAR WORSE than Google.

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 11:23:27 PM
On 2015-09-23 5:24 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>
>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>>>> Apple and its products.
>>>
>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>
>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Kl�wn?
> 
> Peter has no sense of morality.

He IS German after all.

Kind of like Volkswagen who were just caught lying about the emissions
of their diesel-powered vehicles.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 11:27:46 PM
In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:35:16 -0700
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <t1j50blu6le0smdh4cv4g2neocnocsdhqk@4ax.com>, chrisv
> > <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > >
> > > > slime wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle.
> > > >> These Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that
> > > >> you're more than capable of providing them with it.
> > >
> > > Fsck you, lying slime.
> > >
> > > >*blush*  Thank you.
> > >
> > > If you only knew with a filthy lying bastard "A.M" (formerly known
> > > as "Slimer") is, you would now be running for the shower.
> > >
> > > >Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts, logic, and reality.
> > >
> > > Not "they".  ONE person, "Nobody", is arguing with you.
> > >
> > > >I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
> > >
> > > You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group,
> > > based upon the actions of ONE person.
> >
> > He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>
> You are representative of group "iCultists"....

0
Anonymous
9/23/2015 11:27:46 PM
On 9/23/2015 10:32 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mttssv$gs9$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> So Apple has removed things from their customers phones without
>> permission, in spite of iCultist claims "they can do it but never have."
>
> The fact remains that Apple never removed any *apps*, which is what we
> were discussing.  We were not discussing music, you dumbshit.

Getting cornered is bringing out the worst in you.  Yes, lets discuss 
how Apple has failed to use their kill switch to remove malware they 
know about, and how they've only used it to remove customers' music 
against their will.

We were discussing Apple's ability to remove things against the 
customer's will.  Removing content is even WORSE than removing apps.

>>    The "Apple didn't want to do it, the big meanies made them" is the
>> type of hilarity everybody has come to expect from iCultists...
>
> When Apple wanted to sell music through the iTunes Music Store (as it
> was called then), the record companies wouldn't sign up unless the
> music was DRM protected; even a nincompoop like you should be able to
> understand that.

You iCultists believe Apple has all the rights, and their customers have 
none.  It doesn't matter two shits what Apple wants or wanted.  My music 
is my music.  HANDS OFF, APPLE!

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 11:28:00 PM
On 2015-09-23 5:25 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> A.M wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>
>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>>>> Apple and its products.
>>>
>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>
>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
> 
> /quote
> I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.
> 
> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
> 
> I omitted no relevant facts, liar.  You bigots are all alike:  lying
> pieces of festering detritus.
> 
> /unquote

Except that you're quoting that out of context. She said that to Nobody,
in reference to the fact that he said that she had proven herself to be
a liar. However, the rest of what she said is true; you guys ARE lying
bigots.

Like I said before, Peter, we all WANT to get along with you but you
make it incredibly difficult by quoting shit out of context and
attacking everyone.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 11:29:49 PM
On 9/23/2015 5:28 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 2015-09-23 10:02:08 +0000, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:
>
>> On 9/23/2015 12:24 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <mttb7j$bf8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/22/2015 11:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>> In article <mtt2vg$gj8$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Google deleted two near-worthless apps in 2010, because they misled
>>>>>> customers for "security research."   So Apple isn't really that much
>>>>>> better...
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a gun (hypothetically speaking), but have never shot anyone, so
>>>>> I'm really not much better than someone who has murdered two people,
>>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365651,00.asp
>>>>
>>>> Google Remotely Deletes Android Apps
>>>>
>>>> By Chloe Albanesius
>>>> June 24, 2010 05:58pm EST
>>>>
>>>> Google this week removed two applications from its Android Market, and
>>>> exercised a feature that lets the company remotely delete the apps from
>>>> a user's phones.
>>>>
>>>> Google did not reveal the names of these apps, and said only that they
>>>> were "two free applications built by a security researcher for research
>>>> purposes."
>>>>
>>>> The apps were found to be "intentionally misrepresenting their purpose
>>>> in order to encourage user downloads," Rich Cannings, Android security
>>>> lead, wrote in a blog post. "But they were not designed to be used
>>>> maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data."
>>>>
>>>> As a result, they were removed from the Android Market, but also
>>>> remotely pulled them from the phones on which they were installed.
>>>>
>>>> "In cases where users may have installed a malicious application that
>>>> poses a threat, we've also developed technologies and processes to
>>>> remotely remove an installed application from devices," Cannings wrote.
>>>> "If an application is removed in this way, users will receive a
>>>> notification on their phone."
>>>>
>>>> Google said, however, that these apps did not pose any threat and were
>>>> "practically useless." Most users deleted them shortly after
>>>> downloading, he said. The remote option, Google said, "provides a
>>>> powerful security advantage to help protect Android users in our open
>>>> environment."
>>>> ------------------------
>>>>
>>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>>>
>>> OK, change "murdered" to "shot in the arm".
>>
>> You didn't save any face that way.
>>
>>> The point that you are so
>>> desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
>>> APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
>>> ANDROID PHONES.
>>
>> I'm obfuscating with facts and truth?  You iCultists are a strange
>> bunch indeed.
>>
>>> The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
>>> is that Google removed them.
>>
>> It's not irrelevant at all.  Google removed them for the same reasons
>> Apple has a kill switch in the first place.  But they removed nothing
>> of consequence.
>>
>> Google never removed music from owners phones without permission.
>> Apple did.  Oh, no!  We found skeletons in Apple's closet... I wonder
>> how many "murdered people" are in there... or where they just "shot in
>> the arm?"
>
> Oh, shut the fuck up.
..
> You don't use Apple products, but you appear to be overly concerned with
> Apple's abilities.

Any normal consumer shares such concerns.  It's how we decide what to buy.

> Why don't you shuffle off and go troll a Linux group for a while...

I'm posting from a Linux group.  You're the invader here.

> I certainly can't be bothered "debating" anything with you - which is
> why I haven't.

You just can't rise above your limitations.

> You're the classic troll.  Killfiles were invented with you in mind.
> Welcome.

Projection from the true troll.
0
Nobody
9/23/2015 11:31:47 PM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 19:29:49 -0400, A.M wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 5:25 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>> A.M wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>
>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>>>>> Apple and its products.
>>>>
>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>
>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>> 
>> /quote
>> I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.
>> 
>> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>> 
>> I omitted no relevant facts, liar.  You bigots are all alike:  lying
>> pieces of festering detritus.
>> 
>> /unquote
> 
> Except that you're quoting that out of context. She said that to Nobody,
> in reference to the fact that he said that she had proven herself to be
> a liar. However, the rest of what she said is true; you guys ARE lying
> bigots.
> 
> Like I said before, Peter, we all WANT to get along with you but you
> make it incredibly difficult by quoting shit out of context and
> attacking everyone.

Sounds just like snit.
At least Petey has an excuse; English is not his native language.
What's snit's excuse?
0
scooz
9/23/2015 11:31:48 PM
On 9/23/2015 10:41 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtttb0$hqg$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> The point that you are so
>>> desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
>>> APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
>>> ANDROID PHONES.
>>
>> I'm obfuscating with facts and truth?  You iCultists are a strange bunch
>> indeed.
>
> irrelevant facts that do not disprove what we have said, bigot.

Yes they do, iCultist.

>>> The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
>>> is that Google removed them.
>>
>> It's not irrelevant at all.  Google removed them for the same reasons
>> Apple has a kill switch in the first place.  But they removed nothing
>> of consequence.
>
> The fact is that Google removed them, whereas Apple has never removed
> any Apps.  Your red herring doesn't work here, bigot.

Google removed two worthless apps, while Apple removed peoples' valuable 
content.  "Red herring?"  No just a crime committed by Apple that you'd 
love to ignore.

>> Google never removed music from owners phones without permission.
>> Apple did.
>
> Yup, music that Apple had a legal responsibility to remove.  I
> understand that "legal" and "responsibility" are not in your lexicon,
> so go ahead an look them up, bigot.

You must be using the iCultist's "lexicon."  Apple, Inc. has no 
responsibility, nor even any right, to go into my personal device and 
remove my personal content.

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 11:37:04 PM
On 9/23/2015 11:45 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <mtujuo$ekb$2@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>>>> Google never removed music from owners phones without permission.
>>>> Apple did.
>>>
>>> Yup, music that Apple had a legal responsibility to remove.  I
>>> understand that "legal" and "responsibility" are not in your lexicon,
>>> so go ahead an look them up, bigot.
>>
>> Apple has no "legal responsibility" to remove any content from a device they
>> don't own. The owner has. Apple should in fact be sued into oblivion if they
>> do something like that
>
> the issue was that the drm that was required by the record companies at
> the time was hacked.

No, the issue is Apple going through peoples' personal content and 
removing things without permission.

> apple was legally obligated to maintain the drm as part of the deal
> with the record companies. if apple didn't, the record companies could
> cite negligence and cancel the contracts.

Apple's contracts are only of concern to Apple, Inc. and its iCultists. 
  I have no obligation to live my life according to the convenience of 
Apple, Inc.

> that means fixing the hack and as a result of that, any music that had
> hacked drm, which the person did not legally own (that's what hacked
> means), had to be removed.

Not having DRM information does not mean the person doesn't legally own 
the music.

> this issue came up in a court case and apple prevailed.

Looks like all those billions in the bank are good for something...

> in other words, you're wrong. simple as that.

In other words, I'll never buy anything from Apple, Inc.  Simple as that.

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 11:40:50 PM
A.M wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 5:25 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> A.M wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>
>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view
>>>>> on Apple and its products.
>>>>
>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>
>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>> 
>> /quote
>> I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.
>> 
>> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>> 
>> I omitted no relevant facts, liar.  You bigots are all alike:  lying
>> pieces of festering detritus.
>> 
>> /unquote
> 
> Except that you're quoting that out of context. 


Idiotic Snit

So a "woman who spoke with manners" is posting that?

You are truly a Snit. Imbeciles would protest to be compared to you
0
Peter
9/23/2015 11:42:35 PM
On 9/23/2015 9:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>>
>> OK, change "murdered" to "shot in the arm".  The point that you are so
>> desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
>> APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
>> ANDROID PHONES.  The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
>> is that Google removed them.
>
> I have to agree.  Nobody's zealous attack on Apple is unfair, and his
> arguments evasive.
>
> I'm as much for owners having control of their devices as anyone.  But
> where an application is known to be destructive, I think they (Apple
> or Google) should have the ability to delete it.

Well, here's the thing:  Apple knows about malware on their phones, but 
as of yet has NOT removed it.   OTOH, they have used their "kill switch" 
to remove non-DRM content from their customers' iPhones.  So the whole 
purpose of Apple's "kill switch" technology seems more to protect 
corporate profits than to protect users.

The example that is supposed to prove how horrible Google is removing 
two worthless apps in 2010.  That's it.  Nothing else.

I have gone on record as acknowledging Microsoft, Google, and Apple all 
have the ability to remotely remove things from customers' phones, and 
that I don't like that in any of them.   Which of course makes me a "bigot."

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 11:47:38 PM
On 9/23/2015 12:33 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mttd0s$476$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> "The fact is Google has removed apps from
>> user's devices while Apple has not."
>>
>> That's the lie of omission you wrote.
>
> Keep bleating about lies of omission; your continual stressing
> irrelevancies, and your continual spamming these newsgroups with that
> same article clearly show that you don't have a leg to stand on, just
> like homophobes, anti-Semites, Islamaphobes, anti-Choicers, militant
> atheists, Tea Partiers, etc.

You seem to be having some kind of spasm...
0
Nobody
9/23/2015 11:49:47 PM
In article <mtvci0$g7t$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> >> So Apple has removed things from their customers phones without
> >> permission, in spite of iCultist claims "they can do it but never have."
> >
> > The fact remains that Apple never removed any *apps*, which is what we
> > were discussing.  We were not discussing music, you dumbshit.
> 
> Getting cornered is bringing out the worst in you.  Yes, lets discuss 
> how Apple has failed to use their kill switch to remove malware they 
> know about, 

it didn't do enough damage to warrant it. it's actually very minor as
far as malicious goes.

on one had you bitch about apple being able to remove something and on
the other hand you bitch that they didn't. can't have it both ways.

> and how they've only used it to remove customers' music 
> against their will.

they deleted music that was not legally sold which had a hacked drm on
it.

they *had* to remove it because of their legal agreements with the
record companies who owned the rights to the music.

if you want to blame someone, blame the record companies for requiring
drm, which apple never wanted to do but had to in order to be able to
sell music.

legitimately purchased music and even pirated music was not affected.

> We were discussing Apple's ability to remove things against the 
> customer's will.  Removing content is even WORSE than removing apps.

not when it was illegally obtained, it isn't.
0
nospam
9/23/2015 11:50:03 PM
In article <mtvd30$h4p$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> > The fact is that Google removed them, whereas Apple has never removed
> > any Apps.  Your red herring doesn't work here, bigot.
> 
> Google removed two worthless apps, while Apple removed peoples' valuable 
> content. 

no they didn't

> "Red herring?"  No just a crime committed by Apple that you'd 
> love to ignore.

it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal agreements with
the copyright holders.
0
nospam
9/23/2015 11:50:04 PM
In article <mtvda2$hm1$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> > the issue was that the drm that was required by the record companies at
> > the time was hacked.
> 
> No, the issue is Apple going through peoples' personal content and 
> removing things without permission.

they didn't go through anyone's content.

all they did was remove what had *hacked* drm. everything else was fine.
0
nospam
9/23/2015 11:50:04 PM
In article <mtvdmq$i31$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> Well, here's the thing:  Apple knows about malware on their phones, but 
> as of yet has NOT removed it.   OTOH, they have used their "kill switch" 
> to remove non-DRM content from their customers' iPhones.  So the whole 
> purpose of Apple's "kill switch" technology seems more to protect 
> corporate profits than to protect users.

wrong.

they removed content that had *hacked* drm because they were legally
bound by the copyright holders who wanted *valid* drm (or no drm).
0
nospam
9/23/2015 11:50:05 PM
On 9/23/2015 12:26 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-23, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> You clearly wrote that Google only deleted two worthless apps in 2010,
>> and none since then?   No you didn't.
>>
>> "The fact is Google has removed apps from
>> user's devices while Apple has not."
>>
>> That's the lie of omission you wrote.
>
> You are useless. Bye now.

Argh!  I'll see ye keelhauled a'fore sundown!

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 11:51:05 PM
On 9/23/2015 1:35 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <t1j50blu6le0smdh4cv4g2neocnocsdhqk@4ax.com>, chrisv
> <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> slime wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>>>> than capable of providing them with it.
>>
>> Fsck you, lying slime.
>>
>>> *blush*  Thank you.
>>
>> If you only knew with a filthy lying bastard "A.M" (formerly known as
>> "Slimer") is, you would now be running for the shower.
>>
>>> Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts, logic, and reality.
>>
>> Not "they".  ONE person, "Nobody", is arguing with you.
>>
>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>>
>> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
>> upon the actions of ONE person.
>
> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.

Libel from an iCultist.

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 11:53:18 PM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:53:18 -0500, Nobody wrote:

> On 9/23/2015 1:35 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <t1j50blu6le0smdh4cv4g2neocnocsdhqk@4ax.com>, chrisv
>> <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>>> slime wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle.
>>>>> These Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that
>>>>> you're more than capable of providing them with it.
>>>
>>> Fsck you, lying slime.
>>>
>>>> *blush*  Thank you.
>>>
>>> If you only knew with a filthy lying bastard "A.M" (formerly known as
>>> "Slimer") is, you would now be running for the shower.
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts, logic, and reality.
>>>
>>> Not "they".  ONE person, "Nobody", is arguing with you.
>>>
>>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>>>
>>> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
>>> upon the actions of ONE person.
>>
>> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
> 
> Libel from an iCultist.

bullshit from no-brains.



-- 
Lloyd
0
Lloyd
9/23/2015 11:54:08 PM
Nobody wrote:

> On 9/23/2015 9:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>>>
>>> OK, change "murdered" to "shot in the arm".  The point that you are so
>>> desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
>>> APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
>>> ANDROID PHONES.  The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
>>> is that Google removed them.
>>
>> I have to agree.  Nobody's zealous attack on Apple is unfair, and his
>> arguments evasive.
>>
>> I'm as much for owners having control of their devices as anyone.  But
>> where an application is known to be destructive, I think they (Apple
>> or Google) should have the ability to delete it.
> 
> Well, here's the thing:  Apple knows about malware on their phones, but
> as of yet has NOT removed it.   OTOH, they have used their "kill switch"
> to remove non-DRM content from their customers' iPhones.  So the whole
> purpose of Apple's "kill switch" technology seems more to protect
> corporate profits than to protect users.

Apple can't have any foolproof way to ascertain that the content is indeed 
"illegal". So they remove content even when it is legally on the device.

But even *if* the content is illegally on the device: It still is *not* 
apples device, it is owned by someone else. They have neither legal nor 
moral obligation to tamper with the contents. They have legal and moral 
obligation not to even *know* what content exists on the device

How come they know, and they even tamper with it?
0
Peter
9/23/2015 11:54:53 PM
On 2015-09-23 6:07 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtv0si$72k$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>
>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>>> Apple and its products.
>>
>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
> 
> I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, but you don't have the requisite
> equipment.

ROFL! Michelle's on a roll.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 11:56:28 PM
nospam wrote:

> In article <mtvdmq$i31$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> Well, here's the thing:  Apple knows about malware on their phones, but
>> as of yet has NOT removed it.   OTOH, they have used their "kill switch"
>> to remove non-DRM content from their customers' iPhones.  So the whole
>> purpose of Apple's "kill switch" technology seems more to protect
>> corporate profits than to protect users.
> 
> wrong.
> 
> they removed content that had *hacked* drm because they were legally
> bound by the copyright holders who wanted *valid* drm (or no drm).

Idiot
0
Peter
9/23/2015 11:56:30 PM
On 2015-09-23 6:08 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>
>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>>>> Apple and its products.
>>>
>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>
>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Klöwn?
> 
> His being German has nothing to do with it.

I'm Polish. I feel that it's my right to make fun of them considering
how awful they've historically always been to us.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/23/2015 11:57:04 PM
On 9/23/2015 5:13 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtv58q$ocm$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> A.M wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>
>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>>>>> Apple and its products.
>>>>
>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>
>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>>
>> /quote
>> I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.
>>
>> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>>
>> I omitted no relevant facts, liar.  You bigots are all alike:  lying
>> pieces of festering detritus.
>>
>> /unquote
>>
>>> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Klöwn?
>>>
>>
>> Not as low as a certain "Michelle Steiner", it seems
>>
>> But then I am not stupid enough to believe that apple products are any
>> better than something else. For such utter stupidty it needs cretinous scum
>> like "Michelle Steiner"
>
> Well Michelle Steiner is a much better human being than "Peter
> Köhlmann"; for one thing, I'm honest, and for another, I don't attack
> people unless I or my friends are attacked first.  Neither can
> truthfully be said about you.

