how are they being unfairly targeted? they can easily rebuild it with
the latest sdk, which in most cases, does not require any changes to
the app.
ftfy
1. I lied.
2. I got caught in that lie.
3. Others followed up with the truth.
nospam wrote:
ftfy
The adults will notice the iKooks have no adult response to facts.
nospam wrote:
how are they being unfairly targeted? they can easily rebuild it with
the latest sdk, which in most cases, does not require any changes to
the app.
As always, the iKooks don't own the mental capacity to comprehend detail. Notice the iKooks have absolutely no idea what Apple actually did.
All the ikooks know is what Apple (*initially*) _said_ they did.
1. Apple lied.
2. Apple got caught in that lie.
3. Apple followed up with the truth.
The truth is the removal has (almost) _nothing_ to do with when the app was last updated (and the proof was that _plenty_ of unupdated apps remained).
And everyone notices that you present no (new) facts. Neither
regurgitating other people's opinions via your link spams nor making
lists of your own opinions are facts.
Chris wrote:
And everyone notices that you present no (new) facts. Neither
regurgitating other people's opinions via your link spams nor making
lists of your own opinions are facts.
Jesus Christ. What grade are you in, Chris?
I provided plenty of factual cites to back up what I said.
And yet, you iKooks claim that all factual cites can't possibly exist.
That's just plain wrong: when a framework is retired and replaced by
somthething else, rebuilding the app without updating the code itself is
NOT enough.
It's no longer shocking how _ignorant_ the iKooks are.
This removal of apps has almost _nothing_ to do with how old they are.
It has _everything_ to do with the fact people weren't downloading them.
The fact the iKooks are oblivious to what Apple said it was is telling.
Andy Burnelli wrote:
That's just plain wrong: when a framework is retired and replaced by
somthething else, rebuilding the app without updating the code itself
is NOT enough.
It's no longer shocking how _ignorant_ the iKooks are.
This removal of apps has almost _nothing_ to do with how old they are.
It has _everything_ to do with the fact people weren't downloading them.
The fact the iKooks are oblivious to what Apple said it was is telling.
Ooops. That was meant for nospam. I don't think pehache is an iKook.
To Pehache.
1. Apple at first said it was about old apps.
2. Then developers noted that this was not the case.
3. Apple then corrected what it _really_ was about.
HINT: It's not only about old apps.
It's about old apps that haven't been downloaded all that much.
In fact, very old apps that are still being downloaded are NOT affected.
So all this talk about "old apps" is a red herring by the ignorant iKooks.
It's no longer shocking how _little_ the iKooks know about iOS.
Chris wrote:
And everyone notices that you present no (new) facts. Neither
regurgitating other people's opinions via your link spams nor making
lists of your own opinions are facts.
Jesus Christ. What grade are you in, Chris?
I provided plenty of factual cites to back up what I said.
And yet, you iKooks claim that all factual cites can't possibly exist.
What the fuck is _wrong_ with you iKooks?
Seriously.
I don't even think your brain is at a _kindergarten_ level for God's sake.
If I posted ten thousand more references, you'd claim none of them exist.
You're _desperate_ to believe in a make-believe fabricated belief system.
Chris wrote:
That'll be you. You're the only one here who names people with a childish
moniker of your own making. You've created your fictional narrative
around
people who you think blindly prefer Apple products.
Chris,
You're the moron here, not me.
I gave you the cites which explained what Apple said and what Apple did.
Then you told me to "prove" it.
That'll be you. You're the only one here who names people with a childish moniker of your own making. You've created your fictional narrative around people who you think blindly prefer Apple products.
If it bothers you so much why are you here in Apple-specific ngs? Masochist at heart?
Chris wrote:
That'll be you. You're the only one here who names people with a childish
moniker of your own making. You've created your fictional narrative around >> people who you think blindly prefer Apple products.
Chris,
You're the moron here, not me.
You're the moron here, not me.
Name calling is not an argument. You have no argument except with yourself.
Chris wrote:
You're the moron here, not me.
Name calling is not an argument. You have no argument except with
yourself.
Chris,
When you disagree with an analogy by taking the analogy literally, how
would you _like_ me to respond to you?
When you disagree with an analogy by taking the analogy literally, how
would you _like_ me to respond to you?
With civility and facts, you asshole.
Chris wrote:
You're the moron here, not me.
Name calling is not an argument. You have no argument except with yourself.
Chris,
When you disagree with an analogy by taking the analogy literally, how
would you _like_ me to respond to you?
When you disagree with extremely well known very public facts, such as what Apple did, how would you _like_ me to respond to you?
When you claim that I didn't prove why when I proved why not and it was
Apple who said why, how would you _like_ me to respond to you?
Tell me Chris?
How does an _adult_ respond to someone who does what you just did?
Chris,You're the moron here, not me.
Name calling is not an argument. You have no argument except with yourself. >>
When you disagree with an analogy by taking the analogy literally, how
would you _like_ me to respond to you?
When you disagree with extremely well known very public facts, such as what >> Apple did, how would you _like_ me to respond to you?
When you claim that I didn't prove why when I proved why not and it was
Apple who said why, how would you _like_ me to respond to you?
Tell me Chris?
How does an _adult_ respond to someone who does what you just did?
You're the adult. You should know.
Hint: not with name calling
If it bothers you so much why are you here in Apple-specific ngs? Masochist at heart?
On May 19, 2022, Alan wrote
(in article<news:t65lpg$chj$1@dont-email.me>):
When you disagree with an analogy by taking the analogy literally, how
would you _like_ me to respond to you?
With civility and facts, you asshole.
Take note folks, that's civility for you!
Ron, the humblest guy in town.
Chris wrote:
You're the moron here, not me.
Name calling is not an argument. You have no argument except with yourself.
Chris,
When you disagree with an analogy by taking the analogy literally, how
would you _like_ me to respond to you?
When you disagree with extremely well known very public facts, such as what >>> Apple did, how would you _like_ me to respond to you?
When you claim that I didn't prove why when I proved why not and it was
Apple who said why, how would you _like_ me to respond to you?
Tell me Chris?
How does an _adult_ respond to someone who does what you just did?
You're the adult. You should know.
Hint: not with name calling
Again, I repeat what _you_ did, Chris.
Not me. You.
1. You disagreed with what was published in _many_ news reports.
2. You disagreed with what Apple _initially_ said was why they did it.
3. Then you disagreed with Apple's _corrections_ of why they did it.
Then you ask _me_ to prove Apple didn't do it for those published reasons. When I gave you an analogy to explain, you took the analogy literally.
Tell me Chris, how is an _adult_ supposed to carry on an adult conversation with you when you clearly do what you clearly do.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 66:46:32 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,885 |