On 24/05/2026 13:56, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 12:39:21rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7fo99FtkguU2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 00:43, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 23, 2026 at 1:17:48rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7egbcFno4sU3@mid.individual.net>:
On 23/05/2026 19:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 23, 2026 at 11:32:23rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wroteI'm sorry, I don't understand.
<n7ea5nFmrepU2@mid.individual.net>:
On 23/05/2026 19:17, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 23, 2026 at 9:27:35rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7e2roFlopsU1@mid.individual.net>:
What *GEMINI* (AI) said to me! <-------- *Correction made*!> >>>>>>>>> https://i.ibb.co/0yRmSfr9/Screenshot-2026-05-23-at-17-01-39.png >>>>>>>>>
Comments welcome!
Did he make a note about it somewhere?
Gemini agreed that no "adviser" on the ASC forums had ever asked an >>>>>>> enquirer to provide an 'old' EtreCheck report.
That was my experience too.
Did the developer make a note of it?
Did the developer note that these files are saved?
No, he did not, as far as I'm aware.
Then what is this about:
It is a massive victory that John Daniel (the developer of EtreCheck) has
updated the details page...
Sounds like you are giving AI very bad info.
You'll have to use Archive.org to review what the developer USED to say!
On May 24, 2026 at 6:23:58rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7gcffF24o0U2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
.[....]
Can you please answer the questions?
Please - RESTATE your question
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
Please answer this question.
You: The developer has changed his tune - at last! EfyU
Me: How?
Please answer this question.
On 24/05/2026 14:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 6:23:58rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7gcffF24o0U2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
.[....]
Can you please answer the questions?
Please - RESTATE your question
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the
Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
Please answer this question.
Definitely macOS
https://i.ibb.co/xKDRp0x4/Screenshot-2026-05-24-at-15-00-28.png
You: The developer has changed his tune - at last! EfyU
Me: How?
Please answer this question.
Once again, he now has a notarized App in the App Store again--
(Storeograph) so he MUST be a good guy!
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 14:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 6:23:58rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7gcffF24o0U2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
.[....]
Can you please answer the questions?
Please - RESTATE your question
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the >>> Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Definitely macOS
https://i.ibb.co/xKDRp0x4/Screenshot-2026-05-24-at-15-00-28.png
You: The developer has changed his tune - at last! EfyU
Me: How?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Once again, he now has a notarized App in the App Store again
(Storeograph) so he MUST be a good guy!
On 24/05/2026 15:16, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 14:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 6:23:58rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7gcffF24o0U2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
.[....]
Can you please answer the questions?
Please - RESTATE your question
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the >>>> Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Definitely macOS
https://i.ibb.co/xKDRp0x4/Screenshot-2026-05-24-at-15-00-28.png
You: The developer has changed his tune - at last! EfyU
Me: How?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Once again, he now has a notarized App in the App Store again
(Storeograph) so he MUST be a good guy!
I did answer; I'm saddened that you didn't understand that EtreCheck was
not compiled until after macOS was developed.
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 15:16, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 14:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 6:23:58rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7gcffF24o0U2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
.[....]
Can you please answer the questions?
Please - RESTATE your question
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the >>>>> Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Definitely macOS
https://i.ibb.co/xKDRp0x4/Screenshot-2026-05-24-at-15-00-28.png
You: The developer has changed his tune - at last! EfyU
Me: How?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Once again, he now has a notarized App in the App Store again
(Storeograph) so he MUST be a good guy!
I did answer; I'm saddened that you didn't understand that EtreCheck was
not compiled until after macOS was developed.
What? Where did you get that? LOL!
Are you OK? YourCOre not making any sense or understanding anything being said.
You talked about deleting an app. You went on about files being left behind rCo as is the norm on macOS. But your comments were not tied to any real understanding. Then you jumped to how a developer changed his tune but when asked about that changed topics to him releasing other software. When this was noted you made a bizarre jump to modern apps not being compiled on now-ancient OSs.
Seriously, are you OK? YourCOre clearly not making a lick of sense and canrCOt
follow a discussion.
On 24/05/2026 15:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 15:16, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 14:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 6:23:58rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7gcffF24o0U2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
.[....]
Can you please answer the questions?
Please - RESTATE your question
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the >>>>>> Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Definitely macOS
https://i.ibb.co/xKDRp0x4/Screenshot-2026-05-24-at-15-00-28.png
You: The developer has changed his tune - at last! EfyU
Me: How?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Once again, he now has a notarized App in the App Store again
(Storeograph) so he MUST be a good guy!
I did answer; I'm saddened that you didn't understand that EtreCheck was >>> not compiled until after macOS was developed.
What? Where did you get that? LOL!
I helped him during his development phase!
Are you OK? YourCOre not making any sense or understanding anything being
said.
Bit sore yesterday and today from having yet another Covid jab!
You talked about deleting an app. You went on about files being left behind >> rCo as is the norm on macOS. But your comments were not tied to any real
understanding. Then you jumped to how a developer changed his tune but when >> asked about that changed topics to him releasing other software. When this >> was noted you made a bizarre jump to modern apps not being compiled on
now-ancient OSs.
Seriously, are you OK? YourCOre clearly not making a lick of sense and canrCOt
follow a discussion.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed! Efya
On May 24, 2026 at 1:48:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7h6h6F64ueU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 15:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 15:16, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 14:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 6:23:58rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7gcffF24o0U2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
.[....]
Can you please answer the questions?
Please - RESTATE your question
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the
Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe? >>>>>>>
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Definitely macOS
https://i.ibb.co/xKDRp0x4/Screenshot-2026-05-24-at-15-00-28.png
You: The developer has changed his tune - at last! EfyU
Me: How?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Once again, he now has a notarized App in the App Store again
(Storeograph) so he MUST be a good guy!
I did answer; I'm saddened that you didn't understand that EtreCheck was >>>> not compiled until after macOS was developed.
What? Where did you get that? LOL!
I helped him during his development phase!
Good grief. Where did you get the idea that ANYONE thought EtreCheck was compiled before macOS was developed? You are not focusing at all on what is being said.
Are you OK? YourCOre not making any sense or understanding anything being >>> said.
Bit sore yesterday and today from having yet another Covid jab!
Glad you are getting it... sorry you are sore.
You talked about deleting an app. You went on about files being left behind >>> rCo as is the norm on macOS. But your comments were not tied to any real >>> understanding. Then you jumped to how a developer changed his tune but when >>> asked about that changed topics to him releasing other software. When this >>> was noted you made a bizarre jump to modern apps not being compiled on
now-ancient OSs.