You may now prove your "honesty" by quoting any of my "lies," and 
anything that proves I'm a "bigot."

0
Nobody
9/23/2015 11:58:18 PM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:47:38 -0500, Nobody wrote:

> On 9/23/2015 9:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>>>
>>> OK, change "murdered" to "shot in the arm".  The point that you are so
>>> desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
>>> APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
>>> ANDROID PHONES.  The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
>>> is that Google removed them.
>>
>> I have to agree.  Nobody's zealous attack on Apple is unfair, and his
>> arguments evasive.
>>
>> I'm as much for owners having control of their devices as anyone.  But
>> where an application is known to be destructive, I think they (Apple
>> or Google) should have the ability to delete it.
> 
> Well, here's the thing:  Apple knows about malware on their phones, but 
> as of yet has NOT removed it.   OTOH, they have used their "kill switch" 
> to remove non-DRM content from their customers' iPhones.  So the whole 
> purpose of Apple's "kill switch" technology seems more to protect 
> corporate profits than to protect users.
> 
> The example that is supposed to prove how horrible Google is removing 
> two worthless apps in 2010.  That's it.  Nothing else.
> 
> I have gone on record as acknowledging Microsoft, Google, and Apple all 
> have the ability to remotely remove things from customers' phones, and 
> that I don't like that in any of them.   Which of course makes me a "bigot."

Compared to Google who was caught knowingly spying on people's
wireless networks?
I'll take Apple any day of the week before I trust Google.
0
scooz
9/23/2015 11:58:38 PM
nospam wrote:

> In article <mtvd30$h4p$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> > The fact is that Google removed them, whereas Apple has never removed
>> > any Apps.  Your red herring doesn't work here, bigot.
>> 
>> Google removed two worthless apps, while Apple removed peoples' valuable
>> content.
> 
> no they didn't
> 
>> "Red herring?"  No just a crime committed by Apple that you'd
>> love to ignore.
> 
> it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal agreements with
> the copyright holders.

That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even tamper with 
their data?

You iCultists are for sure a group of imbeciles one would expect only in 
some Louisiana swamp, where your mother is also your half-sister
0
Peter
9/23/2015 11:58:58 PM
nospam wrote:

> In article <mtvda2$hm1$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> > the issue was that the drm that was required by the record companies at
>> > the time was hacked.
>> 
>> No, the issue is Apple going through peoples' personal content and
>> removing things without permission.
> 
> they didn't go through anyone's content.
> 
> all they did was remove what had *hacked* drm. everything else was fine.

So they did not go through any content. They just identified it by some 
"other means"

And you are about as smart as heated dirt. No wonder then that you use 
apples stuff
0
Peter
9/24/2015 12:00:54 AM
On 9/23/2015 1:33 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtuhsg$5d6$5@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-23 11:45 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>>>> than capable of providing them with it.
>>>
>>> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
>>> logic, and reality.
>>
>> Wretched Stallman and his team of GNU superheroes haven't come up with
>> an application to reliably deal with facts, logic and reality yet.
>>
>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>>
>> Please don't. I rather enjoy watching Nobody make an ass of himself.
>
> I've had my fun with him; let someone else take over.

What, you mean you're going to call me a "lying bigot" without providing 
any quotes of where I've "lied," or anything that proves I'm a "bigot?"

Run for cover, iCultist!

0
Nobody
9/24/2015 12:01:09 AM
On 2015-09-23 6:17 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:

>>>> At least "Slimer" likes you.
>>>
>>> I have no idea of who he is, nor does it matter to me whether he likes
>>> me or not.
>>
>> Suffering from reading comprehension problems, "Michelle"?  I've told
>> you that it is the "A.M" asshole's former name.
> 
> Considering that I don't know who "A.M." is, I still have no idea who
> he is.  And the fact that a dipshit like you has linked them doesn't
> mean that they are the same.

No, I actually am Slimer. I only changed to A.M because I feel that at
my age, 36, I don't really need to use aliases anymore. It seems like a
kid's thing.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:04:29 AM
On 2015-09-23 7:31 PM, scooz wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 19:29:49 -0400, A.M wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 5:25 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>> A.M wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>>>>>> Apple and its products.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>>
>>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>>>
>>> /quote
>>> I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.
>>>
>>> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>>>
>>> I omitted no relevant facts, liar.  You bigots are all alike:  lying
>>> pieces of festering detritus.
>>>
>>> /unquote
>>
>> Except that you're quoting that out of context. She said that to Nobody,
>> in reference to the fact that he said that she had proven herself to be
>> a liar. However, the rest of what she said is true; you guys ARE lying
>> bigots.
>>
>> Like I said before, Peter, we all WANT to get along with you but you
>> make it incredibly difficult by quoting shit out of context and
>> attacking everyone.
> 
> Sounds just like snit.
> At least Petey has an excuse; English is not his native language.
> What's snit's excuse?

If I told you that I don't typically like people at all and that, as a
result, I don't like Snit either, will you leave me alone?

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:06:17 AM
On 9/23/2015 12:29 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mttced$jo9$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2015 11:26 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <20150923043852.19416f88@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ahahahhahahahahha, why is this crossposted to iCultist group anyway?
>>>
>>> "iCultist" n/adj.  Derogatory term used by Applephobes to describe
>>> people who have an honest and realistic appreciation for Apple's
>>> products.
>>>
>>
>> "Applephobes?"
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
>
> Yup, Applephobes, AKA, Apple haters, AKA anti-Apple bigots.  A perfect
> description of you and your sock puppets.

Liar, Libelous, deluded, iCultist, a perfect description of you.

iCultist n/adj. A term that describes people who worship Apple, Inc. at 
the alter of St. Steve, and who believe Apple, Inc. invented everything 
and owns everything, including their own personal content, and who will 
excuse Apple, Inc. for absolutely anything and everything, especially 
gouging them with overpriced, underpowered, cheap Chinese goods.
0
Nobody
9/24/2015 12:07:39 AM
In article <mtvec1$qgt$4@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> >> > the issue was that the drm that was required by the record companies at
> >> > the time was hacked.
> >> 
> >> No, the issue is Apple going through peoples' personal content and
> >> removing things without permission.
> > 
> > they didn't go through anyone's content.
> > 
> > all they did was remove what had *hacked* drm. everything else was fine.
> 
> So they did not go through any content. They just identified it by some 
> "other means"

yep.

only content with valid drm or no drm was copied. anything with hacked
drm was skipped.

again, apple had no choice in the matter. they were legally bound to
maintain the integrity of the drm that they were required to use.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 12:07:44 AM
In article <mtve0p$qgt$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Apple can't have any foolproof way to ascertain that the content is indeed 
> "illegal". So they remove content even when it is legally on the device.

wrong.

> But even *if* the content is illegally on the device: It still is *not* 
> apples device, it is owned by someone else. They have neither legal nor 
> moral obligation to tamper with the contents. They have legal and moral 
> obligation not to even *know* what content exists on the device

they're not altering the device nor do they delete illegal material.

you can have all the pirated music, videos and apps you want, without
issue.

the only thing that has ever been removed was music with hacked drm and
apple had no choice in that matter.

if you want to bitch at someone, then bitch at the entity that hacked
the drm and the record companies for forcing drm. 

apple has always been against drm. had there never been any drm from
the start, the entire event would never have happened.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 12:07:45 AM
In article <mtve8d$qgt$3@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> > it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal agreements with
> > the copyright holders.
> 
> That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even tamper with 
> their data?

they did no such thing.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 12:07:45 AM
On 2015-09-23 7:42 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> A.M wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 5:25 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> A.M wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view
>>>>>> on Apple and its products.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>>
>>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>>>
>>> /quote
>>> I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.
>>>
>>> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>>>
>>> I omitted no relevant facts, liar.  You bigots are all alike:  lying
>>> pieces of festering detritus.
>>>
>>> /unquote
>>
>> Except that you're quoting that out of context. 
> 
> 
> Idiotic Snit
> 
> So a "woman who spoke with manners" is posting that?
> 
> You are truly a Snit. Imbeciles would protest to be compared to you

She indeed spoke with manners, she simply pointed out the truth. The
truth is that Linux advocates are indeed lying bags of shit, lying
bigots and lying pieces of festering detritus. If there were a kinder
way of saying it, I'm sure that she would have.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:08:09 AM
On 9/23/2015 3:15 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 2015-09-23 02:10:10 +0000, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:
>
>> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-22 02:50:41 -0400, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On 9/21/2015 6:11 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-09-21, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <d6bgjuF9nopU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No. They still have to pay apple to get their apps into the
>>>>>>>>> store. And
>>>>>>>>> XCode is free to apple users. So why should they suspect something
>>>>>>>>> fishy?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First thing they should have noticed was getting the Xcode from a
>>>>>>>> different source don't you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The normal way to get Xcode is through the App Store application on
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> computer. Downloading it this way ensures it is from Apple.
>>>>>>> Developers
>>>>>>> had to go out of their way to get it from untrusted sources instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then, developers who downloaded this illegitimate Xcode installer
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>> saw a Gatekeeper warning dialog box on their computer telling them
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> this copy of Xcode isn't valid and is not signed by Apple and
>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>> replaced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then those developers had to *disable* or *bypass* Gatekeeper to
>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>> the application to run on their computers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blaming Apple for this level of stupidity is just plain silly. These
>>>>>>> developers are fully responsible for their actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and should have their developer status terminated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. They should never be allowed back into the store, IMHO.
>>>>> That level of dangerous stupidity should not be rewarded.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know Apple stated they have pulled offending apps from the App
>>>>> Store;
>>>>> but I'd love to see confirmation that they also deleted the offending
>>>>> apps from all iOS devices as well.
>>>>
>>>> Apple can delete apps from your device without your permission?   I'm
>>>> sure glad I'm not an Apple customer... I'd rather risk malware than
>>>> just rent my devices from Apple, Inc...
>>>
>>> Yeah... we're glad, too.
>>
>> Really?  Why?  Are you an Apple, Inc. employee?
>
> I like to think we keep the collective Apple user IQ higher that way...

This is why Apple customers have a reputation for being condescending 
assholes...
0
Nobody
9/24/2015 12:08:48 AM
On 2015-09-23 7:54 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:53:18 -0500, Nobody wrote:
> 
>> On 9/23/2015 1:35 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <t1j50blu6le0smdh4cv4g2neocnocsdhqk@4ax.com>, chrisv
>>> <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> slime wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle.
>>>>>> These Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that
>>>>>> you're more than capable of providing them with it.
>>>>
>>>> Fsck you, lying slime.
>>>>
>>>>> *blush*  Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> If you only knew with a filthy lying bastard "A.M" (formerly known as
>>>> "Slimer") is, you would now be running for the shower.
>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts, logic, and reality.
>>>>
>>>> Not "they".  ONE person, "Nobody", is arguing with you.
>>>>
>>>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>>>>
>>>> You should withdraw, if you are going to attack an entire group, based
>>>> upon the actions of ONE person.
>>>
>>> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>>
>> Libel from an iCultist.
> 
> bullshit from no-brains.

How the fuck is "lying bigot" libel, especially since the person is
indeed a lying bigot?


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:09:29 AM
On 2015-09-23 7:58 PM, scooz wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:47:38 -0500, Nobody wrote:
> 
>> On 9/23/2015 9:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>>>>
>>>> OK, change "murdered" to "shot in the arm".  The point that you are so
>>>> desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
>>>> APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
>>>> ANDROID PHONES.  The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
>>>> is that Google removed them.
>>>
>>> I have to agree.  Nobody's zealous attack on Apple is unfair, and his
>>> arguments evasive.
>>>
>>> I'm as much for owners having control of their devices as anyone.  But
>>> where an application is known to be destructive, I think they (Apple
>>> or Google) should have the ability to delete it.
>>
>> Well, here's the thing:  Apple knows about malware on their phones, but 
>> as of yet has NOT removed it.   OTOH, they have used their "kill switch" 
>> to remove non-DRM content from their customers' iPhones.  So the whole 
>> purpose of Apple's "kill switch" technology seems more to protect 
>> corporate profits than to protect users.
>>
>> The example that is supposed to prove how horrible Google is removing 
>> two worthless apps in 2010.  That's it.  Nothing else.
>>
>> I have gone on record as acknowledging Microsoft, Google, and Apple all 
>> have the ability to remotely remove things from customers' phones, and 
>> that I don't like that in any of them.   Which of course makes me a "bigot."
> 
> Compared to Google who was caught knowingly spying on people's
> wireless networks?
> I'll take Apple any day of the week before I trust Google.

+1


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:09:57 AM
nospam wrote:

> In article <mtve0p$qgt$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> Apple can't have any foolproof way to ascertain that the content is
>> indeed "illegal". So they remove content even when it is legally on the
>> device.
> 
> wrong.

Nope. There is *no* way to ascertain that some content is illegal

Example: Ripped CD on iDevice. Legal because of "fair use rights"
Apple has absolutely no way to check that

0
Peter
9/24/2015 12:12:42 AM
nospam wrote:

> In article <mtve8d$qgt$3@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> > it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal agreements with
>> > the copyright holders.
>> 
>> That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even tamper
>> with their data?
> 
> they did no such thing.

They did. You can try to avoid that issue as much as you want
0
Peter
9/24/2015 12:13:30 AM
nospam wrote:

> In article <mtvec1$qgt$4@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> >> > the issue was that the drm that was required by the record companies
>> >> > at the time was hacked.
>> >> 
>> >> No, the issue is Apple going through peoples' personal content and
>> >> removing things without permission.
>> > 
>> > they didn't go through anyone's content.
>> > 
>> > all they did was remove what had *hacked* drm. everything else was
>> > fine.
>> 
>> So they did not go through any content. They just identified it by some
>> "other means"
> 
> yep.

The true answer of an iCultist. With absolutely no idea how computers work.

If he did, he would not be an iCultist in the first place
0
Peter
9/24/2015 12:15:04 AM
In article <mtvf25$qgt$6@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> >> Apple can't have any foolproof way to ascertain that the content is
> >> indeed "illegal". So they remove content even when it is legally on the
> >> device.
> > 
> > wrong.
> 
> Nope. There is *no* way to ascertain that some content is illegal

if (drm== hacked) remove else ignore;

> Example: Ripped CD on iDevice. Legal because of "fair use rights"
> Apple has absolutely no way to check that

not only would that not be touched but it's not the issue.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 12:15:53 AM
On 2015-09-23 8:12 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> nospam wrote:
> 
>> In article <mtve0p$qgt$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Apple can't have any foolproof way to ascertain that the content is
>>> indeed "illegal". So they remove content even when it is legally on the
>>> device.
>>
>> wrong.
> 
> Nope. There is *no* way to ascertain that some content is illegal
> 
> Example: Ripped CD on iDevice. Legal because of "fair use rights"
> Apple has absolutely no way to check that

Apple's decision to remove music from an iDevice only affected content
purchased directly from iTunes. In other words, .M4P files with DRM.
..M4A and .MP3 files could not and were not touched.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:16:33 AM
On 9/23/2015 7:07 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <mtve8d$qgt$3@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>>> it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal agreements with
>>> the copyright holders.
>>
>> That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even tamper with
>> their data?
>
> they did no such thing.

They removed content because it lacked DRM.   That doesn't make it 
pirated, and that doesn't give Apple the right to remove it.

0
Nobody
9/24/2015 12:18:19 AM
In article <mtvcdq$lnv$1@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> Kind of like Volkswagen who were just caught lying about the emissions
> of their diesel-powered vehicles.

It's worse than that, they deliberately programmed those vehicles to
give false results when under emissions testing.
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:18:25 AM
nospam wrote:

> In article <mtvf25$qgt$6@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> >> Apple can't have any foolproof way to ascertain that the content is
>> >> indeed "illegal". So they remove content even when it is legally on
>> >> the device.
>> > 
>> > wrong.
>> 
>> Nope. There is *no* way to ascertain that some content is illegal
> 
> if (drm== hacked) remove else ignore;

Checkable only if invading privacy is possible
Which was denied from the imbecile ilk of you
0
Peter
9/24/2015 12:20:45 AM
In article <mtvf99$rh5$8@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> Apple's decision to remove music from an iDevice only affected content
> purchased directly from iTunes. In other words, .M4P files with DRM.
> .M4A and .MP3 files could not and were not touched.

nope. that's completely wong.

apple removed music purchased *elsewhere* that had a bogus hacked drm
to spoof itunes into thinking the music came from the itunes store.

that's illegal.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 12:20:49 AM
In article <mtvfga$2db$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> They removed content because it lacked DRM. 

nope. they removed content because it *had* drm which had been *hacked*.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 12:20:49 AM
On 9/23/2015 6:50 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <mtvci0$g7t$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>>> So Apple has removed things from their customers phones without
>>>> permission, in spite of iCultist claims "they can do it but never have."
>>>
>>> The fact remains that Apple never removed any *apps*, which is what we
>>> were discussing.  We were not discussing music, you dumbshit.
>>
>> Getting cornered is bringing out the worst in you.  Yes, lets discuss
>> how Apple has failed to use their kill switch to remove malware they
>> know about,
>
> it didn't do enough damage to warrant it. it's actually very minor as
> far as malicious goes.
>
> on one had you bitch about apple being able to remove something and on
> the other hand you bitch that they didn't. can't have it both ways.
>
>> and how they've only used it to remove customers' music
>> against their will.
>
> they deleted music that was not legally sold which had a hacked drm on
> it.

Lacking DRM does not mean it was not legally sold.

> they *had* to remove it because of their legal agreements with the
> record companies who owned the rights to the music.
>
> if you want to blame someone, blame the record companies for requiring
> drm, which apple never wanted to do but had to in order to be able to
> sell music.

No, I'll keep the blame where it belongs, with Apple, Inc.

> legitimately purchased music and even pirated music was not affected.

If it had DRM.

>> We were discussing Apple's ability to remove things against the
>> customer's will.  Removing content is even WORSE than removing apps.
>
> not when it was illegally obtained, it isn't.

Yes it is, and it's not Apple's right to police my personal content. 
Apple has no way to know if it's legal or illegal, only if it has or 
does not have DRM.

