From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

For those who may not be aware, here is a bit of information on the brock >>> McNuggets troll.
It's best to bin him.

https://tinyurl.com/WhatIsSnit
https://tinyurl.com/Snitliesmethods
https://tinyurl.com/Snit-Reviews

Growing up, when people had to pick players for their team and Snit
Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy was last, the team
preferred not to play than to pick him.

In all serious reality, people like Snit and Alan Baker have been told
their entire lives, by every single entity around them, that they're
stupid, and that has had an effect on them which we haven't felt ourselves.

Time for you to add the first entry to your insult log.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-05-05 13:38, Chris wrote:

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

For those who may not be aware, here is a bit of information on the brock >>>> McNuggets troll.
It's best to bin him.

https://tinyurl.com/WhatIsSnit
https://tinyurl.com/Snitliesmethods
https://tinyurl.com/Snit-Reviews

Growing up, when people had to pick players for their team and Snit
Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy was last, the team
preferred not to play than to pick him.

In all serious reality, people like Snit and Alan Baker have been told
their entire lives, by every single entity around them, that they're
stupid, and that has had an effect on them which we haven't felt ourselves.

Time for you to add the first entry to your insult log.

Ironic, isn't it?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Chris wrote:

In all serious reality, people like Snit and Alan Baker have been told
their entire lives, by every single entity around them, that they're
stupid, and that has had an effect on them which we haven't felt ourselves.

Time for you to add the first entry to your insult log.

I'll be nice to you Chris, and I will kindly remind you to read the opening post in the thread that you "think" it fits, and then come back here and
agree that it doesn't fit the minimum requirements to be in that thread.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Chris wrote:

In all serious reality, people like Snit and Alan Baker have been told
their entire lives, by every single entity around them, that they're
stupid, and that has had an effect on them which we haven't felt ourselves.

Time for you to add the first entry to your insult log.

I'll be nice to you Chris by kindly reminding you to read the opening
post in the thread that you "think" it fits, and then I ask you politely to come back here and agree with me and with everyone who read that OP, that
it simply doesn't fit the bare minimum requirements to be in that thread.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

For those who may not be aware, here is a bit of information on the brock >>> McNuggets troll.
It's best to bin him.

https://tinyurl.com/WhatIsSnit
https://tinyurl.com/Snitliesmethods
https://tinyurl.com/Snit-Reviews

Growing up, when people had to pick players for their team and Snit
Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy was last, the team
preferred not to play than to pick him.

In all serious reality, people like Snit and Alan Baker have been told
their entire lives, by every single entity around them, that they're
stupid, and that has had an effect on them which we haven't felt ourselves.

But it's more than sheer stupidity, because ignorance plays a huge role.
They know nothing. About anything.

We've proven this many times with both of them, but what makes them more irksome on Usenet is they also lack basic adult comprehensive skills.

Remember McArthur Wheeler? The lemon-juice bank robber?
He seriously believed that lemon juice made his face invisible.

Why?
Because it made invisible ink invisible.

No amount of persuasion would convince someone like Snit & Alan otherwise.
No amount of logic could ever be comprehended by the likes of Snit & Alan.

Both refute everything they don't know.
Which is everything.

Take the case of Snit refuting that iOS can't graph cellular signal
strength for all access points in the vicinity on a moving graph.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/PZuec56EWB0>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0>

Snit proceeded to connect to a single Wi-Fi access point, and graphed, um, er, ah, "something" (which wasn't signal strength) and claimed victory.
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>

Worse, the Apple trolls cheered him on, by claiming he'd refuted the fact. WTF?

Who does that?

Who is so incredibly uncomprehensive that they don't know the difference between a moving graph of "something" versus a set of moving graphs of
signal strength for all access points in the vicinity of the device.

But being just uncomprehensive isn't what makes Snit & Alan what they are. They're insistent that they're NOT dunning-kruger left of Mount Stupid.

What does this require to be to the left of the first quartile marker?
a. To be in the bottom %25 you have to be in the low-competence zone
b. You haven't put in the effort or time to understand the topic
c. Or, you don't have the mental acuity to comprehend the topic

But you need a second trait which both Alan Baker and Snit exemplify.
They lack the cognitive skill to know what it is they don't know.

And you need to add a third trait, which Snit & Alan Baker exude.
They own a confidence level that is massively disproportionate
to their actual skill.

Put those three things together (as they are in Alan Baker & Snit),
and ever subject seems not only simple to them, but since what they
know is so little about it, they feel they know everything there is.

Take Snit on security. He thinks it's only malware. Nothing else.
He couldn't be farther from the mark, and he doesn't even know it.

He has all three traits that McArthur Wheeler had.
a. He knows nothing (for a variety of reasons, low IQ being only one)
b. He thinks he knows everything
c. So he's supremely confident, of his (lack of) competence.