Seriously, are you OK? YourCOre clearly not making a lick of sense and canrCOt
follow a discussion.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed! Efya
Does not matter to me. But to get back to the topic (I hope): You keep going on about files being left behind when you uninstall an app. You try to differentiate between those from the Apple Store and those note. What point are you trying to make? I get you are focused on EtreCheck leaving old scan results, and admit that is a bit uncommon (but not a concern), but on the bigger picture what is your point? I keep asking and you just change the topic.
Then you spoke of the developer changing his tune. You did this in relation to
his having the old scan results but have said that is not it. You then changed
the topic to him having other software. Again: how did he change his tune?
On 24/05/2026 23:00, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 1:48:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7h6h6F64ueU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 15:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 15:16, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 14:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 6:23:58rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7gcffF24o0U2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
.[....]
Can you please answer the questions?
Please - RESTATE your question
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the
Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe? >>>>>>>>
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Definitely macOS
https://i.ibb.co/xKDRp0x4/Screenshot-2026-05-24-at-15-00-28.png
You: The developer has changed his tune - at last! EfyU
Me: How?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Once again, he now has a notarized App in the App Store again
(Storeograph) so he MUST be a good guy!
I did answer; I'm saddened that you didn't understand that EtreCheck was >>>>> not compiled until after macOS was developed.
What? Where did you get that? LOL!
I helped him during his development phase!
Good grief. Where did you get the idea that ANYONE thought EtreCheck was
compiled before macOS was developed? You are not focusing at all on what is >> being said.
Let me quote what *YOU* said:-
"Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?"
Does that help?!!!
Are you OK? YourCOre not making any sense or understanding anything being >>>> said.
Bit sore yesterday and today from having yet another Covid jab!
Glad you are getting it... sorry you are sore.
I only have them to please my wife! Efnu
You talked about deleting an app. You went on about files being left behind
rCo as is the norm on macOS. But your comments were not tied to any real >>>> understanding. Then you jumped to how a developer changed his tune but when
asked about that changed topics to him releasing other software. When this >>>> was noted you made a bizarre jump to modern apps not being compiled on >>>> now-ancient OSs.
Seriously, are you OK? YourCOre clearly not making a lick of sense and canrCOt
follow a discussion.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed! Efya
Does not matter to me. But to get back to the topic (I hope): You keep going >> on about files being left behind when you uninstall an app. You try to
differentiate between those from the Apple Store and those note. What point >> are you trying to make? I get you are focused on EtreCheck leaving old scan >> results, and admit that is a bit uncommon (but not a concern), but on the
bigger picture what is your point? I keep asking and you just change the
topic.
This all goes back a very long time. EtreCheck was, at first, available
on the Apple App Store. That was proof that John Daniel had been
'vetted' by Apple and 'Notarized'. Then it was no longer available there.
Now taht Mr. Daniel has another software - Storeograph - availble from
the Apple App Store it is confirmation, once again, that JD has been investigated, approved and "Notarized" by Apple.
Then you spoke of the developer changing his tune. You did this in relation to
his having the old scan results but have said that is not it. You then changed
the topic to him having other software. Again: how did he change his tune?
At www.etrecheck.com it is now explained that old reports *ARE* retained.
"Uninstall:
To uninstall EtreCheckPro, just drag the EtreCheckPro.app file to the Trash.
EtreCheckPro saves all generated reports automatically under the
Previous reports item in the File menu. This will open a Finder window showing all previous reports. These can be managed with the Delete
previous report item in the File menu."
THAT paragraph is *NEW*!
https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
On May 24, 2026 at 3:23:32rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7hc34F705nU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 23:00, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 1:48:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7h6h6F64ueU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 15:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 15:16, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 14:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 6:23:58rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7gcffF24o0U2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
.[....]
Can you please answer the questions?
Please - RESTATE your question
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the
Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe? >>>>>>>>>
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Definitely macOS
https://i.ibb.co/xKDRp0x4/Screenshot-2026-05-24-at-15-00-28.png >>>>>>>>
You: The developer has changed his tune - at last! EfyU
Me: How?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Once again, he now has a notarized App in the App Store again
(Storeograph) so he MUST be a good guy!
I did answer; I'm saddened that you didn't understand that EtreCheck was >>>>>> not compiled until after macOS was developed.
What? Where did you get that? LOL!
I helped him during his development phase!
Good grief. Where did you get the idea that ANYONE thought EtreCheck was >>> compiled before macOS was developed? You are not focusing at all on what is >>> being said.
Let me quote what *YOU* said:-
"Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?"
Does that help?!!!
That has NOTHING to do with EtreCheck. Again:
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
What "old days" did a developer say dragging his app via dragging to Trash removed all traces? The answer is: NEVER. This has NEVER been how macOS, or even Classic Mac, worked.
Are you OK? YourCOre not making any sense or understanding anything being >>>>> said.
Bit sore yesterday and today from having yet another Covid jab!
Glad you are getting it... sorry you are sore.
I only have them to please my wife! Efnu
She is wise.
You talked about deleting an app. You went on about files being left behind
rCo as is the norm on macOS. But your comments were not tied to any real >>>>> understanding. Then you jumped to how a developer changed his tune but when
asked about that changed topics to him releasing other software. When this
was noted you made a bizarre jump to modern apps not being compiled on >>>>> now-ancient OSs.
Seriously, are you OK? YourCOre clearly not making a lick of sense and canrCOt
follow a discussion.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed! Efya
Does not matter to me. But to get back to the topic (I hope): You keep going
on about files being left behind when you uninstall an app. You try to
differentiate between those from the Apple Store and those note. What point >>> are you trying to make? I get you are focused on EtreCheck leaving old scan >>> results, and admit that is a bit uncommon (but not a concern), but on the >>> bigger picture what is your point? I keep asking and you just change the >>> topic.
This all goes back a very long time. EtreCheck was, at first, available
on the Apple App Store. That was proof that John Daniel had been
'vetted' by Apple and 'Notarized'. Then it was no longer available there.
Now taht Mr. Daniel has another software - Storeograph - availble from
the Apple App Store it is confirmation, once again, that JD has been
investigated, approved and "Notarized" by Apple.
Being on the Apple App Store, or being notarized by Apple in general,N++does not
mean Apple has in any significant way investigated, endorsed, or certified a developerrCOs trustworthiness in the way you are implying.
You said he changed his tune. Releasing a new app does not show that.
his having the old scan results but have said that is not it. You then changedAt www.etrecheck.com it is now explained that old reports *ARE* retained.
the topic to him having other software. Again: how did he change his tune? >>
"Uninstall:
To uninstall EtreCheckPro, just drag the EtreCheckPro.app file to the Trash. >>
EtreCheckPro saves all generated reports automatically under the
Previous reports item in the File menu. This will open a Finder window
showing all previous reports. These can be managed with the Delete
previous report item in the File menu."
