On 2021-09-05 8:11 p.m., Paul wrote:
> knuttle wrote:
>> On 9/2/2021 8:33 PM, AJL wrote:
>>> I haven't needed a dedicated scanner in quite awhile.
>>
>> Hi Arlen!
>
> No, Robin Goodfellow is playing the part of Arlen.
>
> Go back to the very top of this thread, and see
> who started the thread. With the classical troll
> crosspost pattern. See ?
>
>    Paul

Don't assume that Arlen only uses one sock at a time.

In message <sh3up4$rs4$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> On 2021-09-05 6:24 p.m., Robin Goodfellow lied.

> You're lying.

Of course she is lying, it's all she is capable of doing.

--
Q: What's the difference between a civil engineer and a military engineer?
A: A military engineer designs weapons, and a civil engineer designs targets.

On 2021-09-05 10:35 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-09-05 6:24 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>>> sometimes it's preferable to settle out of court and avoid an actual
>>> trial, even if a victory is almost certain.
>>
>> *Apple lost because Apple lied.*
>
> Apple settled what was essentially a nuisance to them.
>
>>
>> Apple hires lawyers at the rate of $25 million dollars a year for one
>> lawyer
>> alone, and with the stakes this high, it's clear one thing which nospam
>> _hates_ about all these successful criminal & civil actions against
>> Apple.
>>
>> *Guilty to the criminal offense was the _best_ deal Apple could get*.
>
> There was no guilty plea.
>
> You're lying.

I would have to agree that a guilty plea would have defeated the purpose
of a settlement.

--
@RabidHussar

RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar> asked
>>> *Guilty to the criminal offense was the _best_ deal Apple could get*.
>>
>> There was no guilty plea.
>>
>> You're lying.
>
> I would have to agree that a guilty plea would have defeated the purpose
> of a settlement.

*Apple apologists _hate_ Apple for entering a plea of guilty to the crime.*

The reason is simple: Even the best lawyers can't change the facts.

*Apple did it without telling anyone & Apple then _lied_ to cover it up.*

Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
> Of course she is lying, it's all she is capable of doing.

Adults will notice Apple apologists have _no_ adult defense to the facts.
They are like 5th-grade bullies who just learned Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Their _only_ defense is "liar liar pants on fire" & "you're a girl!"

Why?
I don't know why.

Apologists _hate_ what Apple is because it's not what Apple says it is.
Like flat earthers, facts always destroy their imaginary belief system.

On 2021-09-06 10:16 a.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar> asked
>>>> *Guilty to the criminal offense was the _best_ deal Apple could get*.
>>>
>>> There was no guilty plea.
>>>
>>> You're lying.
>>
>> I would have to agree that a guilty plea would have defeated the purpose
>> of a settlement.
>
> *Apple apologists _hate_ Apple for entering a plea of guilty to the crime.*
>
> The reason is simple: Even the best lawyers can't change the facts.
>
> *Apple did it without telling anyone & Apple then _lied_ to cover it up.*

Except that they didn't plea guilty; they settled.

I don't like Apple either but right now, you're mostly making this up.

--
@RabidHussar

On 2021-09-06 7:16 a.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar> asked
>>>> *Guilty to the criminal offense was the _best_ deal Apple could get*.
>>>
>>> There was no guilty plea.
>>>
>>> You're lying.
>>
>> I would have to agree that a guilty plea would have defeated the purpose
>> of a settlement.
>
> *Apple apologists _hate_ Apple for entering a plea of guilty to the crime.*

You hate that you cannot produce this alleged plea.

On 2021-09-06 10:27 a.m., RabidHussar wrote:
> On 2021-09-06 10:16 a.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>> RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar> asked
>>>>> *Guilty to the criminal offense was the _best_ deal Apple could get*.
>>>>
>>>> There was no guilty plea.
>>>>
>>>> You're lying.
>>>
>>> I would have to agree that a guilty plea would have defeated the purpose
>>> of a settlement.
>>
>> *Apple apologists _hate_ Apple for entering a plea of guilty to the
>> crime.*
>>
>> The reason is simple: Even the best lawyers can't change the facts.
>>
>> *Apple did it without telling anyone & Apple then _lied_ to cover it up.*
>
> Except that they didn't plea guilty; they settled.
>
> I don't like Apple either but right now, you're mostly making this up.
>

Say it plainly:

He's lying.

