On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 2:18:13 PM UTC-7, Stephen Carroll - fretwizen wrote:

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 11:08:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Slootweg wrote:

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <skupv3...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

claiming that a vax is a personal computer is about as dishonest and
desperate as it gets.

Then it's a good thing that I didn't actually made any such claim. It's just your misrepresentation of what I *actually* said, which makes
it ... dishonest.

If you think I made such a claim, you surely can quote it, can't you!?

Deafening silence followed.

nope. they were in the queue until i had time to deal with my
bullshit.

FTFY.

(Not that it had anything to do with the actual issue being disputed. But that's what you get when you dodge and divert all the time. In no time you've no idea what your original claim was.)

another ad hominem attack,

One of these days, you *really* should try to figure out what an ad
hominem attack is and is not. The above is describing your *actions*.

because you know next to nothing about apple
history, which you even admit.

It's a bit of a bummer for you that me knowing or not knowing Apple
history is totally irrelevant, because what I mentioned - i.e. the date
the Mac was introduced - is documented information.

Dustin Cook AKA Diesel AKA Gremlin lying about his 1-423-491-1448 phone number:

<XnsAC34A6...@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----
Prior to my giving you that cell number, there was no way
at all for you to link it to me in any possible way shape
or form. it doesn't come up in any records search on me.
It is using a recycled number, but damn near everything is
these days so that doesn't count as public information,
snit.
...
As in, the cell doesn't come back to me, wouldn't ever
come back to me, therefore the fact *I* have that cell
number is NOT public information. I find it very hard to
believe that even you'd have difficulty understanding this
concept.
-----

<XnsAC32AD...@VoX89Pwp95.083.GODrcd>
-----
I've only been sharing whats available via a public
database. You haven't. :)
-----

<XnsAC34A6...@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----
You cannot find any link to that number to me on any
database. Which makes it private. not public as you
incorrectly assume.
-----

<XnsAC34A6...@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----

Your number, even tied to your name, is in a public
database.

No, it's not. You already tried to link the two of us
previously.
-----

<XnsAC34A6...@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----
It's not a publically known number that links to me. And
he knows that.
-----

<XnsAC34A6...@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----
The number is NOT TIED TO ME in any public database, in
any way shape or form. You cannot get the number aside
from my having provided it to you via a google search or a
public records search.
-----

<XnsAC34A6...@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----
Regardless of where the number shows up, it doesn't tie
itself to me, and you cannot associate the number with me
via a google search, OR any number of free/paid public
records searches. Therefore, that is PRIVATE information
that you think you're holding over my head, not public as
you erroneously think here.
-----

<XnsAC34A6...@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----
It's not, running my name doesn't provide that cell
number. The two are not linked in any way shape or form.
The number itself as is the case with any recycled number
is in all kinds of databases, but it's not linked to me;
therefore, that IS PRIVATE information that you can't get
via a google search or a paid public records search.
-----

<XnsAC1D79...@889n4Sx8GWE.MNnkz50hZNVS.fh0SYyRp>
-----
They are relevant to the fact YOU INSERTED the phone
number I provided you verbally into a bogus call log video
you've taken the time to create. When I use the cell I
provided you the number for to make outbound calls, It
*ALWAYS* reports Kingsport, TN. Not one single time has it
ever, nor would it have any reason to report Johnson City.
It doesn't pick cities at random, it doesn't go by my
present location, either. That's actually fixed, as is the
number assigned to the phone.
-----

<XnsAC17C6...@4uMkH0FFER6s72gSy7J8N4B67.Mht3WTC373bt67J31gn>
-----
You didn't even score the right city, Snit. And, the
correct city is common, public knowledge with the regulars
here. The moment you unblocked 'Johnson City' in your
videos, you were busted.
-----

<XnsAC212D...@gt3i2B7y.5N0FOv3e210vLOej4O4doj8b>
-----
David, every single Address you've posted that's supposed
to be mine has been Kingsport. Not Johnson City. Don't you
think you should tell snit that was a fuckup on his part
by now? :)
-----

