Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize
 if they're wrong
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 06:15:13 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <vtsqlh$2e6pb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vtr3qa$1gq7$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <vtr9j9$5lko$1@solani.org>
 <vtsda7$11h3$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <vtsq2p$2dolt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 08:15:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="424bc7579bc361a9de602496bebe26a2";
	logging-data="2562859"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ROQi8te6QSiQIzwwVA2YXAaoqnOqPPNo="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5pcSSC9LT1syhTcedEm7pVdwDOQ=
	sha1:RxETJGdjxD3PkpWPJGMSmqeMm/c=

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple trolls.
>> 
>> Very clearly I am stating these two very clear unequivocal statements:
>> 1. I apologize for not believing Chris & Tyrone & Jolly Roger.
> 
> Apology accepted. 

Just noticed. It's very disappointing that this apology was only posted to
the iphone ng when your libelous statements were spread to at least three
ngs. 

My acceptance of your apology is rescinded until you apologise in *ALL* the
ngs you called me a troll - even just by association. 

> 
>> 2. Because what I said about the ports (even those I always said
>> it was "as far as I know" or "as far as I understand it" or 
>> "as far as I can tell", etc., simply happened to be wrong.
> 
> I hope you learn from this that:
> 1. People who disagree with you are not automatically trolls. 
> 2. Producing your own evidence is more worthwhile that "frenetically
> googling" in support of your dogmatic argument. 
> 
>