THAT paragraph is *NEW*!
The earliest WBM archive of that page. 22 October 2022.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221022023945/https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
The text was a bit different but the idea has been there since at least then.
https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
It shows the developer has been very open about the old reports for a long time. It is a non-issue.
On 24/05/2026 23:41, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 3:23:32rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7hc34F705nU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 23:00, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 1:48:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7h6h6F64ueU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 15:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 15:16, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 14:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 6:23:58rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7gcffF24o0U2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
.[....]
Can you please answer the questions?
Please - RESTATE your question
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the
Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe? >>>>>>>>>>
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Definitely macOS
https://i.ibb.co/xKDRp0x4/Screenshot-2026-05-24-at-15-00-28.png >>>>>>>>>
You: The developer has changed his tune - at last! EfyU
Me: How?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Once again, he now has a notarized App in the App Store again >>>>>>>>> (Storeograph) so he MUST be a good guy!
I did answer; I'm saddened that you didn't understand that EtreCheck was
not compiled until after macOS was developed.
What? Where did you get that? LOL!
I helped him during his development phase!
Good grief. Where did you get the idea that ANYONE thought EtreCheck was >>>> compiled before macOS was developed? You are not focusing at all on what is
being said.
Let me quote what *YOU* said:-
"Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?"
Does that help?!!!
That has NOTHING to do with EtreCheck. Again:
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the
Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
What "old days" did a developer say dragging his app via dragging to Trash >> removed all traces? The answer is: NEVER. This has NEVER been how macOS, or >> even Classic Mac, worked.
OK - I didn't get a Mac until 2009
Are you OK? YourCOre not making any sense or understanding anything being
said.
Bit sore yesterday and today from having yet another Covid jab!
Glad you are getting it... sorry you are sore.
I only have them to please my wife! Efnu
She is wise.
She is ..... she's stayed married to me for nearly 60 years!!!
You talked about deleting an app. You went on about files being left behind
rCo as is the norm on macOS. But your comments were not tied to any real >>>>>> understanding. Then you jumped to how a developer changed his tune but when
asked about that changed topics to him releasing other software. When this
was noted you made a bizarre jump to modern apps not being compiled on >>>>>> now-ancient OSs.
Seriously, are you OK? YourCOre clearly not making a lick of sense and canrCOt
follow a discussion.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed! Efya
Does not matter to me. But to get back to the topic (I hope): You keep going
on about files being left behind when you uninstall an app. You try to >>>> differentiate between those from the Apple Store and those note. What point
are you trying to make? I get you are focused on EtreCheck leaving old scan
results, and admit that is a bit uncommon (but not a concern), but on the >>>> bigger picture what is your point? I keep asking and you just change the >>>> topic.
This all goes back a very long time. EtreCheck was, at first, available
on the Apple App Store. That was proof that John Daniel had been
'vetted' by Apple and 'Notarized'. Then it was no longer available there. >>> Now taht Mr. Daniel has another software - Storeograph - availble from
the Apple App Store it is confirmation, once again, that JD has been
investigated, approved and "Notarized" by Apple.
Being on the Apple App Store, or being notarized by Apple in general,N++does not
mean Apple has in any significant way investigated, endorsed, or certified a >> developerrCOs trustworthiness in the way you are implying.
You said he changed his tune. Releasing a new app does not show that.
Although he still refuses to "talk" to me, he has listened to my
comments and adjusted what is said on his website!
relation toThen you spoke of the developer changing his tune. You did this in
his having the old scan results but have said that is not it. You then changedAt www.etrecheck.com it is now explained that old reports *ARE* retained. >>>
the topic to him having other software. Again: how did he change his tune? >>>
"Uninstall:
To uninstall EtreCheckPro, just drag the EtreCheckPro.app file to the Trash.
EtreCheckPro saves all generated reports automatically under the
Previous reports item in the File menu. This will open a Finder window
showing all previous reports. These can be managed with the Delete
previous report item in the File menu."
THAT paragraph is *NEW*!
The earliest WBM archive of that page. 22 October 2022.
You need to be more thorough in your research!
https://web.archive.org/web/20221022023945/https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
The text was a bit different but the idea has been there since at least then.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140705061537/http://www.etresoft.com/etrecheck
https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
It shows the developer has been very open about the old reports for a long >> time. It is a non-issue.
As I've mentioned before, my original nym when posting on the ASC forums
was HunterBD.
Here's one of my first discussions about EtreCheck:-
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6781873?answerId=27530552022&sortBy=rank#27530552022
On May 25, 2026 at 12:26:38rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7ibteFbki3U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 23:41, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 3:23:32rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7hc34F705nU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 23:00, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 1:48:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7h6h6F64ueU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 15:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 15:16, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 14:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 6:23:58rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7gcffF24o0U2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
.[....]
Can you please answer the questions?
Please - RESTATE your question
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the
Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe? >>>>>>>>>>>
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Definitely macOS
https://i.ibb.co/xKDRp0x4/Screenshot-2026-05-24-at-15-00-28.png >>>>>>>>>>
You: The developer has changed his tune - at last! EfyU
Me: How?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Once again, he now has a notarized App in the App Store again >>>>>>>>>> (Storeograph) so he MUST be a good guy!
I did answer; I'm saddened that you didn't understand that EtreCheck was
not compiled until after macOS was developed.
What? Where did you get that? LOL!
I helped him during his development phase!
Good grief. Where did you get the idea that ANYONE thought EtreCheck was >>>>> compiled before macOS was developed? You are not focusing at all on what is
being said.
Let me quote what *YOU* said:-
"Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?"
Does that help?!!!
That has NOTHING to do with EtreCheck. Again:
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the >>> Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
What "old days" did a developer say dragging his app via dragging to Trash >>> removed all traces? The answer is: NEVER. This has NEVER been how macOS, or >>> even Classic Mac, worked.
OK - I didn't get a Mac until 2009
That STILL does not answer the question.
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
So when? When do you think dragging an app to the Trash (Bin) removed all traced?
Are you OK? YourCOre not making any sense or understanding anything being
said.
Bit sore yesterday and today from having yet another Covid jab!
Glad you are getting it... sorry you are sore.
I only have them to please my wife! Efnu
She is wise.
She is ..... she's stayed married to me for nearly 60 years!!!
Well, never said she was perfect. :)
Seriously, that is amazing.