On 2021-09-04 8:06 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
>>> Therefore the dynamic iPhone throttling is permanent.
>>
>> Not when replacing the battery disabled it, nope.
>
> Apple discovered that battery issues were leading to unexpected shutdowns
> in iPhones. Rather than disclosing these issues or replacing batteries,
> however, Apple concealed the issues from consumers.
>
> Apple's concealment ultimately led to a software update in December 2016
> that reduced iPhone performance... Apple's concealment of the battery
> issues and decision to throttle the performance of consumers' iPhones
> *led to Apple profiting from selling additional iPhones to consumers*
> whose phone performance Apple had slowed.
>
> Not knowing it was the batteries, Apple customers were left with only
> one option which was the most expensive one as even the Genus Bar
> employees were recommending people buy new phones by the thousands.
>
> reference
> https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2020/11/25/pr20-53.html
>

Let's put back the part of the first paragraph you omitted:

'Based on the multistate investigation, the attorneys general allege'

Not to mention that you deliberately ADDED the text "Not knowing it was
the batteries".

Oh, and you changed the arrangement of paragraphs.

So that's lying by omission as well as lying the old-fashioned
"knowingly say something that is false" way.

:-)

On 2021-09-04 8:07 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
>> More to the point, it's a program that purposely pegs the CPU at 100%
>> for sustained periods of time, which results in peak power demand from
>> the battery.
>
> Apple discovered that battery issues were leading to unexpected shutdowns
> in iPhones. Rather than disclosing these issues or replacing batteries,
> however, Apple concealed the issues from consumers.

'The attorneys general allege'

>
> Apple's concealment ultimately led to a software update in December 2016
> that reduced iPhone performance... Apple's concealment of the battery
> issues and decision to throttle the performance of consumers' iPhones
> *led to Apple profiting from selling additional iPhones to consumers*
> whose phone performance Apple had slowed.
>
> Not knowing it was the batteries, Apple customers were left with only
> one option which was the most expensive one as even the Genus Bar
> employees were recommending people buy new phones by the thousands.
>
> Reference
> https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2020/11/25/pr20-53.html
>

Repeating your lies doesn't make them any more true.

On 2021-09-04 10:11 a.m., Ken Hart wrote:
> On 9/4/2021 1:7 PM, nospam wrote:
>> normal everyday tasks, such as email, web surfing, messaging, etc., are
>> not peak demands, so nothing will change.
>
> So why did Apple admit that the throttling made people buy new iPhones
> then?

Let's ask a better question:

WHEN did Apple make that admission?

And:

Can you provide the quote and the reference?

> (they weren't told the unusable slow iPhone could be fixed with a battery)

On 2021-09-04 9:36 a.m., Gronk wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> You are an idiot if you think Apple's acceptance of criminal guilt
>>
>> Apple never admitted criminal guilt. And you can't provide any evidence
>> that Apple did.
>>
>>> I'm done with you
>>
>> No, until you can back up your words, we're done with you.
>
> Apple has been fined 25 million Euros for deliberately slowing down
> older iPhone models without making it clear to consumers.
>
> As part of the agreement, Apple must display a notice on its
> French-language website for a month.
> *The public admission says _Apple committed the crime_ of deceptive*
> *commercial practice* and that Apple had agreed to pay the fine.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724

The words "public admission" don't appear in your link.

Weird.

You know what it does say?

'Apple said in a statement that it had resolved the issue with the
watchdog.'

Which is not an admission of guilt.

On 2021-09-04 9:55 a.m., Ken Hart wrote:
> On 9/4/2021 6:45 AM, nospam wrote:
>> it's clipping peaks, not throttling, a very
>> important distinction.
>
> Who are you trying to fool?
>
> It's only an "important distinction" when the battery isn't aged.
> But the battery is aged.
> So that "important distinction" is meaningless.
>
> If the battery is chemically aged, that chemical aging is permanent.
> If the throttling is based on that aging, the throttling is permanent.

No.

Because CPU USAGE isn't constantly at peak.

>
> Didn't someone call what you do "Orwellian double think" already?