That's Snit.
<https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>

In the case of Apple newsgroups, both Snit & Alan Baker know nothing.
Worse, they think they know everything. And they're confident about it.

You talked to everyone in our lives? Wow!

So what they do to refute any facts they don't know (which is all facts),
is they come up with the first absurd excuse they can possibly think of.

I showed you evidence and you freaked out.

The fact that their excuses are absurd doesn't even dawn upon them.
Take Snit who says security is only malware, for example.

I never said that.

a. Who does that? Nobody right?

So why did you claim I did?

And yet, Snit says that.

No MID. No quote. You’re a liar.

b. Scores of times he posts the same malware list. For years.

No quote. No MID. You made that up.

c. As if security is nothing more than a list of malware apps.

You made that up.

Q: What kind of strange person thinks and acts that way?

You just made it up.

A: McArthur Wheeler, Snit and Alan Baker.

Do you lie about them as much as you lie about me?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Maria Sophia wrote:

Remember McArthur Wheeler? The lemon-juice bank robber?
He seriously believed that lemon juice made his face invisible.

The 1st rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is that those in it don't know it.

Some people have noted they never heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
<https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740>

The dunning-kruger effect is actually complicated, but when most people
talk about it, they're talking about people to the left of the 1st quartile when their self-assessed skill level is compared to that of reality.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>

There seems to be another blatant case of dunning-kruger people to the left
of the first quartile in the news today in the death penalty for the FedEx driver who covered the camera thinking that there was no audio recording.
<https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/former-fedex-driver-sentenced-to-death-for-22243291.php>

The point about people to the left of the first quartile is explained here:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>

Shockingly, people exist who dispute every fact that they don't like using
the first absurd excuse that pops into their heads.

By refuting the facts using the first absurd excuse that they can think of, they actually feel that they made that fact go away.

By making that fact go away, it no longer exists to them.

In this case, the FedEx driver felt he was competent enough of his acumen
to negate the recording by putting a post-it note on the lens.

While most normal people don't act that way, certainly some people do.
<https://dictionary.apa.org/dunning-kruger-effect>

What kind of strange person does that?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Maria Sophia wrote:

<https://dictionary.apa.org/dunning-kruger-effect>

https://www.britannica.com/science/Dunning-Kruger-effect
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Chris wrote:

In all serious reality, people like Snit and Alan Baker have been told
their entire lives, by every single entity around them, that they're
stupid, and that has had an effect on them which we haven't felt ourselves. >>

Time for you to add the first entry to your insult log.

I'll be nice to you Chris by kindly reminding you to read the opening
post in the thread that you "think" it fits, and then I ask you politely to come back here and agree with me and with everyone who read that OP, that
it simply doesn't fit the bare minimum requirements to be in that thread.

Of course it does. Openly calling anyone stupid is an insult. You made no caveat for additions to your "insult log".

Face it, your attempt at playing the victim has backfired. Any attempt to
deny your insulting behaviour simply shows you up as a hypocrite.

Your choice; are you insulting, or a hypocrite?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On May 5, 2026 at 9:41:04 PM MST, "Maria Sophia" wrote <10tegov$233d$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:

Maria Sophia wrote:

Remember McArthur Wheeler? The lemon-juice bank robber?
He seriously believed that lemon juice made his face invisible.

The 1st rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is that those in it don't know it.

Some people have noted they never heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect. <https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740>

You exemplify it well.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Chris wrote:

I'll be nice to you Chris by kindly reminding you to read the opening
post in the thread that you "think" it fits, and then I ask you politely to >> come back here and agree with me and with everyone who read that OP, that
it simply doesn't fit the bare minimum requirements to be in that thread.

Of course it does. Openly calling anyone stupid is an insult. You made no caveat for additions to your "insult log".

Face it, your attempt at playing the victim has backfired. Any attempt to deny your insulting behaviour simply shows you up as a hypocrite.

Your choice; are you insulting, or a hypocrite?

Hi Chris,

I'll be nice and again remind you to read the opening post in that thread. Please apply Occam's Razor to your assumption that this fits requirements.

This is wordy because I'm going out of my way to be nice to you while I
correct your error because you made an easily-proved-wrong conclusion.

Since I expect you to be intelligent, I am investing the words to explain
to you as nicely as possibly not only that you're wrong, but also why.

Notice you only applied *half* of Occam's Razor, which means you came up
with the wrong conclusion, but I'll be nice & just say look up Occam too!

When you look up Occam's Razor, take note that it has to fit *all* the
facts, or it's wrong.

To put it bluntly, every "assessment" you make that does not fit "all" the facts, is, by definition, wrong.

Which is exactly why I was being so kind and polite and nice to you by
asking you patiently to read the original post of the thread you "say" this belongs in, where you'll find you missed the part about fitting all facts.

