From: mariasophia@comprehension.com
Another example today of Frank's incessant trolling of this newsgroup is
this exchange between a reasonable poster and Frank Slootweg just now.
In a privacy-related thread discussing how to explore the read permissions
on the Android default sqlite contacts database, after over 50 discussions,
Frank Slootweg doesn't answer the question, but sends this veiled riddle.
From: Frank Slootweg
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: How many apps on your phone have contacts read permission?
Date: 14 Feb 2026 10:38:36 GMT
Message-ID: <10mpmrf.18m8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
I think it's rather disrespectful of 'Arlen' to put the names and
e-mail addresses of his contacts "on the cloud".
And no 'Arlen', this is not trolling, this is just exposing the
inconsistency in your argument.
And yes 'Arlen', I've made this argument before and you ignored it and
silently snipped it. We wonder why.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignoring the personal attack, I responsibly openly & honestly replied with:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2026 15:44:46 -0500
Message-ID: <10mqmru$28q7$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Hi Frank,
You are misrepresenting what I actually do with contacts.
My setup is simple. The system contacts database on my phone is empty
and I use a separate, sandboxed contacts app which stores its data in
its own database. That means the many packages with read permission
on the system contacts provider have nothing at all to read.
I do not store my contacts in any public cloud service. If you have a
specific quote where I said otherwise, please feel free to point to it.
If you see a technical inconsistency in that model, describe it in
concrete terms and we can talk about it. Personal remarks about my
respect for privacy do not change how the data flows actually work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of openly & honestly responding, Frank repeated silly riddles:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: How many apps on your phone have contacts read permission?
Date: 15 Feb 2026 13:25:58 GMT
Nope, I'm not, but you're so caught up in the phone/phone-number
contacts part that you do not even (seem to) realize that you put the
names and e-mail addresses of your contacts "on the cloud".
> I do not store my contacts in any public cloud service.
Yes, you do store the names and e-mail addresses of your contacts on a
public service, you just don't realize it. The public service you use is
as liable to leaking contact information as the Google service you don't
(want to) use. That's the inconsistency in your argument.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To which Richmond openly & honestly inquisitively asked for details.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:53:00 +0000
Message-ID: <82pl66ru4j.fsf@example.com>
That's not the way I read it. I read it as he doesn't use the contacts
app, he puts his contacts somewhere else, presumably somewhere which is
not stored or backed up to the cloud. (Although Google Contacts are
encrypted in the cloud anyway, so it is only on the phone where apps
have permission to read them that it matters).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of openly & honestly faithfully answering the question, Frank says:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Feb 2026 14:04:00 GMT
Message-ID: <10msn8m.s94.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
I'm not commenting on what he says, but on what he does *not* say, but
still *does*, without realizing it.
| (Although Google Contacts are encrypted in the cloud anyway, so it is
| only on the phone where apps have permission to read them that it matters).
I think he begs to differ! :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being reasonable, Richmond asked yet again, openly & honestly, for facts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2026 14:10:07 +0000
Message-ID: <82ldgurtc0.fsf@example.com>
OK, what is it he does without realising it, and how did you know about
it if he didn't?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank again repeated his riddle which only he gets to make the rules for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Feb 2026 14:32:05 GMT
Message-ID: <10msota.18d0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
Sorry, but that's for him (and perhaps for you?) to find out. I'm not
going to spoil it.
In case you're not aware of who and what 'Maria' a.k.a. 'Arlen' is, I
can understand that this looks a rather strange way of (not) discussing
things. Be patient.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In exasperation at Frank's trolls wasting our valuable time, I explained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:13:45 -0500
Message-ID: <10mt2cp$lau$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Hi Richmond,
What is happening here with Frank is not a technical discussion at all.
It is a rhetorical game. Frank is deliberately withholding his supposed
"gotcha" so he can posture as the clever one in the room.
It's Frank's game, but that is not how reasonable people behave when they
actually have a technical point they wish to discuss openly & honestly.
Any reasonable participant would ask exactly what you asked:
"OK, what is it he does without realising it,
and how did you know about it if he did not?"
And notice what happened next, he dodged the question again.
Dodging is the tell.
If he had honest motives on a technical argument, he would simply state it.
But Frank is inherently a dishonest person to the core as we can see here.
Instead of answering your repeated open and honest questions, Frank repeats
the same vague accusation, refuses to explain it, and hides behind a
childish "I will not spoil it" conspiracy-theme "only I know it" routine.
That is not analysis, it is performance.
This is his signature Usenet move:
a. Imply he knows something secret
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