You talked about deleting an app. You went on about files being left behind
rCo as is the norm on macOS. But your comments were not tied to any real
understanding. Then you jumped to how a developer changed his tune but when
asked about that changed topics to him releasing other software. When this
was noted you made a bizarre jump to modern apps not being compiled on >>>>>>> now-ancient OSs.
Seriously, are you OK? YourCOre clearly not making a lick of sense and canrCOt
follow a discussion.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed! Efya
Does not matter to me. But to get back to the topic (I hope): You keep going
on about files being left behind when you uninstall an app. You try to >>>>> differentiate between those from the Apple Store and those note. What point
are you trying to make? I get you are focused on EtreCheck leaving old scan
results, and admit that is a bit uncommon (but not a concern), but on the >>>>> bigger picture what is your point? I keep asking and you just change the >>>>> topic.
This all goes back a very long time. EtreCheck was, at first, available >>>> on the Apple App Store. That was proof that John Daniel had been
'vetted' by Apple and 'Notarized'. Then it was no longer available there. >>>> Now taht Mr. Daniel has another software - Storeograph - availble from >>>> the Apple App Store it is confirmation, once again, that JD has been
investigated, approved and "Notarized" by Apple.
Being on the Apple App Store, or being notarized by Apple in general,N++does not
mean Apple has in any significant way investigated, endorsed, or certified a
developerrCOs trustworthiness in the way you are implying.
You said he changed his tune. Releasing a new app does not show that.
Although he still refuses to "talk" to me, he has listened to my
comments and adjusted what is said on his website!
Before you said he did NOT change anything.
relation toThen you spoke of the developer changing his tune. You did this in
his having the old scan results but have said that is not it. You then changed
the topic to him having other software. Again: how did he change his tune?
At www.etrecheck.com it is now explained that old reports *ARE* retained. >>>>
"Uninstall:
To uninstall EtreCheckPro, just drag the EtreCheckPro.app file to the Trash.
EtreCheckPro saves all generated reports automatically under the
Previous reports item in the File menu. This will open a Finder window >>>> showing all previous reports. These can be managed with the Delete
previous report item in the File menu."
THAT paragraph is *NEW*!
The earliest WBM archive of that page. 22 October 2022.
You need to be more thorough in your research!
https://web.archive.org/web/20221022023945/https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
The text was a bit different but the idea has been there since at least then.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140705061537/http://www.etresoft.com/etrecheck
The point is the comment -- with slightly different wording -- has been on the
site for a long time. With an explanation of why and how to remove the old data. Where it saved makes perfect sense. Would be good if this was noted in the app. Maybe it is?
https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
It shows the developer has been very open about the old reports for a long >>> time. It is a non-issue.
As I've mentioned before, my original nym when posting on the ASC forums
was HunterBD.
Here's one of my first discussions about EtreCheck:-
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6781873?answerId=27530552022&sortBy=rank#27530552022
It is amazing how long you have had this issue with pushing concerns in such an irrational way -- have you ever sought help on your issue here?
On 25/05/2026 15:49, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 25, 2026 at 12:26:38rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7ibteFbki3U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 23:41, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 3:23:32rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7hc34F705nU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 23:00, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 1:48:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7h6h6F64ueU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 15:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 15:16, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2026 14:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 24, 2026 at 6:23:58rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>>>>>>>>>>> <n7gcffF24o0U2@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2026 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
.[....]
Can you please answer the questions?
Please - RESTATE your question
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the
Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe? >>>>>>>>>>>>
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Definitely macOS
https://i.ibb.co/xKDRp0x4/Screenshot-2026-05-24-at-15-00-28.png >>>>>>>>>>>
You: The developer has changed his tune - at last! EfyU >>>>>>>>>>>>
Me: How?
Please answer this question.
Why didnrCOt you answer the question?
Once again, he now has a notarized App in the App Store again >>>>>>>>>>> (Storeograph) so he MUST be a good guy!
I did answer; I'm saddened that you didn't understand that EtreCheck was
not compiled until after macOS was developed.
What? Where did you get that? LOL!
I helped him during his development phase!
Good grief. Where did you get the idea that ANYONE thought EtreCheck was >>>>>> compiled before macOS was developed? You are not focusing at all on what is
being said.
Let me quote what *YOU* said:-
"Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?"
Does that help?!!!
That has NOTHING to do with EtreCheck. Again:
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the >>>> Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
What "old days" did a developer say dragging his app via dragging to Trash >>>> removed all traces? The answer is: NEVER. This has NEVER been how macOS, or
even Classic Mac, worked.
OK - I didn't get a Mac until 2009
That STILL does not answer the question.
Sorry!
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the
Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
So when? When do you think dragging an app to the Trash (Bin) removed all
traced?
When the App was downloaded from the Apple App Store.
Are you OK? YourCOre not making any sense or understanding anything being
said.
Bit sore yesterday and today from having yet another Covid jab!
Glad you are getting it... sorry you are sore.
I only have them to please my wife! Efnu
She is wise.
She is ..... she's stayed married to me for nearly 60 years!!!
Well, never said she was perfect. :)
Seriously, that is amazing.
We're simply lucky that we have lived or so long! EfOe
You talked about deleting an app. You went on about files being left behind
rCo as is the norm on macOS. But your comments were not tied to any real
understanding. Then you jumped to how a developer changed his tune but when
asked about that changed topics to him releasing other software. When this
was noted you made a bizarre jump to modern apps not being compiled on >>>>>>>> now-ancient OSs.
Seriously, are you OK? YourCOre clearly not making a lick of sense and canrCOt
follow a discussion.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed! Efya
Does not matter to me. But to get back to the topic (I hope): You keep going
on about files being left behind when you uninstall an app. You try to >>>>>> differentiate between those from the Apple Store and those note. What point
are you trying to make? I get you are focused on EtreCheck leaving old scan
results, and admit that is a bit uncommon (but not a concern), but on the
bigger picture what is your point? I keep asking and you just change the >>>>>> topic.
This all goes back a very long time. EtreCheck was, at first, available >>>>> on the Apple App Store. That was proof that John Daniel had been
'vetted' by Apple and 'Notarized'. Then it was no longer available there. >>>>> Now taht Mr. Daniel has another software - Storeograph - availble from >>>>> the Apple App Store it is confirmation, once again, that JD has been >>>>> investigated, approved and "Notarized" by Apple.
Being on the Apple App Store, or being notarized by Apple in general,N++does not
mean Apple has in any significant way investigated, endorsed, or certified a
developerrCOs trustworthiness in the way you are implying.
You said he changed his tune. Releasing a new app does not show that.
Although he still refuses to "talk" to me, he has listened to my
comments and adjusted what is said on his website!
Before you said he did NOT change anything.