0
Nobody
9/24/2015 12:21:09 AM
"A.M" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in news:mtveil$rh5$2@dont-email.me:

> On 2015-09-23 6:17 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>>>>> At least "Slimer" likes you.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea of who he is, nor does it matter to me whether he
>>>> likes me or not.
>>>
>>> Suffering from reading comprehension problems, "Michelle"?  I've
>>> told you that it is the "A.M" asshole's former name.
>> 
>> Considering that I don't know who "A.M." is, I still have no idea who
>> he is.  And the fact that a dipshit like you has linked them doesn't
>> mean that they are the same.
> 
> No, I actually am Slimer. I only changed to A.M because I feel that at
> my age, 36, I don't really need to use aliases anymore. It seems like
> a kid's thing.
> 

You are snit Michael Glasser 'The Prescott Computer Guy' from Prescott
Arizona. This is one of your best sock puppets snit.
Congratulations but I'm sure the real Silver Slimer isn't too happy
about you using that nym to troll. 
0
Edward
9/24/2015 12:21:36 AM
In article <mtvci0$g7t$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> > When Apple wanted to sell music through the iTunes Music Store (as it
> > was called then), the record companies wouldn't sign up unless the
> > music was DRM protected; even a nincompoop like you should be able to
> > understand that.
> 
> You iCultists believe Apple has all the rights, and their customers have 
> none.  It doesn't matter two shits what Apple wants or wanted.  My music 
> is my music.  HANDS OFF, APPLE!

They removed *stolen* music.  But thanks for letting us know that you
support thievery.  I'm not at all surprised that you do, low life that
you are.
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:21:54 AM
In article <230920151950031248%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > We were discussing Apple's ability to remove things against the 
> > customer's will.  Removing content is even WORSE than removing apps.
> 
> not when it was illegally obtained, it isn't.

What else do you expect from a crook like him?
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:22:57 AM
A.M wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 8:12 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <mtve0p$qgt$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
>>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apple can't have any foolproof way to ascertain that the content is
>>>> indeed "illegal". So they remove content even when it is legally on the
>>>> device.
>>>
>>> wrong.
>> 
>> Nope. There is *no* way to ascertain that some content is illegal
>> 
>> Example: Ripped CD on iDevice. Legal because of "fair use rights"
>> Apple has absolutely no way to check that
> 
> Apple's decision to remove music from an iDevice only affected content
> purchased directly from iTunes. In other words, .M4P files with DRM.
> .M4A and .MP3 files could not and were not touched.
> 

How did apple ascertain that content without invading peoples privacy?

You idiots can claim your bullshit all the way you want. It is either apple 
invading privacy, or it is apple removing contents nilly-willy without even 
looking at the legal status
You dimbulbs can't have it both ways

0
Peter
9/24/2015 12:24:38 AM
On 2015-09-23 8:18 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtvcdq$lnv$1@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> Kind of like Volkswagen who were just caught lying about the emissions
>> of their diesel-powered vehicles.
> 
> It's worse than that, they deliberately programmed those vehicles to
> give false results when under emissions testing.

I was actually considering buying a Volks a few months ago since I
could, technically, buy a new car. I'm glad I didn't.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:24:42 AM
In article <mtvepg$rh5$4@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> She indeed spoke with manners, she simply pointed out the truth. The
> truth is that Linux advocates are indeed lying bags of shit, lying
> bigots and lying pieces of festering detritus. If there were a kinder
> way of saying it, I'm sure that she would have.

I was not speaking of all linux advocates, just the ones who are lying
bags of shit, etc.
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:25:27 AM
In article <mtvd30$h4p$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> You must be using the iCultist's "lexicon."  Apple, Inc. has no 
> responsibility, nor even any right, to go into my personal device and 
> remove my personal content.

When Apple has a legal responsibility to remove stolen content from
products it sells, it not only has the right, it has the
responsibility.

Your defense of crooks shows your true character.
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:27:31 AM
In article <mtve8d$qgt$3@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> nospam wrote:
> 
> > In article <mtvd30$h4p$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> > <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> > The fact is that Google removed them, whereas Apple has never removed
> >> > any Apps.  Your red herring doesn't work here, bigot.
> >> 
> >> Google removed two worthless apps, while Apple removed peoples' valuable
> >> content.
> > 
> > no they didn't
> > 
> >> "Red herring?"  No just a crime committed by Apple that you'd
> >> love to ignore.
> > 
> > it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal agreements with
> > the copyright holders.
> 
> That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even tamper with 
> their data?
> 
> You iCultists are for sure a group of imbeciles one would expect only in 
> some Louisiana swamp, where your mother is also your half-sister

Oh, you, too, are defending crooks; I'm not surprised.
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:28:17 AM
Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <mtvci0$g7t$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> > When Apple wanted to sell music through the iTunes Music Store (as it
>> > was called then), the record companies wouldn't sign up unless the
>> > music was DRM protected; even a nincompoop like you should be able to
>> > understand that.
>> 
>> You iCultists believe Apple has all the rights, and their customers have
>> none.  It doesn't matter two shits what Apple wants or wanted.  My music
>> is my music.  HANDS OFF, APPLE!
> 
> They removed *stolen* music.  

No They removed contents they had *no* *rights* at all to know about

No matter if it was legal or not, apple had absolutely no rights to know 
about any of that
0
Peter
9/24/2015 12:28:32 AM
On 2015-09-23 8:20 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <mtvf99$rh5$8@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> Apple's decision to remove music from an iDevice only affected content
>> purchased directly from iTunes. In other words, .M4P files with DRM.
>> .M4A and .MP3 files could not and were not touched.
> 
> nope. that's completely wong.
> 
> apple removed music purchased *elsewhere* that had a bogus hacked drm
> to spoof itunes into thinking the music came from the itunes store.
> 
> that's illegal.

Ah yes, I recall what you're referring to.

If I remember correctly, the "hacked" music was purchased from the
RealMusic Store. It couldn't have been MusicMatch because that service
offered .WMA at the time.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:29:11 AM
In article <mtvda2$hm1$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> In other words, I'll never buy anything from Apple, Inc.  Simple as that.

Good, and I'm sure that Apple and us honest Apple users are very glad
that a crook like you won't be buying their stuff.

However, since you are a self-admitted crook, I won't what you will
steal from Apple, Inc.
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:30:51 AM
In article <mtve3p$qgt$2@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> nospam wrote:
> 
> > In article <mtvdmq$i31$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> > <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Well, here's the thing:  Apple knows about malware on their phones, but
> >> as of yet has NOT removed it.   OTOH, they have used their "kill switch"
> >> to remove non-DRM content from their customers' iPhones.  So the whole
> >> purpose of Apple's "kill switch" technology seems more to protect
> >> corporate profits than to protect users.
> > 
> > wrong.
> > 
> > they removed content that had *hacked* drm because they were legally
> > bound by the copyright holders who wanted *valid* drm (or no drm).
> 
> Idiot

Yes, you are, and a crook too.
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:32:04 AM
On 2015-09-23 8:24 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> A.M wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 8:12 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <mtve0p$qgt$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
>>>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Apple can't have any foolproof way to ascertain that the content is
>>>>> indeed "illegal". So they remove content even when it is legally on the
>>>>> device.
>>>>
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Nope. There is *no* way to ascertain that some content is illegal
>>>
>>> Example: Ripped CD on iDevice. Legal because of "fair use rights"
>>> Apple has absolutely no way to check that
>>
>> Apple's decision to remove music from an iDevice only affected content
>> purchased directly from iTunes. In other words, .M4P files with DRM.
>> .M4A and .MP3 files could not and were not touched.
> 
> How did apple ascertain that content without invading peoples privacy?

Good point.

> You idiots can claim your bullshit all the way you want. It is either apple 
> invading privacy, or it is apple removing contents nilly-willy without even 
> looking at the legal status
> You dimbulbs can't have it both ways

Ugh, I really want to ignore the insults and be nice to you. I really
have no idea why I actually want to get along with you but I rather
enjoy your posts even though you're a complete asshole. Either way...
you made a good point.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:32:27 AM
On 2015-09-23 8:25 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtvepg$rh5$4@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> She indeed spoke with manners, she simply pointed out the truth. The
>> truth is that Linux advocates are indeed lying bags of shit, lying
>> bigots and lying pieces of festering detritus. If there were a kinder
>> way of saying it, I'm sure that she would have.
> 
> I was not speaking of all linux advocates, just the ones who are lying
> bags of shit, etc.

That's all of them.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:32:44 AM
On 2015-09-24, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 7:07 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <mtve8d$qgt$3@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>>> it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal agreements with
>>>> the copyright holders.
>>>
>>> That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even tamper with
>>> their data?
>>
>> they did no such thing.
>
> They removed content because it lacked DRM.

Actually, Apple removed files with *faked* DRM that tried (and failed)
to look like legitimate protected content - and they did so only *after*
record companies demanded it threatening to end contracts which would
hurt Apple's legitimate customers. You guys should really try harder;
you are failing spectacularly.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/24/2015 12:34:17 AM
On 24 Sep 2015 00:34:17 GMT
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-24, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> > On 9/23/2015 7:07 PM, nospam wrote:
> >> In article <mtve8d$qgt$3@dont-email.me>, Peter K=C3=B6hlmann
> >> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal
> >>>> agreements with the copyright holders.
> >>>
> >>> That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even
> >>> tamper with their data?
> >>
> >> they did no such thing.
> >
> > They removed content because it lacked DRM.
>=20
> Actually, Apple removed files with *faked* DRM that tried (and failed)
> to look like legitimate protected content - and they did so only
> *after* record companies demanded it threatening to end contracts
> which would hurt Apple's legitimate customers. You guys should really
> try harder; you are failing spectacularly.
>=20

Heh, what about pushing content on phones , then? They not only remove,
but they add content as well, without user knowledge,,,

0
Melzzzzz
9/24/2015 12:36:34 AM
In article <mtvdqq$i31$2@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 9/23/2015 12:33 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <mttd0s$476$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> > <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "The fact is Google has removed apps from
> >> user's devices while Apple has not."
> >>
> >> That's the lie of omission you wrote.
> >
> > Keep bleating about lies of omission; your continual stressing
> > irrelevancies, and your continual spamming these newsgroups with that
> > same article clearly show that you don't have a leg to stand on, just
> > like homophobes, anti-Semites, Islamaphobes, anti-Choicers, militant
> > atheists, Tea Partiers, etc.
> 
> You seem to be having some kind of spasm...

Yeah, crooks and bigots like you do get my dander up.  You're in the
same category as the KKK, and other right-wing bigots, except that you
pose no physical danger to anyone.

You are a coward, skulking behind a veneer of anonymity, and wouldn't
have the guts to behave in public the way you do on line.

I, on the other hand, would (and have done so) tell a bigot to his face
the same things I've been saying to you here.  Unlike you, I have
integrity and courage.
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:37:24 AM
In article <mtvfh8$qgt$11@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> >> Nope. There is *no* way to ascertain that some content is illegal
> > 
> > if (drm== hacked) remove else ignore;
> 
> Checkable only if invading privacy is possible

nonsense

nobody went out looking for it.

once the drm issue was patched, hacked drm music was not synced.

if the user did not sync music after the patch then nothing was
altered. they could keep the hacked music.

once again, apple *had* to fix the drm issue. they had no choice in the
matter.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 12:37:50 AM
In article <mtvflk$2db$2@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> > they deleted music that was not legally sold which had a hacked drm on
> > it.
> 
> Lacking DRM does not mean it was not legally sold.

again, it's not that it lacked drm. 

it's that it *had* drm which had been hacked to spoof that the music
was legitimately obtained from the itunes.

that's illegal.

> > they *had* to remove it because of their legal agreements with the
> > record companies who owned the rights to the music.
> >
> > if you want to blame someone, blame the record companies for requiring
> > drm, which apple never wanted to do but had to in order to be able to
> > sell music.
> 
> No, I'll keep the blame where it belongs, with Apple, Inc.

the blame is with the entity who hacked the drm.

> > legitimately purchased music and even pirated music was not affected.
> 
> If it had DRM.

nope. anything without drm was not affected. anything with valid drm
was not affected.

the *only* thing that was affected was something that had hacked drm
pretending to be from the apple store.

it was effectively counterfeit.

> 
> >> We were discussing Apple's ability to remove things against the
> >> customer's will.  Removing content is even WORSE than removing apps.
> >
> > not when it was illegally obtained, it isn't.
> 
> Yes it is, and it's not Apple's right to police my personal content. 
> Apple has no way to know if it's legal or illegal, only if it has or 
> does not have DRM.

they weren't policing your content.

they were policing the entity that hacked the drm.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 12:37:51 AM
In article <230920151721545130%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > When Apple wanted to sell music through the iTunes Music Store (as it
> > > was called then), the record companies wouldn't sign up unless the
> > > music was DRM protected; even a nincompoop like you should be able to
> > > understand that.
> > 
> > You iCultists believe Apple has all the rights, and their customers have 
> > none.  It doesn't matter two shits what Apple wants or wanted.  My music 
> > is my music.  HANDS OFF, APPLE!
> 
> They removed *stolen* music.  But thanks for letting us know that you
> support thievery.  I'm not at all surprised that you do, low life that
> you are.

actually it wasn't stolen.

it was purchased, however, the seller had done something illegal, which
was hacking the drm to spoof it so that it appeared to come from apple
when it did not.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 12:37:52 AM
In article <mtvfog$qgt$12@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> 
> How did apple ascertain that content without invading peoples privacy?

itunes checked for an invalid drm when syncing. that's all.

music with valid drm or no drm (including pirated music) was unaffected.

apple did not reach out and remove music.

> You idiots can claim your bullshit all the way you want. It is either apple 
> invading privacy, or it is apple removing contents nilly-willy without even 
> looking at the legal status

it's neither.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 12:37:53 AM
In article <mtvg0u$vh1$4@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> >> Apple's decision to remove music from an iDevice only affected content
> >> purchased directly from iTunes. In other words, .M4P files with DRM.
> >> .M4A and .MP3 files could not and were not touched.
> > 
> > nope. that's completely wong.
> > 
> > apple removed music purchased *elsewhere* that had a bogus hacked drm
> > to spoof itunes into thinking the music came from the itunes store.
> > 
> > that's illegal.
> 
> Ah yes, I recall what you're referring to.
> 
> If I remember correctly, the "hacked" music was purchased from the
> RealMusic Store. It couldn't have been MusicMatch because that service
> offered .WMA at the time.

correct.

real networks hacked apple's drm so that ipods saw their music as
coming from the itunes store, when it did not.

that's *very* illegal.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 12:37:54 AM
In article <20150924023634.3966bcd9@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
wrote:

> 
> Heh, what about pushing content on phones , then? They not only remove,
> but they add content as well, without user knowledge,,,

nonsense.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 12:37:54 AM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:24:42 -0400, A.M wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 8:18 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <mtvcdq$lnv$1@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> 
>>> Kind of like Volkswagen who were just caught lying about the emissions
>>> of their diesel-powered vehicles.
>> 
>> It's worse than that, they deliberately programmed those vehicles to
>> give false results when under emissions testing.
> 
> I was actually considering buying a Volks a few months ago since I
> could, technically, buy a new car. I'm glad I didn't.

I drove a little Jetta Diesel a couple years ago.  It was fun to drive 
with lots of giddyap.  But it was too small and well overpriced.  Later I 
found out how much it costs to do scheduled maintenance and was really 
happy I hadn't bought it.




-- 
Lloyd
0
Lloyd
9/24/2015 12:38:25 AM
In article <mtve4o$ql3$2@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 6:08 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
> >>>>
> >>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
> >>>> Apple and its products.
> >>>
> >>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
> >>
> >> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
> >> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Klöwn?
> > 
> > His being German has nothing to do with it.
> 
> I'm Polish. I feel that it's my right to make fun of them considering
> how awful they've historically always been to us.

Well, OK; I'm a quarter Polish myself.  Also a quarter Russian, a
quarter Austrian, and a quarter Hungarian.
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:38:59 AM
In article <mtveap$i31$5@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> You may now prove your "honesty" by quoting any of my "lies," and 
> anything that proves I'm a "bigot."

Already did.  Multiple times.
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:39:44 AM
On 2015-09-23 8:37 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtvdqq$i31$2@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/23/2015 12:33 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <mttd0s$476$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The fact is Google has removed apps from
>>>> user's devices while Apple has not."
>>>>
>>>> That's the lie of omission you wrote.
>>>
>>> Keep bleating about lies of omission; your continual stressing
>>> irrelevancies, and your continual spamming these newsgroups with that
>>> same article clearly show that you don't have a leg to stand on, just
>>> like homophobes, anti-Semites, Islamaphobes, anti-Choicers, militant
>>> atheists, Tea Partiers, etc.
>>
>> You seem to be having some kind of spasm...
> 
> Yeah, crooks and bigots like you do get my dander up.  You're in the
> same category as the KKK, and other right-wing bigots, except that you
> pose no physical danger to anyone.
> 
> You are a coward, skulking behind a veneer of anonymity, and wouldn't
> have the guts to behave in public the way you do on line.

Linux advocates only see the sun once a year... when the LinuxCon comes
to town... at which point they all show up with beards, with cheetos and
other crumbs in them, stinking of sweat and crotch fluids like their
idol Wretched Stallman. That or they put on a penguin costume.

> I, on the other hand, would (and have done so) tell a bigot to his face
> the same things I've been saying to you here.  Unlike you, I have
> integrity and courage.

Preach on!

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:40:47 AM
In article <mtvesb$jt6$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> iCultist n/adj. A term that describes people who worship Apple, Inc. at 
> the alter of St. Steve, and who believe Apple, Inc. invented everything 
> and owns everything, including their own personal content, and who will 
> excuse Apple, Inc. for absolutely anything and everything, especially 
> gouging them with overpriced, underpowered, cheap Chinese goods.

OK, then I am not an iCultist by that definition, inaccurate as it is. 
In fact, no one I know of is or has ever been an iCultist.

You sound like a homophobe complaining that the gays are beating him up.
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:42:04 AM
On 2015-09-23 8:37 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <mtvg0u$vh1$4@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>>>> Apple's decision to remove music from an iDevice only affected content
>>>> purchased directly from iTunes. In other words, .M4P files with DRM.
>>>> .M4A and .MP3 files could not and were not touched.
>>>
>>> nope. that's completely wong.
>>>
>>> apple removed music purchased *elsewhere* that had a bogus hacked drm
>>> to spoof itunes into thinking the music came from the itunes store.
>>>
>>> that's illegal.
>>
>> Ah yes, I recall what you're referring to.
>>
>> If I remember correctly, the "hacked" music was purchased from the
>> RealMusic Store. It couldn't have been MusicMatch because that service
>> offered .WMA at the time.
> 
> correct.
> 
> real networks hacked apple's drm so that ipods saw their music as
> coming from the itunes store, when it did not.
> 
> that's *very* illegal.