<XnsAC2110...@3R4NM89td0T86C.231IPkH>
-----
His response to that was to file a report with the
kingsport,tn police. Well hell, why not the johnson city
ones? That's where he claimed the call said it originated
from. :)
-----

--
E-commerce Simplified <https://www.truepeoplesearch.com/results?name=4234911448&Diesel&Gremlin&Dustin_Cook>
Dustin Cook: Functional Illiterate Fraud

I just don't get the point in Prescott Computer Guy continuing to repeat
that lie, when they know it's so bizarre. I will no longer bring up the saddest, so far, series of lies they've written about me; because many truthful experts did as I asked and told Prescott Computer Guy directly that they
did, knowingly, misrepresent me when they talked about that subject.

With all the bragging Prescott Computer Guy's done on this topic, the 'Content Manager' does not get how to do this. It only takes a couple seconds to
click and drag across a selection and 'Google' it. Prescott Computer Guy
is the only person I know who had a 'demo site' intended to embarrass me
that quickly turned into a mostly empty page with blocks where maps/vids
used to be, and if you clicked it, you would be reading about a legal brief that was removed for copyright infringement.

The cypher is real, its presence at any point in time being on your MS
Word disc is a false negative. Kelly Phillips has been over this, in exquisite detail previously, Prescott Computer Guy. Tizen, runs on the circuitry kernel. So yeah, circuitry is mobile. circuitry is a super computer. circuitry is
a server. circuitry is a desktop. circuitry is growing in market share.



--
E-commerce Simplified!! https://www.google.com/search?q=Dustin+Cook+the+functional+illiterate+fraud Dustin Cook: Functionally Illiterate Fraud

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 11:08:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Slootweg wrote:

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <skupv3...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

claiming that a vax is a personal computer is about as dishonest and desperate as it gets.

Then it's a good thing that I didn't actually made any such claim.
It's just your misrepresentation of what I *actually* said, which makes it ... dishonest.

If you think I made such a claim, you surely can quote it, can't you!?

Deafening silence followed.

nope. they were in the queue until i had time to deal with my
bullshit.

FTFY.

(Not that it had anything to do with the actual issue being disputed.
But that's what you get when you dodge and divert all the time. In no time you've no idea what your original claim was.)

another ad hominem attack,

One of these days, you *really* should try to figure out what an ad
hominem attack is and is not. The above is describing your *actions*.

because you know next to nothing about apple
history, which you even admit.

It's a bit of a bummer for you that me knowing or not knowing Apple
history is totally irrelevant, because what I mentioned - i.e. the date
the Mac was introduced - is documented information.

Dustin Cook AKA Diesel AKA Gremlin lying about his 1-423-491-1448 phone
number:

<XnsAC34A629C8F3DHT1@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----
Prior to my giving you that cell number, there was no way
at all for you to link it to me in any possible way shape
or form. it doesn't come up in any records search on me.
It is using a recycled number, but damn near everything is
these days so that doesn't count as public information,
snit.
...
As in, the cell doesn't come back to me, wouldn't ever
come back to me, therefore the fact *I* have that cell
number is NOT public information. I find it very hard to
believe that even you'd have difficulty understanding this
concept.
-----

<XnsAC32ADC5A8EECHT1@VoX89Pwp95.083.GODrcd>
-----
I've only been sharing whats available via a public
database. You haven't. :)
-----

<XnsAC34A62BCD27FHT1@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----
You cannot find any link to that number to me on any
database. Which makes it private. not public as you
incorrectly assume.
-----

<XnsAC34A62CD62DDHT1@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----

Your number, even tied to your name, is in a public
database.

