XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: arlenholder@newmachine.com   
      
   On Fri, 22 May 2020 08:01:48 +0200, Joerg Lorenz wrote:   
      
   >>> It is a fact of the englispeaking usenet that people tend to post   
   >>> anonymously and are much more often very rude and impolite to each other.   
   >>>   
   >>> That is an oberservation I made over 20 years in the englishspeaking   
   >>> usenet. It is quite different in french- or germanspeaking groups.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Anonymity is similar to drinking. It allows people to do things they   
   >> normally don't have the balls to do in person. Anonymity takes it a step   
   >> higher. Most are internet badasses and heroes.   
   >   
   > Very much so!   
      
   For the permanent Usenet record to preserve...   
   o This post contains _adult_ concepts of great topical import...   
     (Wilf... if you're reading... you'll _learn_ something about this ng.)   
      
   The apologists prevent an adult discussion on this ng in three key ways:   
   o Type I apologists brazenly deny any and all facts they don't like;   
   o Type II apologists prefer to remain ignorant of facts they won't like;   
   o Type III apologists react with hateful vitriol to the bearer of facts.   
      
   I think it's interesting that the apologists actually _believe_ the problem   
   is that adults can post whatever they really think when they're anonymous.   
      
   And yet, these same apologists easily are shown to act like small children.   
   o Anonymous (nospam) or otherwise (Joerg Lorenz)   
      
   Factually, it's easy to show evidence the problem is apologists themselves.   
   o Look at, for example, nospam's incessant flat denials of known facts   
   o Or, for example, Alan Baker's claims that all facts are lies by liars   
   o Or, as another example, at _anything_ Lewis or Jolly Roger spew forth   
   etc.   
      
   These apologists incessantly act like children on this newsgroup   
   o Whether or not they're anonymous (e.g., Your Name & Alan Baker)   
      
   And yet, on the adult OS newsgroups, _some_ apologists act like adults:   
   o As an example, "Chris", shockingly, posted as an adult recently   
     to the Linux and Windows and Freeware newsgroups (as noted prior).   
      
   *Why is it that Chris can post as an adult, to the adult OS newsgroups*   
   o *But Chris can't seem to post as an adult to the Apple newsgroups*   
      
   This can have _nothing_ to do with the fact he's anonymous   
   o Which, of course, is a fact completely lost on the apologists.   
      
   HINT: I know why (or at least I think I do), but it's beyond most people   
   here why the apologists are so extremely sensitive to facts about Apple.   
   HINT: The clue is how much Apple MARKETING choose its customers by aiming   
   its messages at those most gullible to purely imaginary belief systems.   
   HINT: Those purely imaginary belief system are instantly DESTROYED by   
   something as innocent as a mere simple obvious published fact.   
   HINT: These apologists are deathly _AFRAID_ of facts; which is why, I   
   posit, apologists flatly deny that facts exist, and as a result, apologists   
   remain fantastically _immune_ to all facts about Apple they don't like.   
      
   It's _easy_ to show that what ruins this newsgroup, are the apologists.   
   o If apologists didn't exist - the remaining discussions would be adult.   
      
   After studying apologists for years, I've categorized them as...   
   o Type I === this is nospam in a category of his own as he's different   
   o Type II === these are simply clueless people; but not malicious people   
   o Type III === these are malicious people of questionable mental stability   
      
   *How do each of these apologistic types ruin adult discussions on this ng?*   
      
   *Type I apologists incessantly & brainlessly parrot Apple MARKETING mantra*   
   o It doesn't matter the topic - nospam _always_ takes MARKETING's position;   
   o Hence, nospam will flatly deny any & all facts he simply doesn't like;   
   o Worse, nospam incessantly fabricates functionality that doesn't exist;   
   o Sadistically sending innocent victims on fruitless wild-goose chases;   
   o And, of course, this is always wasting everyone's valuable time & effort;   
   o Since nospam's credibility, as a result, is that of a simple coin toss;   
   o Basically his tactic is to refute all facts he doesn't like;   
   o But, for those he can't attempt to refute, he will deflect & blame;   
   o Where countless times he deflects the topic off salient facts;   
   o Even stooping to the childish levels (e.g., FTFY) to deflect facts.   
      
   *Type II apologists are simply hateful & ignorant of facts about Apple*   
   o These are the most benign of apologists since they're simply ignorant;   
   o These apologists clearly prefer to remain completely ignorant of facts;   
   o Where their main detriment to this newsgroup is that they're often wrong;   
   o But they don't act like children all the time like the other types do;   
   o An example of an ignorant Type II apologist is Savageduck or Alan Browne;   
   o They're easily shown to be ignorant & childish in most of their posts;   
   o But they're not purposefully sadistic (like nospam) or malicious.   
      
   *Type III apologists are those who most often ruin discussions on this ng!   
   o These are those who can't fathom a single word said against Apple;   
   o While nospam will always blame & deflect when dealing with known facts;   
   o It's clear that nospam actually _knows_ the facts!   
   o Yet, these Type III apologists do NOT know the facts;   
   o They're shocking clueless about even the most obvious published facts;   
   o Such that they respond with instant hateful vitriol to all facts;   
   o Since they have absolutely no adult response to facts they don't like;   
   o Classic Type III apologists are Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK, roctb, Elfin,   
     Lloyd Parsons, & Snit.   
      
   In summary, the apologists prevent an adult discussion three ways:   
   o Type I apologists brazenly deny any and all facts they don't like;   
   o Type II apologists prefer to remain ignorant of facts they won't like;   
   o Type III apologists react with hateful vitriol to the bearer of facts.   
   --   
   o Alan Baker    
   o Alan Browne    
   o Ammammata  (not an apologist, but is ignorant)   
   o Andreas Rutishauser    
   o Barry Margolin  (educated & yet immune to fact)   
   o Beedle    
   o BK@Onramp.net (it's hard to find a human any dumber, sadly to say)   
   o Chris    
   o Davoud    
   o dpb  (posts worthless drivel - but keeps it short)   
   o Elden    
   o Elfin  (aka Lloyd, aka Lloyd Parsons)   
   o Hawk  (literally posts what children would post)   
   o Hemidactylus    
   o hh    
   o joe    
   o Joerg Lorenz  (has no adult thought processes)   
   o Johan    
   o John McWilliams  (child-like cognitive skills)   
   o Jolly Roger  (one of the dumbest of all)   
   o Lewis  (dumber than most)   
   o Lloyd  (aka "Elfin")   
   o Lloyd Parsons  (aka "Elfin")   
   o Meanie    
   o nospam  (bullshitter par excellence)   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)