On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 11:43:58 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:18:09 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:32:00 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > [huge snip]
> >
> > Egads, you’re still being so butthurt over this?
> > > Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass. I want the exact quote and source.
> > Well, you did admit long ago that your car were passed on the right prior to
> > getting to the circle (where said accident occurred). That demonstrates both
> > a “want” and an actual action to then satisfy said want..
> >
> > -hh
> Please supply that exact reference

November 2017 … yes, you’ve been ranting about this for that long:

< https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/8tjNBlwhe4Q/m/ZlrodE0aBAAJ>

-hh

On 2023-05-15 04:31, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 1:07:33 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-05-14 09:58, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 3:19:59 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-05-08 16:23, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 4:20:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-05-07 12:56, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 1:04:19 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-05-07 06:26, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:46:31 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-05-05 12:09, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago ..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they were passed on the right by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another driver, prior to getting to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic circle. That makes for there being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least two (2) faster vehicles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reg.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those drivers came up so quick that moving to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right might have caused an accident. And,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that drivers in front of us had slowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make right turns at the first roundabout.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to make any lane decisions. She did what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she thought was safest, not knowing that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver was in the wrong lane for a left
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers to get in a 4 lane (very common)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roundabout's left lane and stay there when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going straight on. What she did is normal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior. I have made several videos showing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. Here is one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if she'd been where she was supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this accident would never have happened. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't turn left into someone who is on your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the roundabout.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment the road gained a second lane before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first of the two roundabouts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 4:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last reply.'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, no and no. ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-hand knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no excuse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> street widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, there is right turn only lane there. She could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not move to the right the moment the street widened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
>>>>>>>>>>>> where she could have moved right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also note the road signage indicating that either
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lane is for straight through traffic. On a busy day
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the car in front you as the road widens can shift to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right for a right turn and start to slow. Yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Springmill.
>>>>>>>>>>>> A new "detail"!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only lane where the street exits the Springmill
>>>>>>>>>>>>> roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the side street heading east and the very limited
>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance between Springmill and Illinois. Also note
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
>>>>>>>>>>>>> roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating that either lane is for straight through
>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to safely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> move to the right lane here. Past this intersection,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
>>>>>>>>>>>> How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife
>>>>>>>>>>>> from moving right...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...when the road had been single lane?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little
>>>>>>>>>>>> Shit?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> after I saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see my medical records too?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been in the right lane from the moment the road
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gained a second lane before the first of the two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> roundabouts."
>>>>>>>>>>>> She should have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After the (very short) right turn only lane for
>>>>>>>>>>>> exiting onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two
>>>>>>>>>>>> lane road with a dotted line between them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After that (very short) right turn lane, all the
>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND
>>>>>>>>>>>> her.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And your claim was that the other driver was both
>>>>>>>>>>>> speeding and being aggressive...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and you've proven neither.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All we know is that she was going faster than your
>>>>>>>>>>>> wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster
>>>>>>>>>>> than us or being aggressive, but she was.
>>>>>>>>>> Except the officer explicitly disagreed about
>>>>>>>>>> aggression...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS
>>>>>>>>>>> the street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your
>>>>>>>>>>> definition you lied.
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried
>>>>>>>>>>> that? In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave
>>>>>>>>>>> the left lane empty and create traffic congestion in the
>>>>>>>>>>> right lane. No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>> The left lane is available for straight on and that's
>>>>>>>>>>> what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
>>>>>>>>>>> straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The
>>>>>>>>>>> other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video,
>>>>>>>>>>> local traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we
>>>>>>>>>>> all stay on the right except to pass on city streets. I
>>>>>>>>>>> doubt that Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving
>>>>>>>>>>> on your streets come September and will be interested in
>>>>>>>>>>> observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
>>>>>>>>>>> last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe
>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what we see here in Carmel
>>>>>>>>>> "Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving
>>>>>>>>>>> customs, here or in Canada.
>>>>>>>>>> But I knew the law...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...and you didn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty
>>>>>>>>> instead?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
>>>>>>>>> signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on
>>>>>>>>> any very busy 4 lane city street.
>>>>>>>> Except the road just went from one lane each way to two.
>>>>>>>> Unless some people move to the right lane, that lane will
>>>>>>>> remain empty?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a
>>>>>>>> thinker.
>>>>>>>>> Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if
>>>>>>>>> you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from
>>>>>>>>> the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
>>>>>>>>> left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal
>>>>>>>>> turn.
>>>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+
>>>>>>>> yards before you GET to the roundabout.
>>>>>>>>> Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair
>>>>>>>>> costs, no questions asked. Which is why the police report
>>>>>>>>> found no fault in my wife's driving. You found a law and
>>>>>>>>> attempted to interpret it in a situation where it does not
>>>>>>>>> apply. You are lying through your teeth, and just want to
>>>>>>>>> harass.
>>>>>>>> I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
>>>>>>>> accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
>>>>>> Ignoring your lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife
>>>>>>>> could have taken...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn
>>>>>>>> only lane.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...that would have removed the conflict.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof"
>>>>>>>> of the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did
>>>>>>>> the police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED
>>>>>>>> that "aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
>>>>>> Ignoring your lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence
>>>>>>>> has meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had
>>>>>>>> moved to the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to
>>>>>>>> pass her on the right)...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't
>>>>>>>> mean anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
>>>>>> You weren't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required.
>>>>>>> The officer looked at the damage, took our statements and wrote
>>>>>>> up the results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to
>>>>>>> shift right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not
>>>>>>> intending to exit in the right lane with us.
>>>>>> Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could
>>>>>> there BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe there was traffic in front of us already. Maybe there was no
>>>>> need for us to move over into a busier lane than the one we were in.
>>>> How could a lane which had only just come into existence be busy
at all,
>>>> Little Shit?
>>>>>
>>>>> And yes, I am well aware of the need to keep right.
>>>> You specifically denied it was the law...
>>>>
>>>> ...and you certainly didn't teach it to your wife...
>>>>
>>>> ...and you've done nothing but insist there is no need this entire
argument.
>>>>
>>>> You taken video showing how no one does it and so (by implication)
it's
>>>> not something one needs to do.
>>>>
>>>> The simple fact is that if your wife had been in the right lane, there
>>>> would have been no accident in this case.
>>>>> Even more so
>>>>> since I learned from my hybrid cars just how much the fuel mileage
>>>>> difference there is between 60 and 70. :)
>>>> And yet another attempt to draw another discussion away from the issue
>>>> at hand.
>>>
>>> You are lying. I never said it was not a law, but rather there are
issues with your rigid insistence that it strictly applied.
>> YOU are lying, Little Shit.
>>
>> You said it was a law that only applied on highways, and that the road
>> you were on was not a highway.
>>>
>>> If you can prove the following I will admit you were correct:
>>>
>>> 1. The other driver was entitled to the right lane for a left turn.
>> I never said she was entitled to a left turn from the right lane.
>>
>> Straw man.
>>> 2. Traffic conditions at the time were such that a shift to the
right lane was absolutely required on our part.
>> The lane was, by force of it only coming into being right there,
>> necessarily empty and there was (as you, yourself, have admitted) a car
>> behind you that wanted to go faster than you were going.
>>> 3. We were not entitled in any way to use the left lane to go
straight on.
>> Straw man.
>>> 4. The investigating officer reported any fault on our part.
>> Straw man.
>>> 5. The investigating officer reported no fault on the other
driver’s part.
>> Straw man.
>>> 6. Lane markings showed no possible use of the left lane for going
straight on.
>> Straw man.
>>
>> You used the incident as an example of speeding and aggressive driving
>> and their bad consequences...
>>
>> ...only you can't show that either of those happened, and the latter was
>> specifically ruled out by the officer.
>
> Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass. I
want the exact quote and source.
That's what brought this whole thing up, Little Shit.