Yeah, Real deserved to pay for that. To be honest, there was a long time
during which Real could effectively be seen as the most rotten media
company on Earth. In the 1990s, their RealPlayer was ubiquitous. Then,
by 2000, they turned it into a bloated mess and people removed it in
favour of alternatives. They spent the next decade trying to regain
their position at the top of the totem pole but rather than provide a
decent piece of software like they did at the very beginning, they
decided to be as dirty as they can be. I'm surprised that they're not dead.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:42:58 AM
On 2015-09-23 8:38 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:24:42 -0400, A.M wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 8:18 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <mtvcdq$lnv$1@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kind of like Volkswagen who were just caught lying about the emissions
>>>> of their diesel-powered vehicles.
>>>
>>> It's worse than that, they deliberately programmed those vehicles to
>>> give false results when under emissions testing.
>>
>> I was actually considering buying a Volks a few months ago since I
>> could, technically, buy a new car. I'm glad I didn't.
> 
> I drove a little Jetta Diesel a couple years ago.  It was fun to drive 
> with lots of giddyap.  But it was too small and well overpriced.  Later I 
> found out how much it costs to do scheduled maintenance and was really 
> happy I hadn't bought it.

I probably won't be buying cars outright anymore. I notice that I get
much better service if I lease them. After all, if the car still belongs
to the dealer, they're more willing to take good care of it. Meanwhile,
if you bought it, they're all too happy to do shoddy work and overcharge
you.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 12:44:18 AM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:44:18 -0400, A.M wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 8:38 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:24:42 -0400, A.M wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-09-23 8:18 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>> In article <mtvcdq$lnv$1@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kind of like Volkswagen who were just caught lying about the
>>>>> emissions of their diesel-powered vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> It's worse than that, they deliberately programmed those vehicles to
>>>> give false results when under emissions testing.
>>>
>>> I was actually considering buying a Volks a few months ago since I
>>> could, technically, buy a new car. I'm glad I didn't.
>> 
>> I drove a little Jetta Diesel a couple years ago.  It was fun to drive
>> with lots of giddyap.  But it was too small and well overpriced.  Later
>> I found out how much it costs to do scheduled maintenance and was
>> really happy I hadn't bought it.
> 
> I probably won't be buying cars outright anymore. I notice that I get
> much better service if I lease them. After all, if the car still belongs
> to the dealer, they're more willing to take good care of it. Meanwhile,
> if you bought it, they're all too happy to do shoddy work and overcharge
> you.

I probably won''t buy another car either.  I drive very little so the 2015 
Encore I have now should do just fine.  Then if later it becomes not the 
car for a trip, I'll just rent one.



-- 
Lloyd
0
Lloyd
9/24/2015 12:46:17 AM
In article <230920152037513363%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <mtvflk$2db$2@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
> > > they deleted music that was not legally sold which had a hacked drm on
> > > it.
> > 
> > Lacking DRM does not mean it was not legally sold.
> 
> again, it's not that it lacked drm. 
> 
> it's that it *had* drm which had been hacked to spoof that the music
> was legitimately obtained from the itunes.
> 
> that's illegal.

It's no use; sans corpus (who is also sans mentis), Köhlmann, and their
ilk will keep repeating their lies and bigotry as long as we continue
to engage them.  And it seems that I'm that I'm the primary person in
csms who is engaging them, I need to stop.  So I'm killfiling the
thread after I post this.
0
Michelle
9/24/2015 12:46:59 AM
In article <mtvfoi$vh1$2@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> On 2015-09-23 8:18 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <mtvcdq$lnv$1@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Kind of like Volkswagen who were just caught lying about the emissions
> >> of their diesel-powered vehicles.
> > 
> > It's worse than that, they deliberately programmed those vehicles to
> > give false results when under emissions testing.
> 
> I was actually considering buying a Volks a few months ago since I
> could, technically, buy a new car. I'm glad I didn't.

There's nothing actually wrong with the cars. They simply cheated to
pass the tougher emissions laws in some parts of America.
0
Your
9/24/2015 1:01:01 AM
Melzzzzz wrote:

> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
>>> Chinese that assemble their gear...
>> 
>> the same factories that make products from dell, lenovo, sony, acer,
>> asus, motorola and others.
>> 
>> almost everything electronic comes from there.
>
>Exactly. 

Then why single-out Apple for attack?

>Except that you pay more for logo....

That's the customer's choice.

-- 
"One corrupt document sent into work could cost them their job."
"Hadron", FUD'ing Open Office
0
chrisv
9/24/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 9/23/15, 4:31 PM, in article 16sow1d3ejwzg.sop3kn9law33$.dlg@40tude.net,
"scooz" <scooz@myemailisspamfree.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 19:29:49 -0400, A.M wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 5:25 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>> A.M wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
>>>>>> Apple and its products.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>> 
>>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>>> 
>>> /quote
>>> I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.
>>> 
>>> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>>> 
>>> I omitted no relevant facts, liar.  You bigots are all alike:  lying
>>> pieces of festering detritus.
>>> 
>>> /unquote
>> 
>> Except that you're quoting that out of context. She said that to Nobody,
>> in reference to the fact that he said that she had proven herself to be
>> a liar. However, the rest of what she said is true; you guys ARE lying
>> bigots.
>> 
>> Like I said before, Peter, we all WANT to get along with you but you
>> make it incredibly difficult by quoting shit out of context and
>> attacking everyone.
> 
> Sounds just like snit.

All my unquotable sins. EVIL!

> At least Petey has an excuse; English is not his native language.
> What's snit's excuse?



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/24/2015 1:01:04 AM
On 9/23/15, 3:16 PM, in article wdphhwj7rx4t.qova5wxr3duz.dlg@40tude.net,
"scooz" <scooz@myemailisspamfree.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:44:11 +0200, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> 
>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>> 
>>> On 9/23/15, 2:38 PM, in article mtv61a$squ$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
>>> K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M"
>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz
>>>>>>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view
>>>>>>>> on Apple and its products.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>>>>>> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Kl�wn?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Peter has no sense of morality.
>>>>  
>>>> You mean I would take the money meant for the education of my children in
>>>> order to troll usenet groups 24/7? Or would not do any gainful job to
>>>> help improve the family financial situation?
>>>> Or post faked videos as "evidence"? Or claim to be "honest" and
>>>> "honorable" while being as far away from those as humanly possible?
>>>> 
>>>> You think I am just like you, Snit Michael Glasser, a disgusting lying
>>>> swine without any morals?
>>> 
>>> See: you want attention and fear speaking of technology. WHY?
>> 
>> Since when has your claim about morality anything to do with "technology",
>> disgusting lying swine Snit Michael Glasser?
>> 
>> What the hell is wrong with you?
> 
> How long do you have?
> Short answer is snit Michael Glasser is an insane, psychopath with
> highly narcissistic tendencies and a case of BPD.
> 
> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html
> 
> QUOTE---->>
> 
> Snit Michael Glasser -- Psychopath
> 
> Usenet is an Internet system for sharing information that was created
> before the World Wide Web, and still exists. It has more than 100,000
> subject-oriented sections called "newsgroups". A few of these, for
> example comp.os.linux.advocacy [COLA], deal with the computer
> software called Linux.
> 
> I sometimes post messages (articles) about Linux to these newsgroups,
> particularly COLA. I've also posted messages about the 9-11 research
> when challenged. 
> 
> A person named: Michael Glasser -- "Prescott Computer Guy" --
> calls himself "Snit" in Usenet. He seems to be severely offended by
> anyone who disagrees with the official government conspiracy theory
> about 9-11, and he also greatly favors Mac computers and discourages
> people from using Linux. Apparently in order to pick fights about
> these matters, he has invaded COLA and posts more there than anyone
> else. Previously, he spent years disrupting the newsgroup
> comp.sys.mac.advocacy.
> 
> Snit Michael Glasser exhibits extensive psychopathic behavior --
> lying, targeting, scapegoating, stalking, attacking, copious
> repetition, severe irrationality, and always more lying. Some have
> called him "the biggest liar in Usenet history", the most
> "universally hated" person in Usenet, "a liar and a forger", etc.
> 
> Here 163 people condemn his activities.
> 
> As psychopaths often do, Snit Michael Glasser has chosen a principal
> target/scapegoat for his lies and hatred. Because of his ideas about
> 9-11 and about Linux, he's targeted me. He has posted thousands of
> lying Usenet articles in COLA attacking me, since the beginning of
> April 2013. He's also posted thousands of attacks against Richard
> Stallman, one of the principal creators of Linux.
> 
> Snit Michael Glasser uses many different techniques for lying about
> me and others. 
> 
> As most newsgroups are unmoderated, there are no limits to how many
> messages a person can post, or what they can say, such as savage
> lying attacks on others.
> 
> Surprisingly, about 4% of the population are psychopaths. Here's some
> information about them from researcher Stefan Verstappen:
> 
> Psychopathy in Politics and Finance
> 
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/psychopathy-in-politics-and-finance/5334161
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eKqs7GJ0jdY
> 
> Defense Against the Psychopath: Parts 1, 2 and 3
> Use the index to the right of the video to select another one.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFM0dUpL66c&list=PL65611F66F026774A&index=1
> 
> QUOTE <<<<------

Other than noting your desperation for attention did you have any point you
wanted to make?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/24/2015 1:02:30 AM
On 9/23/15, 4:42 PM, in article mtvd9m$o7v$1@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> A.M wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 5:25 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>> A.M wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view
>>>>>> on Apple and its products.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>> 
>>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
>>> 
>>> /quote
>>> I have proven no such thing, you lying bag of shit.
>>> 
>>> He is representative of a group; that group being lying bigots.
>>> 
>>> I omitted no relevant facts, liar.  You bigots are all alike:  lying
>>> pieces of festering detritus.
>>> 
>>> /unquote
>> 
>> Except that you're quoting that out of context.
> 
> 
> Idiotic Snit
> 
> So a "woman who spoke with manners" is posting that?
> 
> You are truly a Snit. Imbeciles would protest to be compared to you

Other than noting your desperation for attention did you have any point you
wanted to make?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/24/2015 1:03:36 AM
On 9/23/15, 3:32 PM, in article mtv95n$bf8$1@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
> 
>> On 9/23/15, 2:44 PM, in article mtv6bm$squ$2@dont-email.me, "Peter
>> K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>>> 
>>>> On 9/23/15, 2:38 PM, in article mtv61a$squ$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
>>>> K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M"
>>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz
>>>>>>>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic
>>>>>>>>> view on Apple and its products.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points
>>>>>>> scum. How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the
>>>>>>> Kl�wn?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Peter has no sense of morality.
>>>>>  
>>>>> You mean I would take the money meant for the education of my children
>>>>> in order to troll usenet groups 24/7? Or would not do any gainful job
>>>>> to help improve the family financial situation?
>>>>> Or post faked videos as "evidence"? Or claim to be "honest" and
>>>>> "honorable" while being as far away from those as humanly possible?
>>>>> 
>>>>> You think I am just like you, Snit Michael Glasser, a disgusting lying
>>>>> swine without any morals?
>>>> 
>>>> See: you want attention and fear speaking of technology. WHY?
>>> 
>>> Since when has your claim about morality anything to do with
>>> "technology", disgusting lying swine Snit Michael Glasser?
>>> 
>>> What the hell is wrong with you?
>>>  
>>> 
>> You did not answer my question and just begged for more attention.
>> 
>> So why don't we stop this idiotic back and forth. Why not talk about
>> technology?
>>
>> How about you try to find tasks you think Linux does well and we can compare
>> them to the competition... though I suspect on even hearing of that idea you
>> will wet yourself and run off. The very idea of technology is terrifying to
>> you.

And Peter, as predicted, runs away - proving he is scared to speak of
technology and is merely desperate for attention.

> Idiot. What has *your* claim about "morality" to do with technology?
> 
> Short answer: Nothing. Absolutely nothing
> 
> If you want to talk about "technology" start learning the basics about it.
> Until then, get lost



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/24/2015 1:05:06 AM
In article <D2286A5B.5CEB8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/23/15, 2:38 PM, in article mtv61a$squ$1@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
> >
> >> On 9/23/15, 2:09 PM, in article mtv4a6$l9b$2@dont-email.me, "A.M"
> >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2015-09-23 4:10 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> >>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <20150923203753.1fbeeced@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> You are representative of group "iCultists"....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "iCultist"  N and Adj.  Someone who has an honest and realistic view on
> >>>>> Apple and its products.
> >>>>
> >>>> And then there is scum. Utterly filthy scum. Like you
> >>>
> >>> Wow, calling a woman who spoke with manners and proved her points scum.
> >>> How low can a ridiculous German asshole like you go, Peter the Kl�wn?
> >>
> >> Peter has no sense of morality.
> >
> > You mean I would take the money meant for the education of my children in
> > order to troll usenet groups 24/7? Or would not do any gainful job to help
> > improve the family financial situation?
> > Or post faked videos as "evidence"? Or claim to be "honest" and "honorable"
> > while being as far away from those as humanly possible?
> >
> > You think I am just like you, Snit Michael Glasser, a disgusting lying swine
> > without any morals?
>
> See: you want attention and fear speaking of technology. WHY?
>
> What the hell is wrong with you?
>

You two should get a room.

0
Anonymous
9/24/2015 1:06:17 AM
On 9/23/15, 5:21 PM, in article mtvfme$v5b$1@dont-email.me, "Edward Milano"
<milano58_remove_no_spam@post.com> wrote:

> "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in news:mtveil$rh5$2@dont-email.me:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 6:17 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> At least "Slimer" likes you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have no idea of who he is, nor does it matter to me whether he
>>>>> likes me or not.
>>>> 
>>>> Suffering from reading comprehension problems, "Michelle"?  I've
>>>> told you that it is the "A.M" asshole's former name.
>>> 
>>> Considering that I don't know who "A.M." is, I still have no idea who
>>> he is.  And the fact that a dipshit like you has linked them doesn't
>>> mean that they are the same.
>> 
>> No, I actually am Slimer. I only changed to A.M because I feel that at
>> my age, 36, I don't really need to use aliases anymore. It seems like
>> a kid's thing.
>> 
> 
> You are snit Michael Glasser 'The Prescott Computer Guy' from Prescott
> Arizona. This is one of your best sock puppets snit.
> Congratulations but I'm sure the real Silver Slimer isn't too happy
> about you using that nym to troll.

Other than noting your desperation for attention did you have any point you
wanted to make?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/24/2015 1:06:25 AM
On 2015-09-24, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> In article <mtvci0$g7t$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> > When Apple wanted to sell music through the iTunes Music Store (as it
>>> > was called then), the record companies wouldn't sign up unless the
>>> > music was DRM protected; even a nincompoop like you should be able to
>>> > understand that.
>>> 
>>> You iCultists believe Apple has all the rights, and their customers have
>>> none.  It doesn't matter two shits what Apple wants or wanted.  My music
>>> is my music.  HANDS OFF, APPLE!
>> 
>> They removed *stolen* music.  
>
> No They removed contents they had *no* *rights* at all to know about

You couldn't be more wrong. Apple didn't actually remove a thing. All
Apple did was prevent songs with faked DRM (reverse engineered by Real
networks) from playing on Apple's iPods. 

Apple won the class action law suit because a jury, after only three
hours of deliberation, decided based on the evidence that Apple had done
nothing wrong. It turns out not a single individual lost a song, as
court evidence showed. The plaintiffs were unable to show Apple was
guilty of antitrust violation. So they lost the case. Plain and simple.

> No matter if it was legal or not, apple had absolutely no rights to know 
> about any of that

Bull. Actually, Apple didn't invade anyone's privacy, because all Apple
needed to knoe was the proper DRM, and simply prevented reverse
engineered faked DRM from playing on Apple iPods. 

All of this is history. The details are readily available on the
internet for anyone who bothers to read. The fact that you didn't bother
learning anything about it before opening your mouth says everything we
need to know about you. Hard fail.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/24/2015 1:06:54 AM
On 2015-09-24, A.M <> wrote:
> On 2015-09-23 8:24 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> 
>> How did apple ascertain that content without invading peoples privacy?
>
> Good point.

Not really, no. Apple didn't have to do anything but verify that the DRM
included in the content being placed onto the Apple device by the user was
genuine. If it was not genuine, Apple simply prevented the content from
being placed on the Apple device. There was no need to invade anyone's
privacy. 

>> You idiots can claim your bullshit all the way you want. It is either apple 
>> invading privacy, or it is apple removing contents nilly-willy without even 
>> looking at the legal status
>> You dimbulbs can't have it both ways
>
> Ugh, I really want to ignore the insults and be nice to you. I really
> have no idea why I actually want to get along with you but I rather
> enjoy your posts even though you're a complete asshole. Either way...
> you made a good point.

Nope. Apple didn't invade anyone's privacy, nor did they remove
anything. Users lost nothing - that's a fact recorded in the lawsuit.
It's not up for dispute.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/24/2015 1:15:53 AM
On 2015-09-24, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2015 00:34:17 GMT
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-24, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> > On 9/23/2015 7:07 PM, nospam wrote:
>> >> In article <mtve8d$qgt$3@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
>> >> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal
>> >>>> agreements with the copyright holders.
>> >>>
>> >>> That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even
>> >>> tamper with their data?
>> >>
>> >> they did no such thing.
>> >
>> > They removed content because it lacked DRM.
>> 
>> Actually, Apple removed files with *faked* DRM that tried (and failed)
>> to look like legitimate protected content - and they did so only
>> *after* record companies demanded it threatening to end contracts
>> which would hurt Apple's legitimate customers. You guys should really
>> try harder; you are failing spectacularly.
>
> Heh, what about [some unrelated thing]

Don't change the subject. You're just trying to distract from the topic
at hand. Lame.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/24/2015 1:16:57 AM
On 24 Sep 2015 01:16:57 GMT
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-24, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > On 24 Sep 2015 00:34:17 GMT
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-09-24, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> >> > On 9/23/2015 7:07 PM, nospam wrote:
> >> >> In article <mtve8d$qgt$3@dont-email.me>, Peter K=C3=B6hlmann
> >> >> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>> it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal
> >> >>>> agreements with the copyright holders.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even
> >> >>> tamper with their data?
> >> >>
> >> >> they did no such thing.
> >> >
> >> > They removed content because it lacked DRM.
> >>=20
> >> Actually, Apple removed files with *faked* DRM that tried (and
> >> failed) to look like legitimate protected content - and they did
> >> so only *after* record companies demanded it threatening to end
> >> contracts which would hurt Apple's legitimate customers. You guys
> >> should really try harder; you are failing spectacularly.
> >
> > Heh, what about [some unrelated thing]
>=20
> Don't change the subject. You're just trying to distract from the
> topic at hand. Lame.
>=20

Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
Chinese that assemble their gear...

0
Melzzzzz
9/24/2015 1:18:57 AM
In article <20150924031857.2dc5bb88@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
wrote:

> Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
> Chinese that assemble their gear...

the same factories that make products from dell, lenovo, sony, acer,
asus, motorola and others.

almost everything electronic comes from there.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 1:21:40 AM
On 2015-09-24, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>
> Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
> Chinese that assemble their gear...