Maybe I did. Mabe you misunderstood. <shrug>
relation toThen you spoke of the developer changing his tune. You did this in
his having the old scan results but have said that is not it. You then changed
the topic to him having other software. Again: how did he change his tune?
At www.etrecheck.com it is now explained that old reports *ARE* retained. >>>>>
"Uninstall:
To uninstall EtreCheckPro, just drag the EtreCheckPro.app file to the Trash.
EtreCheckPro saves all generated reports automatically under the
Previous reports item in the File menu. This will open a Finder window >>>>> showing all previous reports. These can be managed with the Delete
previous report item in the File menu."
THAT paragraph is *NEW*!
The earliest WBM archive of that page. 22 October 2022.
You need to be more thorough in your research!
https://web.archive.org/web/20221022023945/https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
The text was a bit different but the idea has been there since at least then.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140705061537/http://www.etresoft.com/etrecheck
The point is the comment -- with slightly different wording -- has been on the
site for a long time. With an explanation of why and how to remove the old >> data. Where it saved makes perfect sense. Would be good if this was noted in >> the app. Maybe it is?
It *IS* mentioned now - but it didn't used to be!
https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
It shows the developer has been very open about the old reports for a long >>>> time. It is a non-issue.
As I've mentioned before, my original nym when posting on the ASC forums >>> was HunterBD.
Here's one of my first discussions about EtreCheck:-
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6781873?answerId=27530552022&sortBy=rank#27530552022
It is amazing how long you have had this issue with pushing concerns in such >> an irrational way -- have you ever sought help on your issue here?
I'm pretty sure I have, butyou have always been interested in your own agenda, not with mine!
Snit's personal agenda is trolling and creating chaos.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6781873?answerId=27530552022&sortBy=rank#27530552022
It is amazing how long you have had this issue with pushing concerns in such
an irrational way -- have you ever sought help on your issue here?
I'm pretty sure I have, butyou have always been interested in your own
agenda, not with mine!
Why do you think he encourages peabrain?
You were warned.
You didn't listen.
So suck it up buttercup.
On 25/05/2026 15:49, Brock McNuggets wrote:
That has NOTHING to do with EtreCheck. Again:
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the >>>> Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
What "old days" did a developer say dragging his app via dragging to Trash >>>> removed all traces? The answer is: NEVER. This has NEVER been how macOS, or
even Classic Mac, worked.
OK - I didn't get a Mac until 2009
That STILL does not answer the question.
Sorry!
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the
Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
So when? When do you think dragging an app to the Trash (Bin) removed all
traced?
When the App was downloaded from the Apple App Store.
Are you OK? YourCOre not making any sense or understanding anything being
said.
Bit sore yesterday and today from having yet another Covid jab!
Glad you are getting it... sorry you are sore.
I only have them to please my wife! Efnu
She is wise.
She is ..... she's stayed married to me for nearly 60 years!!!
Well, never said she was perfect. :)
Seriously, that is amazing.
We're simply lucky that we have lived or so long! EfOe
You talked about deleting an app. You went on about files being left behind
rCo as is the norm on macOS. But your comments were not tied to any real
understanding. Then you jumped to how a developer changed his tune but when
asked about that changed topics to him releasing other software. When this
was noted you made a bizarre jump to modern apps not being compiled on >>>>>>>> now-ancient OSs.
Seriously, are you OK? YourCOre clearly not making a lick of sense and canrCOt
follow a discussion.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed! Efya
Does not matter to me. But to get back to the topic (I hope): You keep going
on about files being left behind when you uninstall an app. You try to >>>>>> differentiate between those from the Apple Store and those note. What point
are you trying to make? I get you are focused on EtreCheck leaving old scan
results, and admit that is a bit uncommon (but not a concern), but on the
bigger picture what is your point? I keep asking and you just change the >>>>>> topic.
This all goes back a very long time. EtreCheck was, at first, available >>>>> on the Apple App Store. That was proof that John Daniel had been
'vetted' by Apple and 'Notarized'. Then it was no longer available there. >>>>> Now taht Mr. Daniel has another software - Storeograph - availble from >>>>> the Apple App Store it is confirmation, once again, that JD has been >>>>> investigated, approved and "Notarized" by Apple.
Being on the Apple App Store, or being notarized by Apple in general,N++does not
mean Apple has in any significant way investigated, endorsed, or certified a
developerrCOs trustworthiness in the way you are implying.
You said he changed his tune. Releasing a new app does not show that.
Although he still refuses to "talk" to me, he has listened to my
comments and adjusted what is said on his website!
Before you said he did NOT change anything.
Maybe I did. Mabe you misunderstood. <shrug>
relation toThen you spoke of the developer changing his tune. You did this in
his having the old scan results but have said that is not it. You then changed
the topic to him having other software. Again: how did he change his tune?
At www.etrecheck.com it is now explained that old reports *ARE* retained. >>>>>
"Uninstall:
To uninstall EtreCheckPro, just drag the EtreCheckPro.app file to the Trash.
EtreCheckPro saves all generated reports automatically under the
Previous reports item in the File menu. This will open a Finder window >>>>> showing all previous reports. These can be managed with the Delete
previous report item in the File menu."
THAT paragraph is *NEW*!
The earliest WBM archive of that page. 22 October 2022.
You need to be more thorough in your research!
https://web.archive.org/web/20221022023945/https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
The text was a bit different but the idea has been there since at least then.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140705061537/http://www.etresoft.com/etrecheck
The point is the comment -- with slightly different wording -- has been on the
site for a long time. With an explanation of why and how to remove the old >> data. Where it saved makes perfect sense. Would be good if this was noted in >> the app. Maybe it is?
It *IS* mentioned now - but it didn't used to be!
https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
It shows the developer has been very open about the old reports for a long >>>> time. It is a non-issue.
As I've mentioned before, my original nym when posting on the ASC forums >>> was HunterBD.
Here's one of my first discussions about EtreCheck:-
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6781873?answerId=27530552022&sortBy=rank#27530552022
It is amazing how long you have had this issue with pushing concerns in such >> an irrational way -- have you ever sought help on your issue here?
I'm pretty sure I have, butyou have always been interested in your own agenda, not with mine!
On May 25, 2026 at 2:09:45rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7js4qFiu1iU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/05/2026 15:49, Brock McNuggets wrote:
...
That has NOTHING to do with EtreCheck. Again:
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the >>>>> Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
What "old days" did a developer say dragging his app via dragging to Trash
removed all traces? The answer is: NEVER. This has NEVER been how macOS, or
even Classic Mac, worked.
OK - I didn't get a Mac until 2009
That STILL does not answer the question.
Sorry!