On 2023-05-15 16:02, Alan wrote:
> > Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass. I
> want the exact quote and source.
> That's what brought this whole thing up, Little Shit.
>
> I'm going to annotate.
>
> 1. "let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do"
>
> The police report specifically states that your accident was not the
> result of aggressive driving. It doesn't leave it an unanswered
> question. It is answered definitively "NO". Do you agree that is true?
>
>
> 2. "The driver of vehicle 1 saw what appeared to her to be a nice gap in
> right lane traffic that she could use to overtake vehicle 1,"
>
> A gap she wouldn't have need to go for if your wife had moved over to
> the right lane. Do you agree that is true?
>
> And since the other driver could slide up alongside your car, it is
> clear that moving over to the right lane would have been possible. Do
> you agree that is true?
>
>
>
> 3. "Going at an excessive rate of speed for the conditions"
>
> Is that your claim or is it from the accident report? Since I have a
> copy of the report, it would be best if you told the truth for once.
>
>
> 4. "I know she was speeding because I was on the passenger side and saw
> her coming up on us out of my mirror. It happened so fast that I had no
> chance to warn my wife. "
>
> Since you were looking at her coming up in the passenger side mirror,
> you couldn't have seen what speed your wife was driving and therefore
> don't know whether the other car was speeding or not.
>
> Oh, and if you could see her in the car's passenger mirror:
>
> 1. The mirror was improperly aimed for the driver.
>
> 2. There couldn't have been this magical other car that you only brought
> up much later in the discussion.
>
>
> 5. "Needless to say, vehicle 1 was at fault."
>
> Yes, and I have never claimed otherwise. Do you agree that is true.
>
> What I have stated, and what remains true is that IF your wife had moved
> into the right lane when the right lane became available (more than
> yards before the roundabout), then the other car would have stayed in
> the left lane, and there would have been no conflict to make an accident
> possible at the roundabout. Do you agree that is true?
>
> You have consistently lied by making the claim that I was suggesting the
> lane change take place IN the roundabout. Do you agree that is true?
>
> Also note that you make no mention of a third vehicle blocking your view
> at this time. Do you agree that is true?
>
> And despite your claims about being unable to remember this mystery car
> until much later, the accident took place just two weeks before you made
> your first post about it. Do you agree that is true?
>
>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/8tjNBlwhe4Q/m/efSANLwtBAAJ>

