XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.ipad, comp.sys.mac.system   
   From: nunya@ness.biz   
      
   On 2019-09-29 9:48 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:   
   > On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 23:01:39 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:   
   >   
   >> I see.   
   >>   
   >> So basically when they say something GOOD about an iPhone: you ignore it.   
   >   
   > Hi Alan Baker,   
   >   
   > I spend a lot of energy trying to teach you and nospam to be adults.   
   >   
   > With adults, analogies sometimes work, where an analogy is Exxon   
   > o Who markets "Premium Gasoline" like you can't believe   
      
   Which has nothing to do with what I said... ...which you've conveniently   
   (for you) snipped...   
      
   >   
   > Bear in mind, I'm extremely well educated - which means I know chemistry   
   > o Specifically organic chemistry - and the chemistry of "alkanes" ...   
   >   
   > Specifically the mix of two alkanes which are used for the AKI rating   
   > o 2,2,4 tri-methyl pentane & n-heptane   
   >   
   > Those are the "test fuels" for the "octane rating" on gasoline   
   > o Specifically, octane ratings of "Regular" & "Premium"   
   >   
   > There's a HUGE price difference between those two fuels in general, right?   
   > o Why does anyone (with a normal compression engine) pay for the premium?   
      
   They're idiots?   
      
   What does it have to do with the fact that the article YOU referenced is   
   extremely positive on the new iPhones?   
      
   'And the best camera you can get on a phone'   
      
   'These are some of the most well-balanced, most capable phones Apple —   
   or anyone — has ever made. They have excellent battery life, processors   
   that should keep them relevant for years to come, absolutely beautiful   
   displays, and a new camera system that generally outperforms every other   
   phone,'   
      
   You get that those are quotes from YOUR source, correct?   
      
   >   
   > Essentially Exxon lies - but of course - they're clever about it   
   > o Where ignorant people "BELIEVE" that Premium is "better gas"   
   >    (particularly for vehicles that were not designed for premium)   
   >    (which is most vehicles except high compression performance engines)   
   >   
   > As you may be aware, I gather data on what people "think" is premium   
   > o At the gas pump, I nonchalantly ask people 'what is the difference'   
   >   
   > Do you know how few people actually know the difference, Alan Baker?   
   > o In decades of running this survey, fewer than a score I'd assess   
   >   
   > Some even say something really stupid, which goes sort of like this:   
   > o "1 out of every 5 refills - I put the premium in - to clean the engine".   
      
   None of which is actually relevant to our discussion.   
      
   >   
   > Jesus Christ, Alan Baker.   
   > o Do you realize how STUPID people are?   
      
   I know how stupid YOU are...   
      
   >   
   > They are TREMENDOUSLY INFLUENCED BY (admittedly clever) MARKETING.   
   > o Which, essentially, is markets wholly imaginary functionality   
   >   
   > As an adult, Alan Baker, do you understand the analogy I'm making?   
      
   I understand you want to do anything other than discuss the fact that   
   your chosen review is very positive on the new iPhones.   
      
   >   
   >>> Assuming you own an adult mind, not only did TheVerge NOT do a   
   >>> comprehensive review comparing to the top 50 to 100 smartphones, but   
   >>> TheVerge doesn't normally DO comprehensive reviews comparing the top 50 to   
   >>> 100 smartphones against the same metrics for each phone.   
   >>   
   >> What they DID do is give their overall opinion of the new iPhones...   
   >>   
   >> ...and it was very positive.   
   >>   
   >> Rated them 9/10.   
   >   
   > Alan Baker,   
   >   
   > What you apologists often do is "guess" at what someone said.   
      
   I didn't guess: I provided quotes.   
      
   >   
   > As an adult, you need to comprehend what I said, and what I didn't say.   
   > o You need to comprehend context and words and sentences, Alan Baker.   
   >   
   > You must realize the TACTIC nospam used - which I was responding to.   
   >   
   > At the risk of having to re-state history, essentially what happened was:   
   > 1. When I claim Apple iPhones are historically on the bottom of the top 10   
      
   An arbitrary measure which you only reference when it's true.   
      
   > 2. The apologists brazenly claim otherwise (they parrot Apple marketing)   
      
   Give an example.   
      
   > 3. I respond with the simplest test of a purely imaginary belief system   
   >   
   > Three words (actually two but it's poetic) DESTROY imaginary beliefs:   
   > o Name just one   
      
   "Name just one"...   
      
   ...what?   
      
   >   
   > As you're likely well aware, apologists like nospam _always_ fail the test   
   > o Their belief system is backed up by exactly zero actual facts   
   >   
   > Given the child he is, nospam tried to pull a fast one on us adults   
   > o He knows he can't name even a single comprehensive test site of all   
   > smartphone cameras that shows the Apple iPhones anywhere near the top   
   > historically - he's not actually as stupid as most apologists are.   
   >   
   > The fact is nospam KNOWS there are exactly ZERO comprehensive tests sites   
   > on this planet that test the hundred or so mobile phone cameras using an   
   > apples-to-apples detailed test) that historically puts iPhones anywhere   
   > other than in the bottom of the top ten (with rare, temporary, momentary   
   > forays into the top five).   
   >   
   > Let me repeat this fact, Alan, because adults comprehend facts.   
   > o Other than Apple marketing   
   > o Nobody who tests the top 100 smartphone cameras   
   > o Consistently puts an iPhone anywhere near the top   
      
   The top ten out of 100s of smartphones isn't "near the top"?   
      
   >   
   > The facts are clear to adults, Alan Baker   
   > o The most astronomically priced iPhone is historically on the bottom   
      
   Where by "bottom" you mean "in the top tenth of all phones rated".   
      
   >   
   > Whenever, temporarily, an iPhone momentarily occupies a top-five slot   
   > o The Apple apologists claim a "victory" ... which ... in a way ... it is   
   >   
   > But it's a fleeting victory.   
      
   Duh! New phones come out and as they do, they come out with ever   
   improving cameras. ALL such victories are fleeting.   
      
   >   
   > Notice though the utter bullshit nospam tried to pull on me when I asked   
   > o Name just one   
      
   "Name just one"... ...what?   
      
   >   
   > When I asked for a DXO Mark style test to back up nospam's brazen denials   
   > o He tried to pull TheVerge on me - which even he must know is different   
      
   What do you even mean?   
      
   >   
   > Whenever you apologists pull this childishly ignorant move on me, Alan   
   > o I'm gonna point it out   
      
   Like I pointed out your childish dependence on a "summary" that actually   
   rates the iPhone very highly at 9/10?   
      
   >   
   > There are only two possibilities for what nospam pulled on us:   
   > o Either he really doesn't know TheVerge & DXO Mark test completely   
   > different things, or...   
   > o Maybe nospam is really as stupid as what he says indicates.   
   >   
   > The facts clearly show NOBODY but Apple Marketing consistently rates   
   > iPhones in any other place but in the bottom of the top ten - and - when an   
   > iPhone ekes it into the top five - it's always temporary.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)