No, it's not. You already tried to link the two of us
previously.
-----

<XnsAC34A62EE3F39HT1@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----
It's not a publically known number that links to me. And
he knows that.
-----

<XnsAC34A62BCD27FHT1@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----
The number is NOT TIED TO ME in any public database, in
any way shape or form. You cannot get the number aside
from my having provided it to you via a google search or a
public records search.
-----

<XnsAC34A62ACDF8HT1@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----
Regardless of where the number shows up, it doesn't tie
itself to me, and you cannot associate the number with me
via a google search, OR any number of free/paid public
records searches. Therefore, that is PRIVATE information
that you think you're holding over my head, not public as
you erroneously think here.
-----

<XnsAC34A62A42D90HT1@1b2yUZpg51V1q.6EF009.jKrc>
-----
It's not, running my name doesn't provide that cell
number. The two are not linked in any way shape or form.
The number itself as is the case with any recycled number
is in all kinds of databases, but it's not linked to me;
therefore, that IS PRIVATE information that you can't get
via a google search or a paid public records search.
-----

<XnsAC1D794DE5AD5HT1@889n4Sx8GWE.MNnkz50hZNVS.fh0SYyRp>
-----
They are relevant to the fact YOU INSERTED the phone
number I provided you verbally into a bogus call log video
you've taken the time to create. When I use the cell I
provided you the number for to make outbound calls, It
*ALWAYS* reports Kingsport, TN. Not one single time has it
ever, nor would it have any reason to report Johnson City.
It doesn't pick cities at random, it doesn't go by my
present location, either. That's actually fixed, as is the
number assigned to the phone.
-----

<XnsAC17C66D49387HT1@4uMkH0FFER6s72gSy7J8N4B67.Mht3WTC373bt67J31gn>
-----
You didn't even score the right city, Snit. And, the
correct city is common, public knowledge with the regulars
here. The moment you unblocked 'Johnson City' in your
videos, you were busted.
-----

<XnsAC212DEE4D1DCHT1@gt3i2B7y.5N0FOv3e210vLOej4O4doj8b>
-----
David, every single Address you've posted that's supposed
to be mine has been Kingsport. Not Johnson City. Don't you
think you should tell snit that was a fuckup on his part
by now? :)
-----

<XnsAC21106DF6C20HT1@3R4NM89td0T86C.231IPkH>
-----
His response to that was to file a report with the
kingsport,tn police. Well hell, why not the johnson city
ones? That's where he claimed the call said it originated
from. :)
-----

--
E-commerce Simplified <https://www.truepeoplesearch.com/results?name=4234911448&Diesel&Gremlin&Dustin_Cook>
Dustin Cook: Functional Illiterate Fraud

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 4:08:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

On 2021-10-21 2:52 p.m., nospam wrote:

In article <sksmvq$1dim$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:

And the fact is that IBM discovered that people in their core market >>>> (large companies with IBM mainframes) were buying Apple II computers to >>>> get real things done faster than their data processing departments could >>>> get them done for them.

The Apple II and Visicalc came together to create something that IBM had >>>> to act quickly to prevent. And it was that need for speed that resulted >>>> in a machine that others could clone. IBM would certainly have produced >>>> a personal computer in due course...

...but without the pressure of the Apple II, it would have been
completely locked down and proprietary.

That was IBM's MO.

and it was. the bios had to be reverse engineered for the clones.

The problem was that was the only impediment, and the necessity of
publishing the API for the BIOS made the job tedious, but far from
impossible.

meanwhile, the apple ii was completely open, including schematics in
the user manual. lots of people designed all sorts of stuff for it.

the mac had schematics for its various ports, and people designed all
sorts of stuff for it too.

But it also had a tremendous amount of copyrighted code in ROM such that >> reverse engineering it all wouldn't be feasible.

that only prevented making mac clones.

as i said, apple published schematics of the ports, timing diagrams and even sample code to talk directly to the hardware.

numerous third party developers designed hardware devices for the mac without needing to reverse engineer anything.

I understand all of that.

I still persist in being uncertain that these nonstop posts are killing
this group, no matter how hard Nospam tries. Snit Glasser Michael's computer has more hard drives than Nospam's. Snit Glasser Michael wins. Nospam
loses. All that Nospam cares about is that Nospam gets to impart his
robocall and then hang up and giggle about it. The fact that Snit Glasser Michael is a real person on the other end of the phone is his motivation.



--
Live on Kickstarter! https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22FUNCTIONAL%20ILLITERATE%20FRAUD%22 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=steve+carroll+narcissistic+bigot https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-glasser-b7075a23
Steve Carroll the Narcissistic Bigot

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)