XPost: alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy, misc.phone.mobile   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: compuelf@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:40:33 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 01:30:24 -0800, KWills Shill #2 wrote:   
   >   
   >>>If you compare all phones, including $100 phones like my Moto G7, your   
   >>>statement is valid - but you must think about Apple's price range phones.   
   >>   
   >>      You stated "A modern mobile device _must_ have it." (emphasis   
   >> yours). Eventually all will have it. But there is nothing to suggest   
   >> all MUST have it at this time.   
   >   
   >Hi KWill's Shill,   
   >   
   >FACTS + ASSESSMENT.   
   >   
   >You either understood what I said about "premium priced" phones...   
   >o Or you completely whooshed on what is meant by "premium priced" phones.   
   >   
   >Pick one.   
   >   
      
        Your claim was, "A modern mobile device _must_ have it." The *it*   
   being 5G. Nothing about premium phones. Only modern mobile devices.   
   When I proved the claim wrong, you changed it to Apple's premium   
   phones. I doubt your deception went unnoticed by anyone reading.   
      
   >>>Think about the key fact that Apple is all MARKETING of "premium" devices.   
   >>>o How can a "premium" device sell, at premium prices, in 2020, without 5G?   
   >>   
   >>      Why are you moving the goal post from all devices to some   
   >> specific devices from Apple? That is the real question.   
   >   
   >You either understood that there are zero Android newsgroups on this thread   
   >o Or you completely whooshed on that obvious-to-adults fact   
   >   
      
        There are several groups. I am posting from alt.conspiracy.   
   Perhaps you lack the maturity to understand not everyone posts from   
   the same group as you. If so, that's unfortunate.   
      
   >Pick one.   
   >   
      
        The claim was, "A modern mobile device _must_ have it." Nothing   
   about limiting this to premium phones was made. While I took it to   
   mean phones, a table with cellular will fall within the claim you   
   made.   
        And you failed to answer the question I asked of you. Here it is   
   again so that you may answer:   
      
   Why are you moving the goal post from all devices to some specific   
   devices from Apple?   
      
   >>>Even the least technical person would have known that their thousand dollar   
   >>>iPhone was a fraction of the networking speed of a modern Android phone.   
   >>   
   >>      If your goal is to prove Android is better than iOS, you're   
   >> preaching to the choir. I much prefer Android.   
   >   
   >My main goal on the Apple newsgroups is to expose the apologists   
   >o For what they are.   
   >   
   >I do that with facts, logic, and reason.   
   >o Something that they're not.   
   >   
      
        You like to change your "facts." Something this discussion   
   proves.   
      
   >>      I don't have a problem with anyone who buys an iPhone. Though I   
   >> do wonder why they would spend so much more for something that does   
   >> the same thing as an Android device. But they have every right to   
   >> purchase the phone they want.   
   >   
   >I have _plenty_ of Android & iOS devices.   
   >o My goal here is simply to expose the apologists for what they are.   
   >   
      
        So why the use of deception on your part? I don't understand why   
   you would feel compelled to lie about a claim you made.   
      
   >>      And when you're called out on being wrong, you try to divert to   
   >> something else. Like your claim that, "A modern mobile device _must_   
   >> have it." When I pointed out the error in the claim, you tried to   
   >> divert the claim to mean only Apple's high end phones.   
   >   
   >You either realize Apple doesn't make a $100 phone, or you don't.   
   >o Pick one.   
      
        You didn't limit your claim to Apple until I proved your claim   
   wrong. At that point you changed it to Apple.   
        Do you really think your dishonesty is a benefit?   
      
   >   
   >>      But present your facts that "A modern mobile device _must_ have   
   >> it." Present the evidence that will show any devices with 4G will   
   >> suddenly cease working as intended.   
   >   
   >You just created a strawman of your own choosing.   
   >o You're the only one claiming devices with 4G will "suddenly cease".   
   >   
      
        I didn't make such a claim. I pointed out your claim that "A   
   modern mobile device _must_ have it." was wrong. Please present your   
   evidence that non-5G devices will not function. If you were lying, as   
   is becoming clear is the case, just admit it and move on.   
      
   >>>Apple spent upwards of 6 billion dollars to get their hands on 5G in 2020.   
   >>>o That's how important getting their hands on 5G was to Apple's business.   
   >>   
   >>      Which has what, exactly, to do with your claim about all devices?   
   >   
   >See prior adult context which you clearly repeatedly whooshed on.   
   >o What part of the fact Apple markets PREMIUM-PRICED phones did you miss?   
      
        That was the claim you added AFTER I proved you wrong. Now, deal   
   with the initial claim. Unless you find it too difficult to be honest   
   and do so.   
      
   >   
   >>>How many projects do you think Apple spend six billion dollars on anyway?   
   >>   
   >>      I don't know. Mostly because what Apple does with its money is   
   >> its business. As long as it isn't infringing on the rights of others.   
   >   
   >The reason for bringing up the fact Apple surrendered to Qualcomm is that   
   >the apologists, nospam in particular, claimed Apple "wasn't worried" about   
   >5G.   
   >   
      
        I doubt anyone was or is worried about 5G, really.   
        I hold the opinion that Apple's deal with Qualcomm was really   
   dumb. But that's merely my opinion.   
        More importantly, Apple is free to do with its money what it   
   wants, so long as it's legal. And their deal with Qualcomm was and is   
   legal. Stupid, but legal.   
      
   >My point is to expose the apologists for what they are.   
   >o In the case of nospam, he has only 7 responses to facts - none adult.   
   >   
      
        So he's adopted your standards? OK.   
      
   >>      More important is you explaining why you're desperately trying to   
   >> divert from your initial claim?   
   >   
   >You can repeatedly build your own strawman and then shoot it down.   
   >o I find _all_ your claims trivial to shoot down, in fact ... with fact.   
   >   
      
        You've yet to even take aim, let alone shoot down my position   
   that a modern mobile device does NOT have to have 5G. Rather, you   
   moved the goal post by trying to discuss premium phones.   
      
   >I don't think you're an apologist - so why are you so unreasonable?   
   >o What part of "premium phones" are you so confused about anyway?   
   >   
      
        You didn't claim anything about premium phones until your initial   
   claim was proved wrong. What do you believe you gain with this   
   deception of yours? I really do want to know.   
      
   >> [Snip the remainder of your failed attempt to divert from the claim   
   >> that a modern mobile device _must_ have [5G]. when you know, and knew,   
   >> the claim is not true.]   
   >   
   >You have two _adult_ choices, as I see your options...   
   >1. You can accept that you have no clue what "premium" means, or,   
   >2. You can continue to prove you have no clue what "premium" means.   
   >   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)