Note: Just like most people have no idea how contacts privacy works on any device, most people don't understand that Dunning-Kruger applies to all
people (even those who are extremely intelligent and well skilled) and, in
this particular case, most people think Occam's Razor is only the
"simplest" conclusion, but they forget it has to fit all the facts first.
--
Being intelligent is wondrous because I understand what others just can't.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Chris wrote:

I'll be nice to you Chris by kindly reminding you to read the opening
post in the thread that you "think" it fits, and then I ask you politely to >>> come back here and agree with me and with everyone who read that OP, that >>> it simply doesn't fit the bare minimum requirements to be in that thread. >>

Of course it does. Openly calling anyone stupid is an insult. You made no
caveat for additions to your "insult log".

Face it, your attempt at playing the victim has backfired. Any attempt to
deny your insulting behaviour simply shows you up as a hypocrite.

Your choice; are you insulting, or a hypocrite?

Hi Chris,

I'll be nice

Lol. That implies that you're normally not. Yet again, the mask slips.

<snip>

Stop hiding behind misapplied academic arguments.

I made no judgement about the accuracy of your point. It is still an insult
to pass judgement or highlight a factually correct observation about
someone's character. For example, "You're ugly", "you smell awful", or
"you're stupid" are all insults even if they may be accurate to some
degree. Someone as thin-skinned as you should recognise that.

Your continued argument and lack of contrition is indicative of your
hypocrisy.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Chris wrote:

I made no judgement about the accuracy of your point. It is still an insult to pass judgement or highlight a factually correct observation about someone's character. For example, "You're ugly", "you smell awful", or "you're stupid" are all insults even if they may be accurate to some
degree. Someone as thin-skinned as you should recognise that.

Your continued argument and lack of contrition is indicative of your hypocrisy.

Hi Chris,

I'll ignore your insults (which I cut out of the quoted text above for that reason), to implore you nicely and patiently to openly and honestly admit
that you agree that this thread does NOT belong in that other thread.

I'm being rather patient with you by nicely explaining, for the 2nd or
third time (I'm not counting the exact number of times I have to point out
the facts to you because I want the facts, eventually, to sink in) that you
are wrong and I'm even going to tell you WHY you are wrong, Chris.

Your assessment was only based on half the conditions, and when you include
the other half, since they're both required, your assessment is wrong.

Again, I will explain to you patiently, just as I did with contacts
privacy, that you just taking 1 fact out of, oh, say, 10 facts, and then
basing your entire (wrong) conclusion on that 1 fact, is guaranteed to make
you come up with the wrong assessment, Chris. Just as it did here.

Do what I say.

1. Read the opening post of the thread you say this belongs in
HINT: That thread was opened for a reason.
2. Understand ALL the conditions stated in that thread
HINT: They're there for a reason.
3. THEN... come back here and apologize to me, Chris.

It's the only logical thing you can do.
Anything else you do is illogical.
--
Being intelligent is wondrous because I understand what others just can't.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-05-06 14:53, Maria Sophia wrote:

Chris wrote:

I made no judgement about the accuracy of your point. It is still an insult >> to pass judgement or highlight a factually correct observation about
someone's character. For example, "You're ugly", "you smell awful", or
"you're stupid" are all insults even if they may be accurate to some
degree. Someone as thin-skinned as you should recognise that.

Your continued argument and lack of contrition is indicative of your
hypocrisy.

Hi Chris,

I'll ignore your insults

He made no insults, liar.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Chris wrote:

Lol. That implies that you're normally not. Yet again, the mask slips.

<snip>

I made no judgement about the accuracy of your point. It is still an insult >> to pass judgement or highlight a factually correct observation about
someone's character. For example, "You're ugly", "you smell awful", or
"you're stupid" are all insults even if they may be accurate to some
degree. Someone as thin-skinned as you should recognise that.

Your continued argument and lack of contrition is indicative of your
hypocrisy.

Hi Chris,

I'll ignore your insults (which I cut out of the quoted text above for that reason)

I've reinstated the full quote as there is no insult. I invite you to
precisely identify anything that meets the definition of an insult.

This will be my last contribution to this thread. It's very clear you're a hypocrite. You want to call people out for insulting behaviour and yet deny
you calling people stupid is an insult.

Not for the first time, you need to take a good look in the mirror.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Chris wrote:

You want to call people out for insulting behaviour and yet deny
you calling people stupid is an insult.

Chris,


Give me credit for being intelligent.

Don't you think there's a reason both those threads were entered
consecutively? C'mon. Think about it. Do you think it's by accident?

Not a single person who replied has understood something as simple as the
two conditions in the original post of the thread that they claim this
belongs in, which is my entire point about the D-K effect.

You all proved it for me.
Thanks!
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2