Oh you mean the same ones all the others use? Uh huh. Who made the
clothes on your back, hypocrite? Who made your computer and all of the
devices you use, hypocrite? Troll on, trollboi - you are so, so good at
this! : )

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/24/2015 1:25:58 AM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:21:40 -0400
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <20150924031857.2dc5bb88@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
> > Chinese that assemble their gear...
> 
> the same factories that make products from dell, lenovo, sony, acer,
> asus, motorola and others.
> 
> almost everything electronic comes from there.

Exactly. Except that you pay more for logo....

0
Melzzzzz
9/24/2015 1:37:09 AM
On 24 Sep 2015 01:25:58 GMT
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-24, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> >
> > Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
> > Chinese that assemble their gear...
> 
> Oh you mean the same ones all the others use? Uh huh. Who made the
> clothes on your back, hypocrite? Who made your computer and all of the
> devices you use, hypocrite? Troll on, trollboi - you are so, so good
> at this! : )
> 

I don't pay price for logo... 

0
Melzzzzz
9/24/2015 1:39:03 AM
In article <20150924033709.5bfa1dfe@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
wrote:

> > > Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
> > > Chinese that assemble their gear...
> > 
> > the same factories that make products from dell, lenovo, sony, acer,
> > asus, motorola and others.
> > 
> > almost everything electronic comes from there.
> 
> Exactly. Except that you pay more for logo....

nope. apple prices are competitive and often less for similar items.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 1:40:27 AM
On 2015-09-24, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:21:40 -0400
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <20150924031857.2dc5bb88@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
>> > Chinese that assemble their gear...
>> 
>> the same factories that make products from dell, lenovo, sony, acer,
>> asus, motorola and others.
>> 
>> almost everything electronic comes from there.
>
> Exactly.

So now you say they are all "evil".

> Except that you pay more for logo....

Wrong again. You're batting 1000. You go, girl! : )

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/24/2015 1:41:18 AM
On 2015-09-24, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2015 01:25:58 GMT
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-24, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
>> > Chinese that assemble their gear...
>> 
>> Oh you mean the same ones all the others use? Uh huh. Who made the
>> clothes on your back, hypocrite? Who made your computer and all of the
>> devices you use, hypocrite? Troll on, trollboi - you are so, so good
>> at this! : )
>
> I don't pay price for logo... 

Uh huh. That's what I thought. And now you're wrong about this too.

Keep trying to move the goal posts, silly troll! : D

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/24/2015 1:42:14 AM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:40:27 -0400
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <20150924033709.5bfa1dfe@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > > > Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that
> > > > underpaid Chinese that assemble their gear...
> > > 
> > > the same factories that make products from dell, lenovo, sony,
> > > acer, asus, motorola and others.
> > > 
> > > almost everything electronic comes from there.
> > 
> > Exactly. Except that you pay more for logo....
> 
> nope. apple prices are competitive and often less for similar items.

Sure. Only thing that is competitive is iPhone, same price as
Samsung gear ... problem is that you can buy Android for far less.
You can find desktops for Apple price, as well...
That does not change fact that they are selling weak hardware for
premium price...

0
Melzzzzz
9/24/2015 1:45:15 AM
In article <20150924034515.59fab7b1@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
wrote:

> > > Exactly. Except that you pay more for logo....
> > 
> > nope. apple prices are competitive and often less for similar items.
> 
> Sure. Only thing that is competitive is iPhone, same price as
> Samsung gear ...

so you agree that you're not paying for the logo.

> problem is that you can buy Android for far less.

you can, but they have lesser specs. 

crazy as it may seem, but lower specs = lower prices similar specs =
similar prices.

> You can find desktops for Apple price, as well...

ones with similar specs.

> That does not change fact that they are selling weak hardware for
> premium price...

there is nothing weak about their hardware, such as the retina imac 5k.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 1:49:17 AM
On 24 Sep 2015 01:41:18 GMT
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-24, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:21:40 -0400
> > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <20150924031857.2dc5bb88@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz
> >> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
> >> > Chinese that assemble their gear...
> >> 
> >> the same factories that make products from dell, lenovo, sony,
> >> acer, asus, motorola and others.
> >> 
> >> almost everything electronic comes from there.
> >
> > Exactly.
> 
> So now you say they are all "evil".

More or less, yes.

> 
> > Except that you pay more for logo....
> 
> Wrong again. You're batting 1000. You go, girl! : )

Wrong?

> 


0
Melzzzzz
9/24/2015 1:50:31 AM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:49:17 -0400
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <20150924034515.59fab7b1@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > > > Exactly. Except that you pay more for logo....
> > > 
> > > nope. apple prices are competitive and often less for similar
> > > items.
> > 
> > Sure. Only thing that is competitive is iPhone, same price as
> > Samsung gear ...
> 
> so you agree that you're not paying for the logo.
> 
> > problem is that you can buy Android for far less.
> 
> you can, but they have lesser specs. 
> 
> crazy as it may seem, but lower specs = lower prices similar specs =
> similar prices.

Nope. Samsung phones have double cores/memory for same price.

> 
> > You can find desktops for Apple price, as well...
> 
> ones with similar specs.

Nope. Usually double specs that of Apple....

> 
> > That does not change fact that they are selling weak hardware for
> > premium price...
> 
> there is nothing weak about their hardware, such as the retina imac
> 5k.

Now you made me laugh ;pppp


0
Melzzzzz
9/24/2015 1:54:26 AM
In article <20150924035426.4194c95a@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
wrote:

> > > > > Exactly. Except that you pay more for logo....
> > > > 
> > > > nope. apple prices are competitive and often less for similar
> > > > items.
> > > 
> > > Sure. Only thing that is competitive is iPhone, same price as
> > > Samsung gear ...
> > 
> > so you agree that you're not paying for the logo.
> > 
> > > problem is that you can buy Android for far less.
> > 
> > you can, but they have lesser specs. 
> > 
> > crazy as it may seem, but lower specs = lower prices similar specs =
> > similar prices.
> 
> Nope. Samsung phones have double cores/memory for same price.

yet they benchmark slower and lack other features. 

overall they're comparable.

and moments ago you said iphones were competitive, now you say not.
hard to keep up.

> > > You can find desktops for Apple price, as well...
> > 
> > ones with similar specs.
> 
> Nope. Usually double specs that of Apple....

nope.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 1:57:05 AM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:57:05 -0400
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <20150924035426.4194c95a@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > > > > > Exactly. Except that you pay more for logo....
> > > > > 
> > > > > nope. apple prices are competitive and often less for similar
> > > > > items.
> > > > 
> > > > Sure. Only thing that is competitive is iPhone, same price as
> > > > Samsung gear ...
> > > 
> > > so you agree that you're not paying for the logo.
> > > 
> > > > problem is that you can buy Android for far less.
> > > 
> > > you can, but they have lesser specs. 
> > > 
> > > crazy as it may seem, but lower specs = lower prices similar
> > > specs = similar prices.
> > 
> > Nope. Samsung phones have double cores/memory for same price.
> 
> yet they benchmark slower and lack other features. 
> 
> overall they're comparable.
> 
> and moments ago you said iphones were competitive, now you say not.
> hard to keep up.

Users of phones need not care if phone is working. Desktop, different
matter...


> 
> > > > You can find desktops for Apple price, as well...
> > > 
> > > ones with similar specs.
> > 
> > Nope. Usually double specs that of Apple....
> 
> nope.

Sure...

0
Melzzzzz
9/24/2015 2:01:31 AM
On 2015-09-23 8:46 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:44:18 -0400, A.M wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 8:38 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:24:42 -0400, A.M wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-09-23 8:18 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>> In article <mtvcdq$lnv$1@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind of like Volkswagen who were just caught lying about the
>>>>>> emissions of their diesel-powered vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's worse than that, they deliberately programmed those vehicles to
>>>>> give false results when under emissions testing.
>>>>
>>>> I was actually considering buying a Volks a few months ago since I
>>>> could, technically, buy a new car. I'm glad I didn't.
>>>
>>> I drove a little Jetta Diesel a couple years ago.  It was fun to drive
>>> with lots of giddyap.  But it was too small and well overpriced.  Later
>>> I found out how much it costs to do scheduled maintenance and was
>>> really happy I hadn't bought it.
>>
>> I probably won't be buying cars outright anymore. I notice that I get
>> much better service if I lease them. After all, if the car still belongs
>> to the dealer, they're more willing to take good care of it. Meanwhile,
>> if you bought it, they're all too happy to do shoddy work and overcharge
>> you.
> 
> I probably won''t buy another car either.  I drive very little so the 2015 
> Encore I have now should do just fine.  Then if later it becomes not the 
> car for a trip, I'll just rent one.

I drive a lot, but I hate being treated like I constantly owe these
assholes money even though I bought the car. You have to pay for each
service, pay for the oil changes, pay for tires... it never ends. With a
leased car, you pay the lease and that's it; all of the repairs are paid
for by the dealer, especially if it's a BMW. I'll gladly lease a new car
every four years if I can constantly escape the annoying service fees
because their shit cars has bad ball joints, suspension or engine. I'll
pay for the right to drive it, but I don't want their heap of shit to
rust on my driveway after those three or four years.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 2:11:09 AM
On 9/23/15, 7:11 PM, in article mtvm05$bbe$1@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
wrote:

>>> I probably won't be buying cars outright anymore. I notice that I get
>>> much better service if I lease them. After all, if the car still belongs
>>> to the dealer, they're more willing to take good care of it. Meanwhile,
>>> if you bought it, they're all too happy to do shoddy work and overcharge
>>> you.
>> 
>> I probably won''t buy another car either.  I drive very little so the 2015
>> Encore I have now should do just fine.  Then if later it becomes not the
>> car for a trip, I'll just rent one.
> 
> I drive a lot, but I hate being treated like I constantly owe these
> assholes money even though I bought the car. You have to pay for each
> service, pay for the oil changes, pay for tires... it never ends. With a
> leased car, you pay the lease and that's it; all of the repairs are paid
> for by the dealer, especially if it's a BMW. I'll gladly lease a new car
> every four years if I can constantly escape the annoying service fees
> because their shit cars has bad ball joints, suspension or engine. I'll
> pay for the right to drive it, but I don't want their heap of shit to
> rust on my driveway after those three or four years.

I have a 2006 Corolla and put very little into it. Oil changes are still
free (my salesman goofed and as compensation we got oil changes for life).
We have, of course, put tires on it and other basic maintenance, but it is
still in great shape, LONG after it has been paid off. I pay for gas and
each year put new wiper blades on it and pretty much I am good to go.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/24/2015 2:14:56 AM
On 2015-09-23 9:15 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-24, A.M <> wrote:
>> On 2015-09-23 8:24 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>> How did apple ascertain that content without invading peoples privacy?
>>
>> Good point.
> 
> Not really, no. Apple didn't have to do anything but verify that the DRM
> included in the content being placed onto the Apple device by the user was
> genuine. If it was not genuine, Apple simply prevented the content from
> being placed on the Apple device. There was no need to invade anyone's
> privacy. 
> 
>>> You idiots can claim your bullshit all the way you want. It is either apple 
>>> invading privacy, or it is apple removing contents nilly-willy without even 
>>> looking at the legal status
>>> You dimbulbs can't have it both ways
>>
>> Ugh, I really want to ignore the insults and be nice to you. I really
>> have no idea why I actually want to get along with you but I rather
>> enjoy your posts even though you're a complete asshole. Either way...
>> you made a good point.
> 
> Nope. Apple didn't invade anyone's privacy, nor did they remove
> anything. Users lost nothing - that's a fact recorded in the lawsuit.
> It's not up for dispute.

Great response, thanks.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 2:19:09 AM
On 2015-09-24, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <20150924035426.4194c95a@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > > > > Exactly. Except that you pay more for logo....
>> > > > 
>> > > > nope. apple prices are competitive and often less for similar
>> > > > items.
>> > > 
>> > > Sure. Only thing that is competitive is iPhone, same price as
>> > > Samsung gear ...
>> > 
>> > so you agree that you're not paying for the logo.
>> > 
>> > > problem is that you can buy Android for far less.
>> > 
>> > you can, but they have lesser specs. 
>> > 
>> > crazy as it may seem, but lower specs = lower prices similar specs =
>> > similar prices.
>> 
>> Nope. Samsung phones have double cores/memory for same price.
>
> yet they benchmark slower and lack other features. 
>
> overall they're comparable.
>
> and moments ago you said iphones were competitive, now you say not.
> hard to keep up.

It's all he has left. He flip flops more than an American politician.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/24/2015 2:52:51 AM
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:32:44 -0400, A.M wrote:

> On 2015-09-23 8:25 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <mtvepg$rh5$4@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> 
>>> She indeed spoke with manners, she simply pointed out the truth. The
>>> truth is that Linux advocates are indeed lying bags of shit, lying
>>> bigots and lying pieces of festering detritus. If there were a kinder
>>> way of saying it, I'm sure that she would have.
>> 
>> I was not speaking of all linux advocates, just the ones who are lying
>> bags of shit, etc.
> 
> That's all of them.

+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0
scooz
9/24/2015 3:39:54 AM
In article <llmzcl09wflw.1tqipw177hiq9$.dlg@40tude.net>
scooz <scooz@myemailisspamfree.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:32:44 -0400, A.M wrote:
>
> > On 2015-09-23 8:25 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >> In article <mtvepg$rh5$4@dont-email.me>, A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> >>
> >>> She indeed spoke with manners, she simply pointed out the truth. The
> >>> truth is that Linux advocates are indeed lying bags of shit, lying
> >>> bigots and lying pieces of festering detritus. If there were a kinder
> >>> way of saying it, I'm sure that she would have.
> >>
> >> I was not speaking of all linux advocates, just the ones who are lying
> >> bags of shit, etc.
> >
> > That's all of them.
>
> +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Zzzz.

0
Stacey
9/24/2015 4:07:50 AM
Michelle Steiner wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

Sorry, "Michelle", but I've got better things to do than read some
bigot's filthy lies.  Seeing your name splattered all over this
thread, this morning, leads me to believe that you are mentally-ill.

Normal people can't keep-up with kooks, and there's no need to rebut
your *obvious* lies.  

*plonk*

-- 
"GNU/Linux takes all of the technology world's biggest failures and
bundles them all together into 500,000 different distributions for
your convenience."  -  "Slimer"
0
chrisv
9/24/2015 11:47:55 AM
Nobody wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>> I've had my fun with him; let someone else take over.

Too bad you "victory" was sullied by your subsequent bigotry and lies.

>What, you mean you're going to call me a "lying bigot" without providing 
>any quotes of where I've "lied," or anything that proves I'm a "bigot?"

Indeed.  While you were/are acting a bit trollish yourself, nothing
you did warranted such an accusation.  

And then she applied it to an entire group of people that she didn't
know from Adam!

Shitty trolls like to accuse other of exactly what THEY are guilty of,
and "Michelle" *is* a lying bigot.

-- 
"GNU/Linux is all about freedom and clearly, smelling like a garbage
can with six month-old trash and a number of dead raccoons in it is
exactly what RMS envisioned."  -  "Slimer"
0
chrisv
9/24/2015 11:53:50 AM
Nobody wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>> Well Michelle Steiner is a much better human being than "Peter
>> K�hlmann"; for one thing, I'm honest, and for another, I don't attack
>> people unless I or my friends are attacked first.  Neither can
>> truthfully be said about you.
>
>You may now prove your "honesty" by quoting any of my "lies," and 
>anything that proves I'm a "bigot."

It's amazing how vile this "Michelle Steiner" is.  She gets into an
argument with one (admittedly not totally reasonable) person, and
feels that gives her carte blanche to attack an entire group of people
as "liars" and "bigots".  WTF?

What a POS!  The irony!

-- 
"GNU/Linux, as a desktop, running for more than just a few hours is
literally impossible. You seem to have confused Windows with the
garbage some 4 year-old programmed."  -  "Slimer"
0
chrisv
9/24/2015 12:01:39 PM
chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> -- 
> "One corrupt document sent into work could cost them their job."
> "Hadron", FUD'ing Open Office

 LOL

We've got ever more employees using OpenOffice/LibreOffice now, to
generate DOCX files for the Win-dazed.  It's working better than ever!

We also use the OpenOffice "server" to automatically convert
all sorts of documents to PDF.

Of course, most won't venture from what they've already had gavaged.

-- 
Try to value useful qualities in one who loves you.
0
Chris
9/24/2015 12:09:31 PM
nospam wrote:

> Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> they deleted music that was not legally sold which had a hacked drm on
>>> it.
>> 
>> Lacking DRM does not mean it was not legally sold.

Jeez, man, learn how to read and respond to what was written.

>again, it's not that it lacked drm. 
>
>it's that it *had* drm which had been hacked to spoof that the music
>was legitimately obtained from the itunes.
>
>that's illegal.

I think that some people's dislike of the Apple Corp is clouding their
judgement a bit, on this issue.

-- 
"If we're even mildly critical of GNU/Linux, we're liars and trolls."
-  "Slimer", lying shamelessly
0
chrisv
9/24/2015 12:20:30 PM
On 2015-09-23 10:14 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 9/23/15, 7:11 PM, in article mtvm05$bbe$1@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
> wrote:
> 
>>>> I probably won't be buying cars outright anymore. I notice that I get
>>>> much better service if I lease them. After all, if the car still belongs
>>>> to the dealer, they're more willing to take good care of it. Meanwhile,
>>>> if you bought it, they're all too happy to do shoddy work and overcharge
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> I probably won''t buy another car either.  I drive very little so the 2015
>>> Encore I have now should do just fine.  Then if later it becomes not the
>>> car for a trip, I'll just rent one.
>>
>> I drive a lot, but I hate being treated like I constantly owe these
>> assholes money even though I bought the car. You have to pay for each
>> service, pay for the oil changes, pay for tires... it never ends. With a
>> leased car, you pay the lease and that's it; all of the repairs are paid
>> for by the dealer, especially if it's a BMW. I'll gladly lease a new car
>> every four years if I can constantly escape the annoying service fees
>> because their shit cars has bad ball joints, suspension or engine. I'll
>> pay for the right to drive it, but I don't want their heap of shit to
>> rust on my driveway after those three or four years.
> 
> I have a 2006 Corolla and put very little into it. Oil changes are still
> free (my salesman goofed and as compensation we got oil changes for life).
> We have, of course, put tires on it and other basic maintenance, but it is
> still in great shape, LONG after it has been paid off. I pay for gas and
> each year put new wiper blades on it and pretty much I am good to go.