On 2021-09-06, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> On 2021-09-04 8:06 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
>>>> Therefore the dynamic iPhone throttling is permanent.
>>>
>>> Not when replacing the battery disabled it, nope.
>>
>> Apple discovered that battery issues were leading to unexpected shutdowns
>> in iPhones. Rather than disclosing these issues or replacing batteries,
>> however, Apple concealed the issues from consumers.
>>
>> Apple's concealment ultimately led to a software update in December 2016
>> that reduced iPhone performance... Apple's concealment of the battery
>> issues and decision to throttle the performance of consumers' iPhones
>> *led to Apple profiting from selling additional iPhones to consumers*
>> whose phone performance Apple had slowed.
>>
>> Not knowing it was the batteries, Apple customers were left with only
>> one option which was the most expensive one as even the Genus Bar
>> employees were recommending people buy new phones by the thousands.
>>
>> reference
>> https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2020/11/25/pr20-53.html
>>
>
> Let's put back the part of the first paragraph you omitted:
>
> 'Based on the multistate investigation, the attorneys general allege'
>
> Not to mention that you deliberately ADDED the text "Not knowing it was
> the batteries".
>
> Oh, and you changed the arrangement of paragraphs.
>
> So that's lying by omission as well as lying the old-fashioned
> "knowingly say something that is false" way.
>
>:-)

That's Arlen's modus operandi. He's a lying sack of shit troll with a
tiny, little Apple hate boner.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 9/6/2021 9:28 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> He's a lying sack of shit troll

Are you really trying to say Apple did not agree to the cited agreements?

On 9/6/2021 2:23 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> asked
> 'The attorneys general allege'

Apple agreed to the agreements.
You disagree with that?
On what basis?

Where's your cite that Apple did NOT agree to the agreements?

On 9/6/2021 4:46 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> Can you provide the quote and the reference?

Apple agreed to the agreements.
On what basis can you think that Apple didn't agree to their agreements?
Where's your cite that Apple did NOT agree to the agreements?

On 9/6/2021 1:27 PM, RabidHussar wrote:
> Except that they didn't plea guilty; they settled.

Did you read any of the cites?
Apple agreed to plead guilty in the French criminal prosecution.

> I don't like Apple either but right now, you're mostly making this up.

It isn't made up.
Did you read what was cited.

Apple agreed to settle with prosecutors in the American case.

On 9/6/2021 1:32 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> He's lying.

You deny Apple agreed to plead guilty in the French criminal case?
You deny Apple agreed to settle with prosecutors in the American case?

Where is your cite showing Apple didn't agree to those prosecutions?

On 9/6/2021 1:32 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> You hate that you cannot produce this alleged plea.

You deny Apple agreed to plead guilty in the French prosecution?
You deny Apple agreed to settlement in the American prosecution.

Show us the cite that you say shows Apple did not agree to both.

On 2021-09-06 7:46 p.m., knuttle wrote:
> On 9/6/2021 1:27 PM, RabidHussar wrote:
>> Except that they didn't plea guilty; they settled.
>
> Did you read any of the cites?
> Apple agreed to plead guilty in the French criminal prosecution.
>
>> I don't like Apple either but right now, you're mostly making this up.
>
> It isn't made up.
> Did you read what was cited.

Yup.

And it doesn't say that Apple ever pleaded guilty.

>
> Apple agreed to settle with prosecutors in the American case.

On 2021-09-06 7:41 p.m., knuttle wrote:
> On 9/6/2021 2:23 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> asked
>> 'The attorneys general allege'
>
> Apple agreed to the agreements.
> You disagree with that?
> On what basis?
>
> Where's your cite that Apple did NOT agree to the agreements?

I can see why you snipped all context.

Reply again, leaving the context intact and we'll discuss it.

On 2021-09-06 7:42 p.m., knuttle wrote:
> On 9/6/2021 4:46 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> Can you provide the quote and the reference?
>
> Apple agreed to the agreements.
> On what basis can you think that Apple didn't agree to their agreements?
> Where's your cite that Apple did NOT agree to the agreements?

I can see why you snipped all context.

Reply again, leaving the context intact and we'll discuss it.

On 2021-09-06 7:49 p.m., knuttle wrote:
> On 9/6/2021 1:32 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> He's lying.
>
> You deny Apple agreed to plead guilty in the French criminal case?
> You deny Apple agreed to settle with prosecutors in the American case?
>
> Where is your cite showing Apple didn't agree to those prosecutions?

I can see why you snipped all context.

Reply again, leaving the context intact and we'll discuss it.

On 2021-09-06 7:52 p.m., knuttle wrote:
> On 9/6/2021 1:32 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> You hate that you cannot produce this alleged plea.
>
> You deny Apple agreed to plead guilty in the French prosecution?
> You deny Apple agreed to settlement in the American prosecution.
>
> Show us the cite that you say shows Apple did not agree to both.

I can see why you snipped all context.

Reply again, leaving the context intact and we'll discuss it.