• Re: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IEFza2luZyBRdWVzdGlvbnMgSXNu4oCZdCBhIENyaW1lIOKAkyBNe

    From Tegenaria@21:1/5 to Brock McNuggets on Fri Jul 25 19:34:29 2025
    XPost: alt.computer.workshop

    Brock McNuggets wrote:

    On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33 AM MST, ""David B.""
    wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>:

    On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
    On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26 AM MST, ""David B.""
    wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>:

    On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
    On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44 AM MST, ""David B.""
    wrote >>>> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>:

    On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
    On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
    BDB wrote:
    I DO trust Howard Oakley!

    And HO trusts and extols Etre.

    *Maybe mistakenly*.

    You’re probably familiar with EtreCheck,
    the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in
    Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
    problems, but have you paid for its Pro
    features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the best
    performance from your Mac, that’s money well-spent.
    While your OP to this topic was
    'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>>> your
    own insight is blind. Worse than blind, badly
    distorted beyond >>>>>>> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>>
    I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
    I suspect HO never even thought to
    question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone
    who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with
    nothing to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is!
    He even removed his LinkedIn page when I
    questioned him! >>>>>

    https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No honest
    fellow would do that! >>>>
    What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical
    question... why could a person who >>>> is generally
    honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page,
    especially if >>>> they are being followed around by
    someone asking questions over and over? >>> >>>
    appreciate your question — it's fair to ask
    why I see that as a red flag. >>>
    Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page
    isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But
    context matters. When someone runs a paid software
    product, makes strong claims about its
    capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable
    support emails (even when support is part of the
    paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple
    platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions —
    that’s where the suspicion starts. >> >> What
    questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile
    after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or
    background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but
    it can appear >>> evasive — especially if the
    individual is selling something to the >>> public
    and benefiting from trust built within communities
    like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support forums. >> >>
    There can also be extenuating circumstances of not
    wanting someone to keep >> asking questions seen as
    inappropriate. >>> >>> I'm not trying to hound
    anyone — but transparency and accountability >>>
    matter, especially in tech where users often rely on
    software to >>> diagnose or alter critical systems.
    It’s not unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this
    tool I’m being told to trust? >> >> If you do not
    trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you
    want. >>> >>> So yes — context, not just the act,
    is what shapes my view.


    Hi Brock,

    Fair points—and thank you for asking respectfully.
    I genuinely don’t have a problem with people
    removing their LinkedIn page in general. You're
    absolutely right that there can be valid, personal
    reasons for doing so—especially if someone feels
    harassed or unduly scrutinised.

    However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from
    more than just that single act. I paid for
    EtreCheck’s Power User package — which includes
    support — and asked legitimate technical questions
    about the app.

    What questions? Please be specific.

    Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply.
    That’s not just frustrating; it’s unacceptable
    when support is part of the paid offering.

    You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is
    malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have an
    unhealthy focus on the software -- which is odd --
    and also on the author -- which is harmful.

    At the same time, I’ve seen posts quietly vanish,
    evasive replies in public forums, and a lack of
    any concrete way to verify the developer’s
    background or qualifications.

    What makes you think you are entitled to know
    ANYTHING about his background or qualifications?

    In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page
    right after being questioned only deepened my
    unease.

    This isn’t personal,

    When you focus on him as a person -- his "background
    or qualifications" -- that makes it personal and not
    professional.

    and it’s certainly not about Snit — he’s a friend,
    not a foe! I just believe that if someone is
    asking users to trust them with diagnostic tools
    that can touch sensitive parts of a system, there
    should be some accountability. That’s all.

    Preach it saint Snit !
    Amen brother Snit.

    What a fucking loser you are.

    Your post is the ultimate in projection.
    You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does daily
    all that you are accusing Boater Dave of.

    Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting the
    pills snit.
    Go fuck yourself snit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tegenaria@21:1/5 to pothead on Fri Jul 25 21:37:26 2025
    XPost: alt.computer.workshop

    pothead wrote:

    On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria
    <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote:
    Brock McNuggets wrote:

    On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33 AM MST, ""David B.""
    wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>:

    On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
    On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26 AM MST, ""David
    B."" >> wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>:

    On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
    On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44 AM MST, ""David
    B."" >> wrote >>>>
    <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >> >>>>
    On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
    On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
    BDB wrote:
    I DO trust Howard Oakley!

    And HO trusts and extols Etre.

    *Maybe mistakenly*.