My Jeep Patriot 2010 is also paid completely. It does its job and
transports thing from the hardware store to the house which is why I'm
not in a hurry to replace it. However, it's no longer my everyday car; I
simply can't trust anything made in the United States. I'll keep it as
long as it doesn't fall apart but will only lease everyday cars which
are more likely to break from use.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 1:49:26 PM
Nobody wrote:
> nospam wrote:
> > 
> > the issue was that the drm that was required by the 
> > record companies at the time was hacked.
> 
> No, the issue is Apple going through peoples' personal content 
> and removing things without permission.

Care to cite where within the ELUA that the users did not grant
Apple that permission?  

> > that means fixing the hack and as a result of that, any music
> > that had hacked drm, which the person did not legally own 
> >(that's what hacked means), had to be removed.
> 
> Not having DRM information does not mean the person doesn't 
> legally own the music.

Avoidance noted, as the claim of "not having DRM info" does
not align with actively being in possession of purposefully 
altered ... ie, "hacked" ... DRM.

 
-hh
0
hh
9/24/2015 2:05:47 PM
On 9/24/2015 9:49 AM, A.M wrote:


> My Jeep Patriot 2010 is also paid completely. It does its job and
> transports thing from the hardware store to the house which is why I'm
> not in a hurry to replace it. However, it's no longer my everyday car; I
> simply can't trust anything made in the United States.


You should buy a car from a Canadian car company, if you can find one 
that actually makes a car.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_Canada


Why can't your backward country make a world-selling automobile or truck?

0
DFS
9/24/2015 2:15:04 PM
On 2015-09-24 10:15 AM, DFS wrote:
> On 9/24/2015 9:49 AM, A.M wrote:
> 
> 
>> My Jeep Patriot 2010 is also paid completely. It does its job and
>> transports thing from the hardware store to the house which is why I'm
>> not in a hurry to replace it. However, it's no longer my everyday car; I
>> simply can't trust anything made in the United States.
> 
> 
> You should buy a car from a Canadian car company, if you can find one
> that actually makes a car.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_Canada
> 
> 
> Why can't your backward country make a world-selling automobile or truck?

Probably because we don't need to. The market is already bombarded with
cars and there is no need to waste money developing an industry which is
not likely to bring in a return on investment.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 2:22:27 PM
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:49:26 -0400, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> wrote:

>On 2015-09-23 10:14 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 9/23/15, 7:11 PM, in article mtvm05$bbe$1@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
>> wrote:
>> 


>> I have a 2006 Corolla and put very little into it. Oil changes are still
>> free (my salesman goofed and as compensation we got oil changes for life).
>> We have, of course, put tires on it and other basic maintenance, but it is
>> still in great shape, LONG after it has been paid off. I pay for gas and
>> each year put new wiper blades on it and pretty much I am good to go.
>
>My Jeep Patriot 2010 is also paid completely. It does its job and
>transports thing from the hardware store to the house which is why I'm
>not in a hurry to replace it. However, it's no longer my everyday car; I
>simply can't trust anything made in the United States. I'll keep it as
>long as it doesn't fall apart but will only lease everyday cars which
>are more likely to break from use.

	I have a > 25 year old Fiat, and I love it, though I have to
get in through the windows. Doors don't open. Have two other cars, for
boring stuff. But isn't this drifting a little bit away from Apple vs
Linux x Micro$  trolling ???
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012
0
Shadow
9/24/2015 2:29:28 PM
-hh wrote:

> Nobody wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>> > 
>> > the issue was that the drm that was required by the
>> > record companies at the time was hacked.
>> 
>> No, the issue is Apple going through peoples' personal content
>> and removing things without permission.
> 
> Care to cite where within the ELUA that the users did not grant
> Apple that permission?
> 
>> > that means fixing the hack and as a result of that, any music
>> > that had hacked drm, which the person did not legally own
>> >(that's what hacked means), had to be removed.
>> 
>> Not having DRM information does not mean the person doesn't
>> legally own the music.
> 
> Avoidance noted, as the claim of "not having DRM info" does
> not align with actively being in possession of purposefully
> altered ... ie, "hacked" ... DRM.
> 

Apple does not have the right to play police state and remove any content 
from the device. It is *not* their device, it is *not* their contract with a 
carrier and it is *not* their contract with the company the content came 
from. If it even came from a company and was not (legally) ripped content 
from the owner of the device himself.
In short, apple assumed rights they did not have and can't legally have.

And this bullshit about "altered / hacked DRM" is just that, bullshit.
If you remove DRM, the resultant file will no longer contain DRM. After all, 
the file needs to be playable after DRM removal, and any "surviving DRM" 
will just render the Audio / Video corrupt
0
Peter
9/24/2015 2:30:14 PM
On 2015-09-24 10:29 AM, Shadow wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:49:26 -0400, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-23 10:14 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 9/23/15, 7:11 PM, in article mtvm05$bbe$1@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
>>> wrote:
>>>
> 
> 
>>> I have a 2006 Corolla and put very little into it. Oil changes are still
>>> free (my salesman goofed and as compensation we got oil changes for life).
>>> We have, of course, put tires on it and other basic maintenance, but it is
>>> still in great shape, LONG after it has been paid off. I pay for gas and
>>> each year put new wiper blades on it and pretty much I am good to go.
>>
>> My Jeep Patriot 2010 is also paid completely. It does its job and
>> transports thing from the hardware store to the house which is why I'm
>> not in a hurry to replace it. However, it's no longer my everyday car; I
>> simply can't trust anything made in the United States. I'll keep it as
>> long as it doesn't fall apart but will only lease everyday cars which
>> are more likely to break from use.
> 
> 	I have a > 25 year old Fiat, and I love it, though I have to
> get in through the windows. Doors don't open. Have two other cars, for
> boring stuff. But isn't this drifting a little bit away from Apple vs
> Linux x Micro$  trolling ???
> 	[]'s

You're an idiot, Shadow.

-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 2:44:02 PM
On 2015-09-22, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> nospam wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> In article <mtqtpf$sm3$2@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > They downloaded XCode from an unauthorized source (i.e., pirated), not
>>> > from Apple.
>>> 
>>> Why would they do that?  What's the motivation?
>>
>> it's faster.
>
> More likely, it's that you don't need an Apple login (and whatever else that
> entails) to get the download package.
>
> I snipped the rest of the newsgroups because some of those Apple fans are
> annoying little bastards.
>

    This still does not absolve the curator of actually doing the curating
thing. All of the old platforms that were vulnerable to boot sector viruses
never pretended that they created a safe and exclusionary environment. 

    Apple does.
0
JEDIDIAH
9/24/2015 2:56:33 PM
In article <mu123p$ql1$1@dont-email.me>
"A.M" <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-24 10:29 AM, Shadow wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:49:26 -0400, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-09-23 10:14 PM, Snit wrote:
> >>> On 9/23/15, 7:11 PM, in article mtvm05$bbe$1@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >
> >
> >>> I have a 2006 Corolla and put very little into it. Oil changes are still
> >>> free (my salesman goofed and as compensation we got oil changes for life).
> >>> We have, of course, put tires on it and other basic maintenance, but it is
> >>> still in great shape, LONG after it has been paid off. I pay for gas and
> >>> each year put new wiper blades on it and pretty much I am good to go.
> >>
> >> My Jeep Patriot 2010 is also paid completely. It does its job and
> >> transports thing from the hardware store to the house which is why I'm
> >> not in a hurry to replace it. However, it's no longer my everyday car; I
> >> simply can't trust anything made in the United States. I'll keep it as
> >> long as it doesn't fall apart but will only lease everyday cars which
> >> are more likely to break from use.
> >
> > 	I have a > 25 year old Fiat, and I love it, though I have to
> > get in through the windows. Doors don't open. Have two other cars, for
> > boring stuff. But isn't this drifting a little bit away from Apple vs
> > Linux x Micro$  trolling ???
> > 	[]'s
>
> You're an idiot, Shadow.
>

Please remove apa-s from your flamefest.

0
Finance
9/24/2015 3:01:29 PM
On 9/24/15 4:52 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-24, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <20150924035426.4194c95a@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Exactly. Except that you pay more for logo....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nope. apple prices are competitive and often less for similar
>>>>>> items.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. Only thing that is competitive is iPhone, same price as
>>>>> Samsung gear ...
>>>>
>>>> so you agree that you're not paying for the logo.
>>>>
>>>>> problem is that you can buy Android for far less.
>>>>
>>>> you can, but they have lesser specs.
>>>>
>>>> crazy as it may seem, but lower specs = lower prices similar specs =
>>>> similar prices.
>>>
>>> Nope. Samsung phones have double cores/memory for same price.
>>
>> yet they benchmark slower and lack other features.
>>
>> overall they're comparable.
>>
>> and moments ago you said iphones were competitive, now you say not.
>> hard to keep up.
>
> It's all he has left. He flip flops more than an American politician.
>
I said they are competitive with a price. Samsung phones cost as Apple 
phones. Nobody would look if there are two or four processors or 1GB or 
2GB of RAM for phones... they work the same anyway...

0
Melzzzzz
9/24/2015 3:14:52 PM
Peter K=F6hlmann wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > Nobody wrote:
> >> nospam wrote:
> >> >=20
> >> > the issue was that the drm that was required by the
> >> > record companies at the time was hacked.
> >>=20
> >> No, the issue is Apple going through peoples' personal content
> >> and removing things without permission.
> >=20
> > Care to cite where within the [EULA] that the users did not grant
> > Apple that permission?
> > ...
>=20
> Apple does not have the right to play police state and remove any content=
=20
> from the device.

Better go read the fine print in the EULA, Peter.

For example, have you reviewed the Usage Rules of the App Store=20
Terms and Conditions, particularly that of Section 9.b?

Similarly, to what degree are you permitted to attempt to derive=20
the source code of, modify, or create derivative works?  (eg,=20
"hack")


> It is *not* their device, it is *not* their contract with a=20
> carrier and it is *not* their contract with the company the=20
> content came from.

And yet that's purposefully not the complete picture of where
they most certainly *do* have rights, particularly those which
were granted to them by the User's consent to the EULA.


> If it even came from a company and was not (legally) ripped
> content from the owner of the device himself.  In short,=20
> apple assumed rights they did not have and can't legally have.

Unfortunately, relevant court case concluded otherwise.  =20

FYI, EULA's also often contain "Consent to Use of Data"=20
provisions too.  The below text might actually even be
straight from one of Apple's:

"b. Consent to Use of Data: You agree that Application=20
Provider may collect and use technical data and related=20
information, including but not limited to technical=20
information about Your device, system and application=20
software, and peripherals, that is gathered periodically=20
to facilitate the provision of software updates, product=20
support and other services to You (if any) related to=20
the Licensed Application. Application Provider may use=20
this information, as long as it is in a form that does=20
not personally identify You, to improve its products or=20
to provide services or technologies to You."=20

Note carefully the broadness of statements such as product=20
support, improve products and services, and of course the
old reliable "including but not limited to".  Now go feel
free to go ask your favorite personal lawyer just how much
legal latitude is afforded to the 'Provider' by the above.


> And this bullshit about "altered / hacked DRM" is just that,
> bullshit.  If you remove DRM, the resultant file will no
> longer contain DRM. After all, the file needs to be playable
> after DRM removal, and any "surviving DRM" will just render
> the Audio / Video corrupt

Which, if your claim is true, is merely saying that the action
which was taken only caught the more stupid thieves instead of
all of them. =20

-hh
0
hh
9/24/2015 3:39:37 PM
-hh wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>> > Nobody wrote:
>> >> nospam wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > the issue was that the drm that was required by the
>> >> > record companies at the time was hacked.
>> >> 
>> >> No, the issue is Apple going through peoples' personal content
>> >> and removing things without permission.
>> > 
>> > Care to cite where within the [EULA] that the users did not grant
>> > Apple that permission?
>> > ...
>> 
>> Apple does not have the right to play police state and remove any content
>> from the device.
> 
> Better go read the fine print in the EULA, Peter.
> 
> For example, have you reviewed the Usage Rules of the App Store
> Terms and Conditions, particularly that of Section 9.b?
> 
> Similarly, to what degree are you permitted to attempt to derive
> the source code of, modify, or create derivative works?  (eg,
> "hack")
> 
> 
>> It is *not* their device, it is *not* their contract with a
>> carrier and it is *not* their contract with the company the
>> content came from.
> 
> And yet that's purposefully not the complete picture of where
> they most certainly *do* have rights, particularly those which
> were granted to them by the User's consent to the EULA.

Too bad for you guys that in most of europe the EULA is completely worthless


0
Peter
9/24/2015 3:43:18 PM
Peter K=F6hlmann wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > Peter K=F6hlmann wrote:
> >> -hh wrote:
> >> > Nobody wrote:
> >> >> nospam wrote:
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> > the issue was that the drm that was required by the
> >> >> > record companies at the time was hacked.
> >> >>=20
> >> >> No, the issue is Apple going through peoples' personal content
> >> >> and removing things without permission.
> >> >=20
> >> > Care to cite where within the [EULA] that the users did not grant
> >> > Apple that permission?
> >> > ...
> >>=20
> >> Apple does not have the right to play police state and remove any cont=
ent
> >> from the device.
> >=20
> > Better go read the fine print in the EULA, Peter.
> >=20
> > For example, have you reviewed the Usage Rules of the App Store
> > Terms and Conditions, particularly that of Section 9.b?
> >=20
> > Similarly, to what degree are you permitted to attempt to derive
> > the source code of, modify, or create derivative works?  (eg,
> > "hack")
> >=20
> >=20
> >> It is *not* their device, it is *not* their contract with a
> >> carrier and it is *not* their contract with the company the
> >> content came from.
> >=20
> > And yet that's purposefully not the complete picture of where
> > they most certainly *do* have rights, particularly those which
> > were granted to them by the User's consent to the EULA.
>=20
> Too bad for you guys that in most of europe the EULA is completely worthl=
ess

Might want to double-check your sources on that claim, Peter,
as well as to then cite the relevant parts here:  my understanding
is that there's still several quite important parts which have been=20
legally upheld and remain in force, even in Germany.


-hh
0
hh
9/24/2015 4:02:17 PM
On 9/24/15, 6:49 AM, in article mu0utd$crc$4@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
wrote:

>>> I drive a lot, but I hate being treated like I constantly owe these
>>> assholes money even though I bought the car. You have to pay for each
>>> service, pay for the oil changes, pay for tires... it never ends. With a
>>> leased car, you pay the lease and that's it; all of the repairs are paid
>>> for by the dealer, especially if it's a BMW. I'll gladly lease a new car
>>> every four years if I can constantly escape the annoying service fees
>>> because their shit cars has bad ball joints, suspension or engine. I'll
>>> pay for the right to drive it, but I don't want their heap of shit to
>>> rust on my driveway after those three or four years.
>> 
>> I have a 2006 Corolla and put very little into it. Oil changes are still
>> free (my salesman goofed and as compensation we got oil changes for life).
>> We have, of course, put tires on it and other basic maintenance, but it is
>> still in great shape, LONG after it has been paid off. I pay for gas and
>> each year put new wiper blades on it and pretty much I am good to go.
> 
> My Jeep Patriot 2010 is also paid completely. It does its job and
> transports thing from the hardware store to the house which is why I'm
> not in a hurry to replace it. However, it's no longer my everyday car; I
> simply can't trust anything made in the United States. I'll keep it as
> long as it doesn't fall apart but will only lease everyday cars which
> are more likely to break from use.

While I like higher end computers, I am happy with a lower end but reliable
car. Had a used Corolla before this one - bought it used (5 years) and my
plan was to keep it at least 10 years. About one month before that 10 years
I got rear-ended and the car was totaled. Before that I had decided I could
likely keep it another 5 years or so... though it was beginning to have some
issues. With this car no plans on replacing it any time soon, though this
one I bought new so it is "only" about 10 years old and not 15. :)


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/24/2015 4:25:09 PM
On 2015-09-24 12:25 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 9/24/15, 6:49 AM, in article mu0utd$crc$4@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
> wrote:
> 
>>>> I drive a lot, but I hate being treated like I constantly owe these
>>>> assholes money even though I bought the car. You have to pay for each
>>>> service, pay for the oil changes, pay for tires... it never ends. With a
>>>> leased car, you pay the lease and that's it; all of the repairs are paid
>>>> for by the dealer, especially if it's a BMW. I'll gladly lease a new car
>>>> every four years if I can constantly escape the annoying service fees
>>>> because their shit cars has bad ball joints, suspension or engine. I'll
>>>> pay for the right to drive it, but I don't want their heap of shit to
>>>> rust on my driveway after those three or four years.
>>>
>>> I have a 2006 Corolla and put very little into it. Oil changes are still
>>> free (my salesman goofed and as compensation we got oil changes for life).
>>> We have, of course, put tires on it and other basic maintenance, but it is
>>> still in great shape, LONG after it has been paid off. I pay for gas and
>>> each year put new wiper blades on it and pretty much I am good to go.
>>
>> My Jeep Patriot 2010 is also paid completely. It does its job and
>> transports thing from the hardware store to the house which is why I'm
>> not in a hurry to replace it. However, it's no longer my everyday car; I
>> simply can't trust anything made in the United States. I'll keep it as
>> long as it doesn't fall apart but will only lease everyday cars which
>> are more likely to break from use.
> 
> While I like higher end computers, I am happy with a lower end but reliable
> car. Had a used Corolla before this one - bought it used (5 years) and my
> plan was to keep it at least 10 years. About one month before that 10 years
> I got rear-ended and the car was totaled. Before that I had decided I could
> likely keep it another 5 years or so... though it was beginning to have some
> issues. With this car no plans on replacing it any time soon, though this
> one I bought new so it is "only" about 10 years old and not 15. :)

To be honest, I already told my wife that I wouldn't be against keeping
the Jeep Patriot for a total of fifteen or twenty years either. It's the
secondary car and its purpose is strictly to bring materials to the
house or to transport the dog if ever we want my parents to see the guy.
Otherwise, it's ignored. There's no reason to replace it UNLESS it dies.

