XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: rragnusen@ultred.com   
      
   Am 24 Mar 2018 20:45:25 GMT, schrieb Jolly Roger:   
      
   > Nope, you're just biased because of the reactions you receive due to   
   > your idiotic trolling of the Apple news groups.   
      
   Well, I have to admit, Jolly Roger, it's rare for you to have an opinion   
   that is one an adult would have, but I did agree with you that the most   
   important questions weren't about what technology he used.   
      
   Nonetheless, that's the question here:   
   Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?   
      
   > He told the world what his position was on many topics. Excuses from   
   > random sympathizers who are desperate to erase his association with   
   > their political leanings aren't relevant to those of us who see the   
   > pattern.   
      
   Again, I don't disagree with your point of view that the kid was a   
   malcontent, in that he seemed to have trouble fitting into the world, where   
   some blamed his home schooling while others blamed his anti-social   
   feelings.   
      
   I suspect, but I am no psychologist, that the *POWER* he wanted to feel   
   that he never had, was garnered by killing people. Again, I repeat I'm no   
   psychologist, so that's just a feeling of mine which is that killing people   
   and having the police play hide and seek gave him a sense of *POWER* that   
   made him feel *GOOD* about himself.   
      
   You may have seen me use those same words in regards to why the Apple users   
   always denigrate the bearer of facts, so you probably can better understand   
   these sentiments than most people will.   
      
   Nonetheless, the bomber's psychological needs aside, the on-topic question   
   for cellular related newsgroups is what technology did him in.   
      
   Certainly it was basic triangulation, but there's no doubt the police did   
   more. Frank Slootweg is too stupid to understand that, but you, Jolly   
   Roger, you should be able to comprehend that there's more to the story than   
   we know at the moment.   
      
   One of those missing details is the answer to this question:   
   Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?   
      
   > Authorities tracked his location using the exact same technology they   
   > use for all cellular phones regardless of make and model: tower   
   > triangulation, which means the make and model is irrelevant.   
      
   While I completely understand that you missed the point of the cellphone   
   technology, you can't say it's irrelevant if, and notice the if, if the   
   bomber felt /safe/ because of a DK-like trust in the brand marketing of the   
   phone.   
      
   Remember the BTK killer felt trust in the cop who was trying to catch him,   
   when he asked that cop if he could be traced by a MS Word document and the   
   cop (lied) told him "no". That BTK killer was mad at the cop and even asked   
   that cop why he lied, to which the cop said "I was trying to catch you",   
   which is exactly how adults work.   
      
   Same here.   
      
   If we assume that the bomber felt /safe/ using that phone, then the   
   marketing of that phone is relevant, whether it be an Android make (most   
   likely I think) or an Apple make (less likely I would think).   
      
   I feel it's a relevant question for a cellphone newsgroup, where I feel   
   your concerns are relevant for other newsgroups.   
      
   For this newsgroup, what's relevant is how did the authorities track him,   
   and why did the bomber feel /safe/ from authorities using /any/ brand of   
   cellphone.   
      
   To wit:   
   Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?   
      
   > The only   
   > reason *you* want so badly to know is so you can make some lame blanket   
   > statement equating to "since he used ______ make and model others who   
   > use ______ make and model are suspect as well", because: troll. You   
   > couldn't be more obvious about it.   
      
   Hehhehheh ... YOu're so /afraid/ of facts that you're clearly stating your   
   fears that I'll use a "fact" to prove a point.   
      
   Hehheh ... do you see how much you're afraid of facts?   
      
   You've already manufactured an argument where those facts hurt your   
   position, when nobody even knows what brand and model of phone the guy had,   
   least of all me.   
      
   Why are you so afraid of facts Jolly Roger?   
      
   > Nobody but you cares, as it's irrelevant. Troll, troll, troll your   
   > boat...   
      
   Oh, I think people care because look how much you and Joerg and Frank   
   Slootweg and The Real Bev seem to care.   
      
   If you didn't care, you'd simply ignore this thread, which, if you don't   
   know the answer to the question, you should. [It's what adults do.]   
      
   The question remains:   
   Q: Does anyone know what phone the now-dead Austin bomber was using?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)