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the >>> Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
So when? When do you think dragging an app to the Trash (Bin) removed all >>> traced?
When the App was downloaded from the Apple App Store.
That is not how it has ever worked. Not even if you go back to the Classic Mac
days. And this is by design. A benefit to users. If nothing else the Preferences (plist) file stays so if you download it again it remembers your preferences.
Glad you are getting it... sorry you are sore.Are you OK? YourCOre not making any sense or understanding anything being
said.
Bit sore yesterday and today from having yet another Covid jab! >>>>>>>
I only have them to please my wife! Efnu
She is wise.
She is ..... she's stayed married to me for nearly 60 years!!!
Well, never said she was perfect. :)
Seriously, that is amazing.
We're simply lucky that we have lived or so long! EfOe
And have built a strong bond. And that takes work and dedication. You have every right to be proud.
Although he still refuses to "talk" to me, he has listened to myYou talked about deleting an app. You went on about files being left behind
rCo as is the norm on macOS. But your comments were not tied to any real
understanding. Then you jumped to how a developer changed his tune but when
asked about that changed topics to him releasing other software. When this
was noted you made a bizarre jump to modern apps not being compiled on
now-ancient OSs.
Seriously, are you OK? YourCOre clearly not making a lick of sense and canrCOt
follow a discussion.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed! Efya
Does not matter to me. But to get back to the topic (I hope): You keep going
on about files being left behind when you uninstall an app. You try to >>>>>>> differentiate between those from the Apple Store and those note. What point
are you trying to make? I get you are focused on EtreCheck leaving old scan
results, and admit that is a bit uncommon (but not a concern), but on the
bigger picture what is your point? I keep asking and you just change the
topic.
This all goes back a very long time. EtreCheck was, at first, available >>>>>> on the Apple App Store. That was proof that John Daniel had been
'vetted' by Apple and 'Notarized'. Then it was no longer available there.
Now taht Mr. Daniel has another software - Storeograph - availble from >>>>>> the Apple App Store it is confirmation, once again, that JD has been >>>>>> investigated, approved and "Notarized" by Apple.
Being on the Apple App Store, or being notarized by Apple in general,N++does not
mean Apple has in any significant way investigated, endorsed, or certified a
developerrCOs trustworthiness in the way you are implying.
You said he changed his tune. Releasing a new app does not show that. >>>>
comments and adjusted what is said on his website!
Before you said he did NOT change anything.
Maybe I did. Mabe you misunderstood. <shrug>
Fair. Not going to dig back. You have clarified... though seems his change was
to place it in an easier to see place, not to mention it at all (he has done that for a long time).
relation toThen you spoke of the developer changing his tune. You did this in
his having the old scan results but have said that is not it. You then changed
the topic to him having other software. Again: how did he change his tune?
At www.etrecheck.com it is now explained that old reports *ARE* retained.
"Uninstall:
To uninstall EtreCheckPro, just drag the EtreCheckPro.app file to the Trash.
EtreCheckPro saves all generated reports automatically under the
Previous reports item in the File menu. This will open a Finder window >>>>>> showing all previous reports. These can be managed with the Delete >>>>>> previous report item in the File menu."
THAT paragraph is *NEW*!
The earliest WBM archive of that page. 22 October 2022.
You need to be more thorough in your research!
https://web.archive.org/web/20221022023945/https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
The text was a bit different but the idea has been there since at least then.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140705061537/http://www.etresoft.com/etrecheck
The point is the comment -- with slightly different wording -- has been on the
site for a long time. With an explanation of why and how to remove the old >>> data. Where it saved makes perfect sense. Would be good if this was noted in
the app. Maybe it is?
It *IS* mentioned now - but it didn't used to be!
It was on the page I pointed to back in 2022.
https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
It shows the developer has been very open about the old reports for a long
time. It is a non-issue.
As I've mentioned before, my original nym when posting on the ASC forums >>>> was HunterBD.
Here's one of my first discussions about EtreCheck:-
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6781873?answerId=27530552022&sortBy=rank#27530552022
It is amazing how long you have had this issue with pushing concerns in such
an irrational way -- have you ever sought help on your issue here?
I'm pretty sure I have, but you have always been interested in your own
agenda, not with mine!
I am happy to look at other issues... but I am NOT interested in your borderline harassment of developers. As I have noted, you cause harm and I do not agree with that.
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the >>>> Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
So when? When do you think dragging an app to the Trash (Bin) removed all >>>> traced?
When the App was downloaded from the Apple App Store.
That is not how it has ever worked. Not even if you go back to the Classic Mac
days. And this is by design. A benefit to users. If nothing else the
Preferences (plist) file stays so if you download it again it remembers your >> preferences.
OK - My AI enquiries agree with you!
EtreCheckPro saves all generated reports automatically under the >>>>>>> Previous reports item in the File menu. This will open a Finder window >>>>>>> showing all previous reports. These can be managed with the Delete >>>>>>> previous report item in the File menu."
THAT paragraph is *NEW*!
The earliest WBM archive of that page. 22 October 2022.
You need to be more thorough in your research!
https://web.archive.org/web/20221022023945/https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
The text was a bit different but the idea has been there since at least then.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140705061537/http://www.etresoft.com/etrecheck
The point is the comment -- with slightly different wording -- has been on the
site for a long time. With an explanation of why and how to remove the old >>>> data. Where it saved makes perfect sense. Would be good if this was noted in
the app. Maybe it is?
It *IS* mentioned now - but it didn't used to be!
It was on the page I pointed to back in 2022.
It was. Rarely have I looked.
https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
It shows the developer has been very open about the old reports for a long
time. It is a non-issue.
As I've mentioned before, my original nym when posting on the ASC forums >>>>> was HunterBD.
Here's one of my first discussions about EtreCheck:-
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6781873?answerId=27530552022&sortBy=rank#27530552022
It is amazing how long you have had this issue with pushing concerns in such
an irrational way -- have you ever sought help on your issue here?
I'm pretty sure I have, but you have always been interested in your own
agenda, not with mine!
I am happy to look at other issues... but I am NOT interested in your
borderline harassment of developers. As I have noted, you cause harm and I do
not agree with that.
Only "bad guys" need fear me!
On May 26, 2026 at 6:56:10rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7ln3qFrmsvU1@mid.individual.net>:
...
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the >>>>> Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
So when? When do you think dragging an app to the Trash (Bin) removed all >>>>> traced?
When the App was downloaded from the Apple App Store.
That is not how it has ever worked. Not even if you go back to the Classic Mac
days. And this is by design. A benefit to users. If nothing else the
Preferences (plist) file stays so if you download it again it remembers your
preferences.
OK - My AI enquiries agree with you!