In the meantime, I've gotten used to being seen in the BMW and I don't
think that I would be able to go back to a standard car anymore. :)


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 4:32:37 PM
On 9/24/15, 9:32 AM, in article mu18fd$kct$1@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
wrote:

>>>> I have a 2006 Corolla and put very little into it. Oil changes are still
>>>> free (my salesman goofed and as compensation we got oil changes for life).
>>>> We have, of course, put tires on it and other basic maintenance, but it is
>>>> still in great shape, LONG after it has been paid off. I pay for gas and
>>>> each year put new wiper blades on it and pretty much I am good to go.
>>> 
>>> My Jeep Patriot 2010 is also paid completely. It does its job and
>>> transports thing from the hardware store to the house which is why I'm
>>> not in a hurry to replace it. However, it's no longer my everyday car; I
>>> simply can't trust anything made in the United States. I'll keep it as
>>> long as it doesn't fall apart but will only lease everyday cars which
>>> are more likely to break from use.
>> 
>> While I like higher end computers, I am happy with a lower end but reliable
>> car. Had a used Corolla before this one - bought it used (5 years) and my
>> plan was to keep it at least 10 years. About one month before that 10 years
>> I got rear-ended and the car was totaled. Before that I had decided I could
>> likely keep it another 5 years or so... though it was beginning to have some
>> issues. With this car no plans on replacing it any time soon, though this
>> one I bought new so it is "only" about 10 years old and not 15. :)
> 
> To be honest, I already told my wife that I wouldn't be against keeping
> the Jeep Patriot for a total of fifteen or twenty years either. It's the
> secondary car and its purpose is strictly to bring materials to the
> house or to transport the dog if ever we want my parents to see the guy.
> Otherwise, it's ignored. There's no reason to replace it UNLESS it dies.
> 
> In the meantime, I've gotten used to being seen in the BMW and I don't
> think that I would be able to go back to a standard car anymore. :)

What about the BMW do you like? How it is better? I ask because I have no
clue about cars, not because I am denying any benefits. :)


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/24/2015 4:40:17 PM
Senile twat Peter Köhlmann, GNU/Linux-using laughing stock yapped:
>
>nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <mtvec1$qgt$4@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> >> > the issue was that the drm that was required by the record 
>>> >> > companies
>>> >> > at the time was hacked.
>>> >>
>>> >> No, the issue is Apple going through peoples' personal content and
>>> >> removing things without permission.
>>> >
>>> > they didn't go through anyone's content.
>>> >
>>> > all they did was remove what had *hacked* drm. everything else was
>>> > fine.
>>>
>>> So they did not go through any content. They just identified it by some
>>> "other means"
>>
>> yep.
>
>The true answer of an iCultist. With absolutely no idea how computers work.
>
>If he did, he would not be an iCultist in the first place
>
>
Nice selfnuke, "idiot"!
Oh dear, your wife and kids are all "Mak-tards" , followers of "Holy Steve"?
Figures.... not even your own household listens to your Linux and Android 
ramblings just like 99,9% of the smart people in this world.
--
*Kohlmann* is a German slang for taking a shit.
Kohl-mann
'Coal-man'/Submit
verb
1.
discharge feces from the body.
synonyms:
excrete feces, defecate have a bowel movement, have a BM, evacuate one's 
bowels, relieve oneself, go to the bathroom; informaldo/go number two, poop, 
take a dump; vulgar slang take a crap
"nobody wants to see dogs taking a *Kohlmann* on the beach"

0
Cola
9/24/2015 5:23:57 PM
On 2015-09-24 12:40 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 9/24/15, 9:32 AM, in article mu18fd$kct$1@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
> wrote:
> 
>>>>> I have a 2006 Corolla and put very little into it. Oil changes are still
>>>>> free (my salesman goofed and as compensation we got oil changes for life).
>>>>> We have, of course, put tires on it and other basic maintenance, but it is
>>>>> still in great shape, LONG after it has been paid off. I pay for gas and
>>>>> each year put new wiper blades on it and pretty much I am good to go.
>>>>
>>>> My Jeep Patriot 2010 is also paid completely. It does its job and
>>>> transports thing from the hardware store to the house which is why I'm
>>>> not in a hurry to replace it. However, it's no longer my everyday car; I
>>>> simply can't trust anything made in the United States. I'll keep it as
>>>> long as it doesn't fall apart but will only lease everyday cars which
>>>> are more likely to break from use.
>>>
>>> While I like higher end computers, I am happy with a lower end but reliable
>>> car. Had a used Corolla before this one - bought it used (5 years) and my
>>> plan was to keep it at least 10 years. About one month before that 10 years
>>> I got rear-ended and the car was totaled. Before that I had decided I could
>>> likely keep it another 5 years or so... though it was beginning to have some
>>> issues. With this car no plans on replacing it any time soon, though this
>>> one I bought new so it is "only" about 10 years old and not 15. :)
>>
>> To be honest, I already told my wife that I wouldn't be against keeping
>> the Jeep Patriot for a total of fifteen or twenty years either. It's the
>> secondary car and its purpose is strictly to bring materials to the
>> house or to transport the dog if ever we want my parents to see the guy.
>> Otherwise, it's ignored. There's no reason to replace it UNLESS it dies.
>>
>> In the meantime, I've gotten used to being seen in the BMW and I don't
>> think that I would be able to go back to a standard car anymore. :)
> 
> What about the BMW do you like?

Its look and the responsiveness of the vehicle.

> How it is better? I ask because I have no
> clue about cars, not because I am denying any benefits. :)

It's probably overpriced but I don't know how reliable it is yet. Most
people pay more for cars because of their reliability, not necessarily
because of their power. If power were enough, a Dodge Challenger which
costs a lot less would have been more than enough.


-- 
A.M
0
A
9/24/2015 6:07:07 PM
On 9/24/15, 11:07 AM, in article mu1e0j$cgd$1@dont-email.me, "A.M"
<.m@nsn.s> wrote:

....
>>> To be honest, I already told my wife that I wouldn't be against keeping
>>> the Jeep Patriot for a total of fifteen or twenty years either. It's the
>>> secondary car and its purpose is strictly to bring materials to the
>>> house or to transport the dog if ever we want my parents to see the guy.
>>> Otherwise, it's ignored. There's no reason to replace it UNLESS it dies.
>>> 
>>> In the meantime, I've gotten used to being seen in the BMW and I don't
>>> think that I would be able to go back to a standard car anymore. :)
>> 
>> What about the BMW do you like?
> 
> Its look and the responsiveness of the vehicle.

The look does not matter much to me, though the handling would.

>> How it is better? I ask because I have no
>> clue about cars, not because I am denying any benefits. :)
> 
> It's probably overpriced but I don't know how reliable it is yet. Most
> people pay more for cars because of their reliability, not necessarily
> because of their power. If power were enough, a Dodge Challenger which
> costs a lot less would have been more than enough.

It is why I go with Toyota. From past reviews and personal experience they
last forever... they are very reliable. I have had a number of them through
the years and every one lasted better than my "American" cars. I put
"American" in quotes because my Toyotas have actually been made in the US or
Canada! 

Looking now, the car which best fits the "Made in America" claim is Toyota:

<http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/cars-made-in-america/>

To be fair, though, the Corolla itself is not on that list. Oh well.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/24/2015 6:16:25 PM
On 09/23/15 19:18, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2015 01:16:57 GMT
> Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-24, Melzzzzz<mel@zzzzz.com>  wrote:
>>> On 24 Sep 2015 00:34:17 GMT
>>> Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-09-24, Nobody<nobody@invalid.com>  wrote:
>>>>> On 9/23/2015 7:07 PM, nospam wrote:
>>>>>> In article<mtve8d$qgt$3@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
>>>>>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal
>>>>>>>> agreements with the copyright holders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even
>>>>>>> tamper with their data?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> they did no such thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> They removed content because it lacked DRM.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, Apple removed files with *faked* DRM that tried (and
>>>> failed) to look like legitimate protected content - and they did
>>>> so only *after* record companies demanded it threatening to end
>>>> contracts which would hurt Apple's legitimate customers. You guys
>>>> should really try harder; you are failing spectacularly.
>>>
>>> Heh, what about [some unrelated thing]
>>
>> Don't change the subject. You're just trying to distract from the
>> topic at hand. Lame.
>>
>
> Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
> Chinese that assemble their gear...
>
Goal post moving.  Apple isn't the only company using Chinese labor.
Consider Boeing corp. as an example.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/24/2015 9:31:18 PM
On 09/23/15 19:50, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2015 01:41:18 GMT
> Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-24, Melzzzzz<mel@zzzzz.com>  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:21:40 -0400
>>> nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article<20150924031857.2dc5bb88@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz
>>>> <mel@zzzzz.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
>>>>> Chinese that assemble their gear...
>>>>
>>>> the same factories that make products from dell, lenovo, sony,
>>>> acer, asus, motorola and others.
>>>>
>>>> almost everything electronic comes from there.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>> So now you say they are all "evil".
>
> More or less, yes.
>
How so?  Define evil in your own words.

>>
>>> Except that you pay more for logo....
>>
>> Wrong again. You're batting 1000. You go, girl! : )
>
> Wrong?
>
>>
>
>


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/24/2015 9:32:32 PM
On 09/24/15 05:39, chrisv wrote:
> Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>> nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Melzzzzz<mel@zzzzz.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apple is evil company that's for sure... just look that underpaid
>>>> Chinese that assemble their gear...
>>>
>>> the same factories that make products from dell, lenovo, sony, acer,
>>> asus, motorola and others.
>>>
>>> almost everything electronic comes from there.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Then why single-out Apple for attack?
>
>> Except that you pay more for logo....
>
> That's the customer's choice.
>

Hey, you finally got one right.
Even Boeing corp. uses chinese labor.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/24/2015 9:33:17 PM
On 09/23/15 17:56, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> In article<mtvdmq$i31$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Well, here's the thing:  Apple knows about malware on their phones, but
>>> as of yet has NOT removed it.   OTOH, they have used their "kill switch"
>>> to remove non-DRM content from their customers' iPhones.  So the whole
>>> purpose of Apple's "kill switch" technology seems more to protect
>>> corporate profits than to protect users.
>>
>> wrong.
>>
>> they removed content that had *hacked* drm because they were legally
>> bound by the copyright holders who wanted *valid* drm (or no drm).
>
> Idiot

Guffaw!!!  A true morons defense.

-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/24/2015 9:34:46 PM
On 09/23/15 18:37, nospam wrote:
> In article<mtvfog$qgt$12@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>  wrote:
>
>>
>> How did apple ascertain that content without invading peoples privacy?
>
> itunes checked for an invalid drm when syncing. that's all.
>
> music with valid drm or no drm (including pirated music) was unaffected.
>
> apple did not reach out and remove music.
>
>> You idiots can claim your bullshit all the way you want. It is either apple
>> invading privacy, or it is apple removing contents nilly-willy without even
>> looking at the legal status
>
> it's neither.

Very good responses, I may say.
Out of curiosity, does anybody know what Apple has plans for the iMac?

-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/24/2015 9:37:42 PM
On 09/23/15 17:58, scooz wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:47:38 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/2015 9:25 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are the two "murdered people" the iCultists are wailing and
>>>>> moaning for, with much gnashing of teeth...
>>>>
>>>> OK, change "murdered" to "shot in the arm".  The point that you are so
>>>> desperately trying to obfuscate is that APPLE HAS NEVER REMOVED ANY
>>>> APPS FROM ANYONE'S iPhone, whereas GOOGLE HAS INDEED REMOVED APPS FROM
>>>> ANDROID PHONES.  The nature of the apps removed is irrelevant; the fact
>>>> is that Google removed them.
>>>
>>> I have to agree.  Nobody's zealous attack on Apple is unfair, and his
>>> arguments evasive.
>>>
>>> I'm as much for owners having control of their devices as anyone.  But
>>> where an application is known to be destructive, I think they (Apple
>>> or Google) should have the ability to delete it.
>>
>> Well, here's the thing:  Apple knows about malware on their phones, but
>> as of yet has NOT removed it.   OTOH, they have used their "kill switch"
>> to remove non-DRM content from their customers' iPhones.  So the whole
>> purpose of Apple's "kill switch" technology seems more to protect
>> corporate profits than to protect users.
>>
>> The example that is supposed to prove how horrible Google is removing
>> two worthless apps in 2010.  That's it.  Nothing else.
>>
>> I have gone on record as acknowledging Microsoft, Google, and Apple all
>> have the ability to remotely remove things from customers' phones, and
>> that I don't like that in any of them.   Which of course makes me a "bigot."
>
> Compared to Google who was caught knowingly spying on people's
> wireless networks?
> I'll take Apple any day of the week before I trust Google.

Google and the NSA are in bed together, so it figures.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/24/2015 9:38:20 PM
On 09/23/15 18:38, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:24:42 -0400, A.M wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-23 8:18 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article<mtvcdq$lnv$1@dont-email.me>, A.M<.m@nsn.s>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kind of like Volkswagen who were just caught lying about the emissions
>>>> of their diesel-powered vehicles.
>>>
>>> It's worse than that, they deliberately programmed those vehicles to
>>> give false results when under emissions testing.
>>
>> I was actually considering buying a Volks a few months ago since I
>> could, technically, buy a new car. I'm glad I didn't.
>
> I drove a little Jetta Diesel a couple years ago.  It was fun to drive
> with lots of giddyap.  But it was too small and well overpriced.  Later I
> found out how much it costs to do scheduled maintenance and was really
> happy I hadn't bought it.
>
>
>
>
Check out the Youtube videos on runaway diesels.  Glad I never bought 
one.  Damn things just self destruct when they get worn out.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/24/2015 9:42:00 PM
On 09/24/15 08:15, DFS wrote:
> On 9/24/2015 9:49 AM, A.M wrote:
>
>
>> My Jeep Patriot 2010 is also paid completely. It does its job and
>> transports thing from the hardware store to the house which is why I'm
>> not in a hurry to replace it. However, it's no longer my everyday car; I
>> simply can't trust anything made in the United States.
>
>
> You should buy a car from a Canadian car company, if you can find one
> that actually makes a car.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_Canada
>
>
> Why can't your backward country make a world-selling automobile or truck?
>
They used to.  I had a chevy blazer with a 350 engine in it from Canada. 
  Built very well and lasted a long time.  I don't see any from there 
anymore.

-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/24/2015 9:43:27 PM
On 09/24/15 05:47, chrisv wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> Sorry, "Michelle", but I've got better things to do than read some
> bigot's filthy lies.  Seeing your name splattered all over this
> thread, this morning, leads me to believe that you are mentally-ill.
>
> Normal people can't keep-up with kooks, and there's no need to rebut
> your *obvious* lies.
>
> *plonk*
>
*FLUSH*

BYE BYE, TURDV.   LOL!!!

-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/24/2015 9:47:34 PM
On 09/23/15 14:43, Shadow wrote:
>
> 	I don't follow, BD.
> 	You mean only ONE windows user is a hypocrite ? I thought most
> were.
> 	[]'s
He lies a lot about windows by dissing windows, yet uses windows and has 
never used linux.  He's a reverse troll.

-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/24/2015 9:48:48 PM
On 09/23/15 15:15, A.M wrote:
> On 2015-09-23 4:28 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 09/23/15 12:21, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>> On 23 Sep 2015 18:18:28 GMT
>>> Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-09-23, GreyCloud<cumulus@mist.com>   wrote:
>>>>> On 09/23/15 09:45, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>> In article<mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M<.m@nsn.s>    wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle.
>>>>>>> These Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that
>>>>>>> you're more than capable of providing them with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to
>>>>>> facts, logic, and reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>>>>>
>>>>> That vast majority of linux advocates are in herd mode.  To be a
>>>>> member of their herd you have to diss windows and apple.  They'll
>>>>> also diss other operating systems.  Sanity isn't one of their
>>>>> strong points.
>>>>
>>>> This is especially true of "Winston_smith", a regular troll of the iOS
>>>> news groups.
>>>>
>>>
>>> GreyCloud is Windroid troll that infest COLA....
>>
>> Guffaw!!!  So how's the infestation of the immigrants going over there?
>
> Countries which haven't taken any in are being forced to do so by the
> heads of the European Union.
>
> So far, benefits of being a part of the European Union include losing
> control of currency, bankruptcy and now the loss of sovereignty and
> identity. I can't imagine why any country would choose to remain in it.
>
>
They seem to be forced into it.  The Saudis haven't taken one refugee, 
the vatican has room for them but haven't taken any in yet.  The list 
goes on.  Right now it looks like Putin has Obama over a barrel and 
shoved into a corner.  Putin asked Obama to join forces to get rid of 
ISIS, but Obama turned that offer down... gee, I wonder why.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/24/2015 9:50:54 PM
On 09/23/15 16:51, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> In article<d6gifiFho0kU1@mid.individual.net>
> Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-09-23, GreyCloud<cumulus@mist.com>  wrote:
>>> On 09/23/15 12:18, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-23, GreyCloud<cumulus@mist.com>   wrote:
>>>>> On 09/23/15 09:45, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>> In article<mtubf4$7rl$8@dont-email.me>, A.M<.m@nsn.s>    wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before we go any further, thank you for being awesome Michelle. These
>>>>>>> Linux losers need a good dose of reality and it seems that you're more
>>>>>>> than capable of providing them with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *blush*  Thank you.  Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to facts,
>>>>>> logic, and reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that I'll withdraw from the fray now.
>>>>>
>>>>> That vast majority of linux advocates are in herd mode.  To be a member
>>>>> of their herd you have to diss windows and apple.  They'll also diss
>>>>> other operating systems.  Sanity isn't one of their strong points.
>>>>
>>>> This is especially true of "Winston_smith", a regular troll of the iOS
>>>> news groups.
>>>
>>> I don't know him, but will take it into advisement.
>>
>> He changes his name with every new post; so remembering the name won't
>> help. What he cannot seem to change is his posting style, and the mental
>> gyrations he goes though each time. Both give him away quickly every
>> single time. He's a lame troll.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
All your posts seem to have a missing response.  (???)


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."
0
GreyCloud
9/24/2015 9:51:45 PM
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:43:27 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:

> On 09/24/15 08:15, DFS wrote:
>> On 9/24/2015 9:49 AM, A.M wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My Jeep Patriot 2010 is also paid completely. It does its job and
>>> transports thing from the hardware store to the house which is why I'm
>>> not in a hurry to replace it. However, it's no longer my everyday car;
>>> I simply can't trust anything made in the United States.
>>
>>
>> You should buy a car from a Canadian car company, if you can find one
>> that actually makes a car.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_Canada
>>
>>
>> Why can't your backward country make a world-selling automobile or
>> truck?
>>
> They used to.  I had a chevy blazer with a 350 engine in it from Canada.
>   Built very well and lasted a long time.  I don't see any from there
> anymore.

Lots of engines used to be built in Canada.  I don't think you're truck 
was built there, but the engine probably was.




-- 
Lloyd
0
Lloyd
9/24/2015 9:52:02 PM
On 2015-09-24, GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
>>
> All your posts seem to have a missing response.  (???)