And colour me shocked...

....because the lying Little Shit never replied to this post.

On 6/2/23 9:18 AM, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-05-15 16:02, Alan wrote:
>>  > Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass.
>> I want the exact quote and source.
>> That's what brought this whole thing up, Little Shit.
>>
>> I'm going to annotate.
>>
>> 1. "let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do"
>>
>> The police report specifically states that your accident was not the
>> result of aggressive driving. It doesn't leave it an unanswered
>> question. It is answered definitively "NO". Do you agree that is true?
>>
>>
>> 2. "The driver of vehicle 1 saw what appeared to her to be a nice gap
>> in right lane traffic that she could use to overtake vehicle 1,"
>>
>> A gap she wouldn't have need to go for if your wife had moved over to
>> the right lane. Do you agree that is true?
>>
>> And since the other driver could slide up alongside your car, it is
>> clear that moving over to the right lane would have been possible. Do
>> you agree that is true?
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. "Going at an excessive rate of speed for the conditions"
>>
>> Is that your claim or is it from the accident report? Since I have a
>> copy of the report, it would be best if you told the truth for once.
>>
>>
>> 4. "I know she was speeding because I was on the passenger side and
>> saw her coming up on us out of my mirror. It happened so fast that I
>> had no chance to warn my wife. "
>>
>> Since you were looking at her coming up in the passenger side mirror,
>> you couldn't have seen what speed your wife was driving and therefore
>> don't know whether the other car was speeding or not.
>>
>> Oh, and if you could see her in the car's passenger mirror:
>>
>> 1. The mirror was improperly aimed for the driver.
>>
>> 2. There couldn't have been this magical other car that you only
>> brought up much later in the discussion.
>>
>>
>> 5. "Needless to say, vehicle 1 was at fault."
>>
>> Yes, and I have never claimed otherwise. Do you agree that is true.
>>
>> What I have stated, and what remains true is that IF your wife had
>> moved into the right lane when the right lane became available (more
>> than yards before the roundabout), then the other car would have
>> stayed in the left lane, and there would have been no conflict to make
>> an accident possible at the roundabout. Do you agree that is true?
>>
>> You have consistently lied by making the claim that I was suggesting
>> the lane change take place IN the roundabout. Do you agree that is true?
>>
>> Also note that you make no mention of a third vehicle blocking your
>> view at this time. Do you agree that is true?
>>
>> And despite your claims about being unable to remember this mystery
>> car until much later, the accident took place just two weeks before
>> you made your first post about it. Do you agree that is true?
>>
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/8tjNBlwhe4Q/m/efSANLwtBAAJ>
>
> And colour me shocked...
>
> ...because the lying Little Shit never replied to this post.

Maybe he is busy practicing his outstanding flying skills- almost as
good as mine.