Can you let go of the idea that EtreCheck is doing something unusual to act like the norm on macOS?
EtreCheckPro saves all generated reports automatically under the >>>>>>>> Previous reports item in the File menu. This will open a Finder window >>>>>>>> showing all previous reports. These can be managed with the Delete >>>>>>>> previous report item in the File menu."
THAT paragraph is *NEW*!
The earliest WBM archive of that page. 22 October 2022.
You need to be more thorough in your research!
https://web.archive.org/web/20221022023945/https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
The text was a bit different but the idea has been there since at least then.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140705061537/http://www.etresoft.com/etrecheck
The point is the comment -- with slightly different wording -- has been on the
site for a long time. With an explanation of why and how to remove the old
data. Where it saved makes perfect sense. Would be good if this was noted in
the app. Maybe it is?
It *IS* mentioned now - but it didn't used to be!
It was on the page I pointed to back in 2022.
It was. Rarely have I looked.
Can you let go of the idea he was hiding something to have those files be saved in the Library?
https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
It shows the developer has been very open about the old reports for a long
time. It is a non-issue.
As I've mentioned before, my original nym when posting on the ASC forums >>>>>> was HunterBD.
Here's one of my first discussions about EtreCheck:-
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6781873?answerId=27530552022&sortBy=rank#27530552022
It is amazing how long you have had this issue with pushing concerns in such
an irrational way -- have you ever sought help on your issue here?
I'm pretty sure I have, but you have always been interested in your own >>>> agenda, not with mine!
I am happy to look at other issues... but I am NOT interested in your
borderline harassment of developers. As I have noted, you cause harm and I do
not agree with that.
Only "bad guys" need fear me!
Not true. You target developers and then harp, for years, in multiple forums about things you imagine are wrong or scary they are not. That is a harm to those developers. We have discussed this -- it is not as though you do as Carroll and Gremlin and other trolls and arresting SEEKING to cause harm, nor do you dox and target their family lives, but you do lean that way with your repeated insinuations with these developers.
On 26/05/2026 17:12, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 6:56:10rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7ln3qFrmsvU1@mid.individual.net>:
...
You: In the old days, the developer implied that dragging his App to the >>>>>> Trash/Bin removed all trace of it from one's computer.
Me: When? Never on macOS... even Classic Mac. So when? Apple IIe?
So when? When do you think dragging an app to the Trash (Bin) removed all
traced?
When the App was downloaded from the Apple App Store.
That is not how it has ever worked. Not even if you go back to the Classic Mac
days. And this is by design. A benefit to users. If nothing else the
Preferences (plist) file stays so if you download it again it remembers your
preferences.
OK - My AI enquiries agree with you!
Can you let go of the idea that EtreCheck is doing something unusual to act >> like the norm on macOS?
Yes.
Can you let go of the idea he was hiding something to have those files be
saved in the Library?
Yes.
https://www.etrecheck.com/en/details.html
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
It shows the developer has been very open about the old reports for a long
time. It is a non-issue.
As I've mentioned before, my original nym when posting on the ASC forums
was HunterBD.
Here's one of my first discussions about EtreCheck:-
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6781873?answerId=27530552022&sortBy=rank#27530552022
It is amazing how long you have had this issue with pushing concerns in such
an irrational way -- have you ever sought help on your issue here?
I'm pretty sure I have, but you have always been interested in your own >>>>> agenda, not with mine!
I am happy to look at other issues... but I am NOT interested in your
borderline harassment of developers. As I have noted, you cause harm and I do
not agree with that.
Only "bad guys" need fear me!
Not true. You target developers and then harp, for years, in multiple forums >> about things you imagine are wrong or scary they are not. That is a harm to >> those developers. We have discussed this -- it is not as though you do as
Carroll and Gremlin and other trolls and arresting SEEKING to cause harm, nor
do you dox and target their family lives, but you do lean that way with your >> repeated insinuations with these developers.
I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased EtreCheck.
You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>:[....]
You HAVE run it! Are there copies of past reports lingering in your
I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased EtreCheck.
You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do not care about
it. I am not concerned about it. There are many, many software packages I do not run -- not based on fear.
On 26/05/2026 20:55, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
<n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>:
I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased EtreCheck.
You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do not care about
it. I am not concerned about it. There are many, many software packages I do >> not run -- not based on fear.
You HAVE run it!
Are there copies of past reports lingering in your
Library?
Do you know WHERE to look?
HAVE you looked?
Please advise.
On May 26, 2026 at 3:01:33rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7mjhtF1ib4U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 20:55, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
<n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>:
I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased EtreCheck.
You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do not care about
it. I am not concerned about it. There are many, many software packages I do
not run -- not based on fear.
You HAVE run it!
As we have discussed multiple times.
Are there copies of past reports lingering in your
Library?
Do you know WHERE to look?
HAVE you looked?
Please advise.
I believe I deleted them since the last time we discussed this.
On 26/05/2026 23:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:01:33rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7mjhtF1ib4U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 20:55, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
<n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>:
I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased EtreCheck.
You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do not care about
it. I am not concerned about it. There are many, many software packages I do
not run -- not based on fear.
You HAVE run it!
As we have discussed multiple times.
Indeed.
Are there copies of past reports lingering in your
Library?
Do you know WHERE to look?
HAVE you looked?
Please advise.
I believe I deleted them since the last time we discussed this.
Were you not surprised to find them there?!!!
On May 26, 2026 at 3:27:06rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7ml1qF1qbmU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 23:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:01:33rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7mjhtF1ib4U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 20:55, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
<n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>:
I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased EtreCheck.
You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do not care about
it. I am not concerned about it. There are many, many software packages I do
not run -- not based on fear.
You HAVE run it!
As we have discussed multiple times.
Indeed.
Are there copies of past reports lingering in your
Library?
Do you know WHERE to look?
HAVE you looked?
Please advise.
I believe I deleted them since the last time we discussed this.
Were you not surprised to find them there?!!!
I did not know they were there but it was not really surprising or concerning in any way.
On 27/05/2026 00:22, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:27:06rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7ml1qF1qbmU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 23:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:01:33rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7mjhtF1ib4U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 20:55, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
<n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>:
I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased EtreCheck. >>>>>>>
You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do not care about
it. I am not concerned about it. There are many, many software packages I do
not run -- not based on fear.
You HAVE run it!
As we have discussed multiple times.
Indeed.
Are there copies of past reports lingering in your
Library?
Do you know WHERE to look?
HAVE you looked?
Please advise.
I believe I deleted them since the last time we discussed this.
Were you not surprised to find them there?!!!