I'm not sure what you mean, sorry.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/24/2015 10:20:56 PM
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 6:16:33 PM UTC, Snit wrote:
> On 9/24/15, 11:07 AM, in article mu1e0j$cgd$1@dont-email.me, "A.M"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
> ...
> >>> To be honest, I already told my wife that I wouldn't be against keeping
> >>> the Jeep Patriot for a total of fifteen or twenty years either. It's the
> >>> secondary car and its purpose is strictly to bring materials to the
> >>> house or to transport the dog if ever we want my parents to see the guy.
> >>> Otherwise, it's ignored. There's no reason to replace it UNLESS it dies.
> >>> 
> >>> In the meantime, I've gotten used to being seen in the BMW and I don't
> >>> think that I would be able to go back to a standard car anymore. :)
> >> 
> >> What about the BMW do you like?
> > 
> > Its look and the responsiveness of the vehicle.
> 
> The look does not matter much to me, though the handling would.
> 
> >> How it is better? I ask because I have no
> >> clue about cars, not because I am denying any benefits. :)
> > 
> > It's probably overpriced but I don't know how reliable it is yet. Most
> > people pay more for cars because of their reliability, not necessarily
> > because of their power. If power were enough, a Dodge Challenger which
> > costs a lot less would have been more than enough.
> 
> It is why I go with Toyota. From past reviews and personal experience they
> last forever... they are very reliable. I have had a number of them through
> the years and every one lasted better than my "American" cars. I put
> "American" in quotes because my Toyotas have actually been made in the US or
> Canada! 
> 
> Looking now, the car which best fits the "Made in America" claim is Toyota:
> 
> <http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/cars-made-in-america/>
> 
> To be fair, though, the Corolla itself is not on that list. Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> * OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
> * Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
> * Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
> * Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
> * Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
> * OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Whined the narcissistic, pathologically lying jackass of a drama queen who has, for many years, repeatedly put people's names in thread titles when he's in his special 'hissy fit' mode. 

Here's what everyone knows is a lie from you:

"I do not focus on personalities - I focus on the content of your posts"  -  Snit

Here's a more "interesting"quote of yours:

"It is not as if Usenet is something that really matter".  - Snit

If that were true, why have you spent the last dozen or so years posting to it 24/7/365? Even I can't believe how much trolling you've done in the last couple of weeks or so. Don't they let you out to clean your room anymore?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=gu5I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Steve
9/24/2015 10:55:35 PM
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:55:35 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:

> Whined the narcissistic, pathologically lying jackass of a drama queen
> who has, for many years, repeatedly put people's names in thread titles
> when he's in his special 'hissy fit' mode.
> 
> Here's what everyone knows is a lie from you:
> 
> "I do not focus on personalities - I focus on the content of your posts"
> -  Snit
> 
> Here's a more "interesting"quote of yours:
> 
> "It is not as if Usenet is something that really matter".  - Snit
> 
> If that were true, why have you spent the last dozen or so years posting
> to it 24/7/365? Even I can't believe how much trolling you've done in
> the last couple of weeks or so. Don't they let you out to clean your
> room anymore?

So the lemon sucking bitter old biddy is a lying hypocrite. What else is 
new?

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
0
ronb
9/24/2015 10:58:00 PM
On 9/24/15, 3:58 PM, in article mu1v5o$hkd$1@dont-email.me, "ronb"
<ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

.... 
> So the lemon sucking bitter old biddy is a lying hypocrite. What else is
> new?

Your imaginary friend is, in your own words, a "lying hypocrite". Gee, what
a shock!


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/24/2015 11:09:09 PM
On 9/23/2015 7:30 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtvda2$hm1$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> In other words, I'll never buy anything from Apple, Inc.  Simple as that.
>
> Good, and I'm sure that Apple and us honest Apple users are very glad
> that a crook like you won't be buying their stuff.
>
> However, since you are a self-admitted crook, I won't what you will
> steal from Apple, Inc.

More libel and lies from an iCultist.   She/he/it forbids me entry into 
their cult, based on the lies she/he/it told.

0
Nobody
9/24/2015 11:26:11 PM
On 9/24/2015 10:43 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>> nospam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the issue was that the drm that was required by the
>>>>>> record companies at the time was hacked.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the issue is Apple going through peoples' personal content
>>>>> and removing things without permission.
>>>>
>>>> Care to cite where within the [EULA] that the users did not grant
>>>> Apple that permission?
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Apple does not have the right to play police state and remove any content
>>> from the device.
>>
>> Better go read the fine print in the EULA, Peter.
>>
>> For example, have you reviewed the Usage Rules of the App Store
>> Terms and Conditions, particularly that of Section 9.b?
>>
>> Similarly, to what degree are you permitted to attempt to derive
>> the source code of, modify, or create derivative works?  (eg,
>> "hack")
>>
>>
>>> It is *not* their device, it is *not* their contract with a
>>> carrier and it is *not* their contract with the company the
>>> content came from.
>>
>> And yet that's purposefully not the complete picture of where
>> they most certainly *do* have rights, particularly those which
>> were granted to them by the User's consent to the EULA.
>
> Too bad for you guys that in most of europe the EULA is completely worthless

That's why Apple did away with OS X on DVD.  Their EULA couldn't stop 
people from installing it on a Hackintosh.

0
Nobody
9/24/2015 11:27:36 PM
On 9/23/2015 7:20 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <mtvfga$2db$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> They removed content because it lacked DRM.
>
> nope. they removed content because it *had* drm which had been *hacked*.

That doesn't mean squat.  It had to hack the DRM to get iTunes to play it.

0
Nobody
9/24/2015 11:30:01 PM
On 9/23/2015 7:34 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-24, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 9/23/2015 7:07 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <mtve8d$qgt$3@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
>>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal agreements with
>>>>> the copyright holders.
>>>>
>>>> That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even tamper with
>>>> their data?
>>>
>>> they did no such thing.
>>
>> They removed content because it lacked DRM.
>
> Actually, Apple removed files with *faked* DRM that tried (and failed)
> to look like legitimate protected content - and they did so only *after*
> record companies demanded it threatening to end contracts which would
> hurt Apple's legitimate customers. You guys should really try harder;
> you are failing spectacularly.

So you finally admit the real issue: Apple was protecting its lucrative 
contracts with the record industry at the expense of their customers' 
rights.

0
Nobody
9/24/2015 11:31:48 PM
On 2015-09-24, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 7:20 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <mtvfga$2db$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They removed content because it lacked DRM.
>>
>> nope. they removed content because it *had* drm which had been *hacked*.
>
> That doesn't mean squat.  It had to hack the DRM to get iTunes to play it.

"It" lost the lawsuit. Cry more.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/24/2015 11:33:05 PM
In article <mu211p$9sj$3@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> >> They removed content because it lacked DRM.
> >
> > nope. they removed content because it *had* drm which had been *hacked*.
> 
> That doesn't mean squat.  It had to hack the DRM to get iTunes to play it.

nonsense. itunes plays non-drm content.

the problem is that real networks hacked fairplay to fool itunes, which
is illegal.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 11:33:31 PM
On 9/24/15, 4:26 PM, in article mu20qi$9sj$1@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 9/23/2015 7:30 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <mtvda2$hm1$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In other words, I'll never buy anything from Apple, Inc.  Simple as that.
>> 
>> Good, and I'm sure that Apple and us honest Apple users are very glad
>> that a crook like you won't be buying their stuff.
>> 
>> However, since you are a self-admitted crook, I won't what you will
>> steal from Apple, Inc.
> 
> More libel and lies from an iCultist.   She/he/it forbids me entry into
> their cult, based on the lies she/he/it told.
> 
Now YOU are talking about ronb's imaginary friends. Wow.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/24/2015 11:37:54 PM
On 9/23/2015 6:50 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <mtvd30$h4p$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> The fact is that Google removed them, whereas Apple has never removed
>>> any Apps.  Your red herring doesn't work here, bigot.
>>
>> Google removed two worthless apps, while Apple removed peoples' valuable
>> content.
>
> no they didn't

Yes, they did.

>> "Red herring?"  No just a crime committed by Apple that you'd
>> love to ignore.
>
> it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal agreements with
> the copyright holders.

No legal agreement is binding that requires the commission of a criminal 
act, and Apple going through my personal files on my personal device and 
deleting items without my permission certainly is a criminal act.  They 
have no right to inspect my files for DRM and delete them on that basis, 
or any other basis.

You iCultists seem to think devices are licensed from Apple rather than 
purchased and owned...

0
Nobody
9/24/2015 11:39:50 PM
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:33:31 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <mu211p$9sj$3@news.albasani.net>, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> >> They removed content because it lacked DRM.
>> >
>> > nope. they removed content because it *had* drm which had been
>> > *hacked*.
>> 
>> That doesn't mean squat.  It had to hack the DRM to get iTunes to play
>> it.
> 
> nonsense. itunes plays non-drm content.
> 
> the problem is that real networks hacked fairplay to fool itunes, which
> is illegal.

The real problem is you're responding to 'nobody', otherwise known as 'no-
brains'.  You can't do anything but lose as he picks his nits and circles 
his logic.  He is a well known troll who has found friends amongst linux 
advocates, or as some of us call them 'linux loonies'.




-- 
Lloyd
0
Lloyd
9/24/2015 11:40:16 PM
On 9/23/2015 7:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtve8d$qgt$3@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <mtvd30$h4p$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The fact is that Google removed them, whereas Apple has never removed
>>>>> any Apps.  Your red herring doesn't work here, bigot.
>>>>
>>>> Google removed two worthless apps, while Apple removed peoples' valuable
>>>> content.
>>>
>>> no they didn't
>>>
>>>> "Red herring?"  No just a crime committed by Apple that you'd
>>>> love to ignore.
>>>
>>> it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal agreements with
>>> the copyright holders.
>>
>> That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even tamper with
>> their data?
>>
>> You iCultists are for sure a group of imbeciles one would expect only in
>> some Louisiana swamp, where your mother is also your half-sister
>
> Oh, you, too, are defending crooks; I'm not surprised.

I see you're still lying and libeling.  But you think that's okay, 
because you do it in defense of St. Steve.

0
Nobody
9/24/2015 11:41:08 PM
In article <mu21k6$bug$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> >> "Red herring?"  No just a crime committed by Apple that you'd
> >> love to ignore.
> >
> > it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal agreements with
> > the copyright holders.
> 
> No legal agreement is binding that requires the commission of a criminal 
> act, and Apple going through my personal files on my personal device and 
> deleting items without my permission certainly is a criminal act.  They 
> have no right to inspect my files for DRM and delete them on that basis, 
> or any other basis.

they didn't go through your files and nothing was deleted.

the *only* thing that happened was if you had songs with hacked drm,
they would not be synced to an ipod. they were still on your hard
drive.

hacking the drm was illegal and apple *had* to fix the breach.

> You iCultists seem to think devices are licensed from Apple rather than 
> purchased and owned...

the devices aren't but the music is.
0
nospam
9/24/2015 11:43:01 PM
On 9/23/2015 7:37 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <mtvdqq$i31$2@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/2015 12:33 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <mttd0s$476$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
>>> <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The fact is Google has removed apps from
>>>> user's devices while Apple has not."
>>>>
>>>> That's the lie of omission you wrote.
>>>
>>> Keep bleating about lies of omission; your continual stressing
>>> irrelevancies, and your continual spamming these newsgroups with that
>>> same article clearly show that you don't have a leg to stand on, just
>>> like homophobes, anti-Semites, Islamaphobes, anti-Choicers, militant
>>> atheists, Tea Partiers, etc.
>>
>> You seem to be having some kind of spasm...
>
> Yeah, crooks and bigots like you do get my dander up.  You're in the
> same category as the KKK, and other right-wing bigots, except that you
> pose no physical danger to anyone.
>
> You are a coward, skulking behind a veneer of anonymity, and wouldn't
> have the guts to behave in public the way you do on line.
>
> I, on the other hand, would (and have done so) tell a bigot to his face
> the same things I've been saying to you here.  Unlike you, I have
> integrity and courage.

You are a liar and a libeler, and you are nothing short of a lunatic.

0
Nobody
9/24/2015 11:43:03 PM
On 2015-09-24, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 7:34 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-09-24, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/23/2015 7:07 PM, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <mtve8d$qgt$3@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
>>>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> it was a crime to *not* remove it, given apple's legal agreements with
>>>>>> the copyright holders.
>>>>>
>>>>> That gave them the rights to invade customers privacy and even tamper with
>>>>> their data?
>>>>
>>>> they did no such thing.
>>>
>>> They removed content because it lacked DRM.
>>
>> Actually, Apple removed files with *faked* DRM that tried (and failed)
>> to look like legitimate protected content - and they did so only *after*
>> record companies demanded it threatening to end contracts which would
>> hurt Apple's legitimate customers. You guys should really try harder;
>> you are failing spectacularly.
>
> So you finally admit the real issue: Apple was protecting its lucrative 
> contracts with the record industry at the expense of their customers' 
> rights.

Finally admit? : ) I haven't ever said anything different. The fact is
record industry players refused to allow Apple to sell music without the
DRM.  And it was the same record industry that demanded Apple fix the
RealNetworks issue by refusing to transfer faked DRM music to Apple
devices. Apple has always preferred to sell music without DRM, and
eventually convinced the record industry to allow it, which is why there
is no longer DRM protection in music you purchase from Apple today. If
you are looking to point fingers and blame someone for FairPlay DRM,
point your finger at the record industry.

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/24/2015 11:54:46 PM
On 9/24/15, 4:54 PM, in article d6jgq6F9fstU4@mid.individual.net, "Jolly
Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

>>> Actually, Apple removed files with *faked* DRM that tried (and failed)
>>> to look like legitimate protected content - and they did so only *after*
>>> record companies demanded it threatening to end contracts which would
>>> hurt Apple's legitimate customers. You guys should really try harder;
>>> you are failing spectacularly.
>> 
>> So you finally admit the real issue: Apple was protecting its lucrative
>> contracts with the record industry at the expense of their customers'
>> rights.
> 
> Finally admit? : ) I haven't ever said anything different. The fact is
> record industry players refused to allow Apple to sell music without the
> DRM.  And it was the same record industry that demanded Apple fix the
> RealNetworks issue by refusing to transfer faked DRM music to Apple
> devices. Apple has always preferred to sell music without DRM, and
> eventually convinced the record industry to allow it, which is why there
> is no longer DRM protection in music you purchase from Apple today. If
> you are looking to point fingers and blame someone for FairPlay DRM,
> point your finger at the record industry.

Comes down to Apple is being blamed for NOT stealing things. Um... what? How
is NOT stealing now a bad thing?



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/24/2015 11:58:27 PM
On 2015-09-24, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> Apple going through my personal files on my personal device and 
> deleting items without my permission certainly is a criminal act.

Apple didn't delete any files, as court records show. Your ignorance is
showing.

> They have no right to inspect my files for DRM and delete them on that
> basis, or any other basis.

Apple didn't inspect your silly files. All Apple did was check DRM to
ensure it was genuine before transferring songs to Apple devices. They
certainly have a right to verify the DRM was legitimate and refuse to
transfer illegitimate songs to Apple devices. And the courts and a jury
agreed, which is why Apple won the lawsuit. Apple did nothing wrong.

> You iCultists seem to think devices are licensed from Apple rather than 
> purchased and owned...

Anyone who disagrees with you (even when they are right) you label an
iCultist. How old are you?

-- 
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
0
Jolly
9/25/2015 12:01:15 AM
On 9/24/15, 5:01 PM, in article d6jh6bF9fstU5@mid.individual.net, "Jolly
Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-24, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Apple going through my personal files on my personal device and
>> deleting items without my permission certainly is a criminal act.
> 
> Apple didn't delete any files, as court records show. Your ignorance is
> showing.
> 
>> They have no right to inspect my files for DRM and delete them on that
>> basis, or any other basis.
> 
> Apple didn't inspect your silly files. All Apple did was check DRM to
> ensure it was genuine before transferring songs to Apple devices. They
> certainly have a right to verify the DRM was legitimate and refuse to
> transfer illegitimate songs to Apple devices. And the courts and a jury
> agreed, which is why Apple won the lawsuit. Apple did nothing wrong.
> 
>> You iCultists seem to think devices are licensed from Apple rather than
>> purchased and owned...
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with you (even when they are right) you label an
> iCultist. How old are you?

He got the term from a guy in COLA named ronb who, I kid you not, speaks
about different groups of imaginary friends he has. One he has deemed the
"icultists". These are not even people he can point to - they are nothing
more than his imaginary friends doing things he is ashamed of or whatever.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

0
Snit
9/25/2015 12:09:18 AM
In article <mu20qi$9sj$1@news.albasani.net>
Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/23/2015 7:30 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <mtvda2$hm1$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody
> > <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In other words, I'll never buy anything from Apple, Inc.  Simple as that.
> >
> > Good, and I'm sure that Apple and us honest Apple users are very glad
> > that a crook like you won't be buying their stuff.
> >
> > However, since you are a self-admitted crook, I won't what you will
> > steal from Apple, Inc.
>
> More libel and lies from an iCultist.   She/he/it forbids me entry into
> their cult, based on the lies she/he/it told.

0
Anonymous
9/25/2015 12:58:54 AM
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 00:01:15 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2015-09-24, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> Apple going through my personal files on my personal device and
>> deleting items without my permission certainly is a criminal act.
> 
> Apple didn't delete any files, as court records show. Your ignorance is
> showing.
> 
>> They have no right to inspect my files for DRM and delete them on that
>> basis, or any other basis.
> 
> Apple didn't inspect your silly files. All Apple did was check DRM to
> ensure it was genuine before transferring songs to Apple devices. They
> certainly have a right to verify the DRM was legitimate and refuse to
> transfer illegitimate songs to Apple devices. And the courts and a jury
> agreed, which is why Apple won the lawsuit. Apple did nothing wrong.
> 
>> You iCultists seem to think devices are licensed from Apple rather than
>> purchased and owned...
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with you (even when they are right) you label an
> iCultist. How old are you?

Much older than you'd think by his idiotic posts.



-- 
Lloyd
0
Lloyd
9/25/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 2015-09-25, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/2015 7:01 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-09-24, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Apple going through my personal files on my personal device and
>>> deleting items without my permission certainly is a criminal act.
>>
>> Apple didn't delete any files, as court records show. Your ignorance is
>> showing.
>>
>>> They have no right to inspect my files for DRM and delete them on that
>>> basis, or any other basis.
>>
>> Apple didn't inspect your silly files. All Apple did was check DRM to
>> ensure it was genuine before transferring songs to Apple devices. They
>> certainly have a right to verify the DRM was legitimate and refuse to
>> transfer illegitimate songs to Apple devices. And the courts and a jury
>> agreed, which is why Apple won the lawsuit. Apple did nothing wrong.
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/04/apple-deleted-music-ipods-rivals-steve-jobs

That's an article from The Guardian written before the case was over,
echoing claims made by the people who lost the case. Naturally, the
writer of the article could not have known ahead of time that the
plaintiffs claims were false, and they lost the case as a result.

> Hmm... they have a word for what you are... wait...it'll come to me... 
> oh yes...WRONG... you are completely and horribly WRONG.

You are projecting - and failing hard. Fool.

-- 
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