    You’re probably familiar with EtreCheck,
    the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in
    Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
    problems, but have you paid for its Pro
    features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the best
    performance from your Mac, that’s money
    well-spent. >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While your OP to
    this topic was >> 'well-spoken' it belies the fact
    that >>>>>>> your >> own insight is blind. Worse
    than blind, badly >> distorted beyond >>>>>>>
    recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I have NO DOUBTS
    about HO, a fellow naval officer. >> >>>>>> >>>>>>
    I suspect HO never even thought to >> question the
    honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone >> who is
    simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with >> nothing
    to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >> >>>>>
    He even removed his LinkedIn page when I >>
    questioned him! >>>>> >> >>>>>

    https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B
    C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No
    honest >> fellow would do that! >>>> >> >>>> What
    makes you think that? Not a rhetorical >>
    question... why could a person who >>>> is generally
    honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page,
    especially if >>>> they are being followed around
    by >> someone asking questions over and over? >>>
    appreciate your question — it's fair
    to ask >> why I see that as a red flag. >>> >> >>>
    Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page >>
    isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But >>
    context matters. When someone runs a paid software
    product, makes strong claims about its >>
    capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable >>
    support emails (even when support is part of the >>
    paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple
    platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions —
    that’s where the suspicion starts. >> >> What >>
    questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile >>
    after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or
    background doesn't automatically signal guilt,
    but >> it can appear >>> evasive — especially if the
    individual is selling something to the >>> public
    and benefiting from trust built within
    communities >> like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support
    forums. >> >> >> There can also be extenuating
    circumstances of not >> wanting someone to keep >>
    asking questions seen as >> inappropriate. >>> >>>
    I'm not trying to hound >> anyone — but transparency
    and accountability >>> >> matter, especially in tech
    where users often rely on >> software to >>>
    diagnose or alter critical systems. >> It’s not
    unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this >> tool
    I’m being told to trust? >> >> If you do not >>
    trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you
    want. >>> >>> So yes — context, not just the
    act, >> is what shapes my view. >> > >> >
    Hi Brock,

    Fair points—and thank you for asking
    respectfully. >> > I genuinely don’t have a problem
    with people >> > removing their LinkedIn page in
    general. You're >> > absolutely right that there
    can be valid, personal >> > reasons for doing
    so—especially if someone feels >> > harassed or
    unduly scrutinised. >> >
    However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from
    more than just that single act. I paid for
    EtreCheck’s Power User package — which includes
    support — and asked legitimate technical
    questions >> > about the app.

    What questions? Please be specific.

    Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply.
    That’s not just frustrating; it’s unacceptable
    when support is part of the paid offering.

    You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is
    malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have
    an >> unhealthy focus on the software -- which is
    odd -- >> and also on the author -- which is harmful.

    At the same time, I’ve seen posts quietly
    vanish, >> > evasive replies in public forums, and a
    lack of >> > any concrete way to verify the
    developer’s >> > background or qualifications.

    What makes you think you are entitled to know
    ANYTHING about his background or qualifications?

    In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page
    right after being questioned only deepened my
    unease.

    This isn’t personal,

    When you focus on him as a person -- his
    "background >> or qualifications" -- that makes it
    personal and not >> professional.

    and it’s certainly not about Snit — he’s a
    friend, >> > not a foe! I just believe that if
    someone is >> > asking users to trust them with
    diagnostic tools >> > that can touch sensitive parts
    of a system, there >> > should be some
    accountability. That’s all.

    Preach it saint Snit !
    Amen brother Snit.

    What a fucking loser you are.

    Your post is the ultimate in projection.
    You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does
    daily all that you are accusing Boater Dave of.

    Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting
    the pills snit.
    Go fuck yourself snit.

    These days in order to save money, snit Michael
    Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona is mixing up his
    own brand of jenkem. That's when he isn't huffing
    glue from a bag.

    snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix
    Arizona is the most dishonest poster on Usenet.
    Possibly the Internet as a whole.
    Do not trust anything snit Michael Glasser of
    Prescott/Phoenix Arizona posts because the chances
    are excellent that he is lying.

    Why don't you join with the other members of ACW and
    completely, 100%, ignore and not reply directly to
    snit? We welcome you.

    Thanks. I will join the rest of you in ignoring
    shithead snit. I have some very interesting, current,
    information regarding snit that I am in the process of
    verifying. If it turns out to be accurate I will post
    here.
    Happy day to all.

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