I did not know they were there but it was not really surprising or concerning
in any way.
*I'm shocked*!
It is absolutely fascinating to watch you hand-wave away a complete lack
of basic macOS file-system awareness as "not surprising or concerning."
For someone who frequently pontificates on these groups about how things "should" work on the Mac platform, admitting that you blindly run
software without having the foggiest notion of what it leaves behind in
your ~/Library/Application Support/ or ~/Library/Caches/ directories is
quite the self-own.
If you "did not know they were there" until it was pointed out to you,
it proves you weren't looking, didn't know where to look, and lacked the curiosity to check.
For an ordinary end-user? Perfectly fine. For someone masquerading as a technical authority on a computer workshop group? ItrCOs a bit of an embarrassment, Brock.
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 27/05/2026 00:22, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:27:06rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7ml1qF1qbmU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 23:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:01:33rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7mjhtF1ib4U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 20:55, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
<n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>:
I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased EtreCheck. >>>>>>>>
You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do not care about
it. I am not concerned about it. There are many, many software packages I do
not run -- not based on fear.
You HAVE run it!
As we have discussed multiple times.
Indeed.
Are there copies of past reports lingering in your
Library?
Do you know WHERE to look?
HAVE you looked?
Please advise.
I believe I deleted them since the last time we discussed this.
Were you not surprised to find them there?!!!
I did not know they were there but it was not really surprising or concerning
in any way.
*I'm shocked*!
It is absolutely fascinating to watch you hand-wave away a complete lack
of basic macOS file-system awareness as "not surprising or concerning."
For someone who frequently pontificates on these groups about how things
"should" work on the Mac platform, admitting that you blindly run
software without having the foggiest notion of what it leaves behind in
your ~/Library/Application Support/ or ~/Library/Caches/ directories is
quite the self-own.
If you "did not know they were there" until it was pointed out to you,
it proves you weren't looking, didn't know where to look, and lacked the
curiosity to check.
For an ordinary end-user? Perfectly fine. For someone masquerading as a
technical authority on a computer workshop group? ItrCOs a bit of an
embarrassment, Brock.
Your AI had a stroke. Efnu
On 27/05/2026 07:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 27/05/2026 00:22, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:27:06rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7ml1qF1qbmU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 23:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:01:33rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7mjhtF1ib4U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 20:55, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
<n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>:
I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased EtreCheck. >>>>>>>>>
You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do not care about
it. I am not concerned about it. There are many, many software packages I do
not run -- not based on fear.
You HAVE run it!
As we have discussed multiple times.
Indeed.
Are there copies of past reports lingering in your
Library?
Do you know WHERE to look?
HAVE you looked?
Please advise.
I believe I deleted them since the last time we discussed this.
Were you not surprised to find them there?!!!
I did not know they were there but it was not really surprising or concerning
in any way.
*I'm shocked*!
It is absolutely fascinating to watch you hand-wave away a complete lack >>> of basic macOS file-system awareness as "not surprising or concerning."
For someone who frequently pontificates on these groups about how things >>> "should" work on the Mac platform, admitting that you blindly run
software without having the foggiest notion of what it leaves behind in
your ~/Library/Application Support/ or ~/Library/Caches/ directories is
quite the self-own.
If you "did not know they were there" until it was pointed out to you,
it proves you weren't looking, didn't know where to look, and lacked the >>> curiosity to check.
For an ordinary end-user? Perfectly fine. For someone masquerading as a
technical authority on a computer workshop group? ItrCOs a bit of an
embarrassment, Brock.
Your AI had a stroke. Efnu
Translation: "I have absolutely no technical defense for getting caught completely clueless about my own Mac's file system, so I'll try a weak deflection instead."
Notice how you completely failed to address the actual point, Brock?
You
admitted you didn't know those files were lingering in your Library.
You
admitted you didn't look.
And in your other concurrent post, you
explicitly argued that apps leaving background junk behind should have uninstallers.
The prose isn't having a strokerCoit's just exposing your massive logical hypocrisy, and it clearly hit a nerve.
To borrow a phrase from your own signature: You cannot use reason to
show the message to be wrong, so you try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
Care to try again and actually talk about the macOS file system this
time, or are you completely out of your depth?
On May 27, 2026 at 12:01:36rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7nj6gF63u8U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 27/05/2026 07:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 27/05/2026 00:22, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:27:06rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7ml1qF1qbmU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 23:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:01:33rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7mjhtF1ib4U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 20:55, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
<n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>:
I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased EtreCheck. >>>>>>>>>>
You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do not care about
it. I am not concerned about it. There are many, many software packages I do
not run -- not based on fear.
You HAVE run it!
As we have discussed multiple times.
Indeed.
Are there copies of past reports lingering in your
Library?
Do you know WHERE to look?
HAVE you looked?
Please advise.
I believe I deleted them since the last time we discussed this.
Were you not surprised to find them there?!!!
I did not know they were there but it was not really surprising or concerning
in any way.
*I'm shocked*!
It is absolutely fascinating to watch you hand-wave away a complete lack >>>> of basic macOS file-system awareness as "not surprising or concerning." >>>>
For someone who frequently pontificates on these groups about how things >>>> "should" work on the Mac platform, admitting that you blindly run
software without having the foggiest notion of what it leaves behind in >>>> your ~/Library/Application Support/ or ~/Library/Caches/ directories is >>>> quite the self-own.
If you "did not know they were there" until it was pointed out to you, >>>> it proves you weren't looking, didn't know where to look, and lacked the >>>> curiosity to check.
For an ordinary end-user? Perfectly fine. For someone masquerading as a >>>> technical authority on a computer workshop group? ItrCOs a bit of an
embarrassment, Brock.
Your AI had a stroke. Efnu
Translation: "I have absolutely no technical defense for getting caught
completely clueless about my own Mac's file system, so I'll try a weak
deflection instead."
Notice how you completely failed to address the actual point, Brock?
Because you have no point. None. You have paranoia and ignorance.
MacOS apps generally do not have installers. You delete them by dragging them to the Trash. Period. They leave behind things in the Library. BY DESIGN. This
is not a concern. Users have no need or obligation to dig through those files.
They are not meant for general user viewing. This is true of EtreCheck and most apps on macOS.
You think you have some big "gotcha" on EtreCheck because it is doing what is NORMAL on macOS. What is expected. What is fine.
You
admitted you didn't know those files were lingering in your Library.
Right. No need to. Same with what files Usenapp leaves, or Pages, or any other
app. I know the standards -- or some of them -- like Preferences (.plist) and the like, but there is no need or requirement to look at those files in most cases. None.
You are making a complete and utter fool of yourself, David. I am embarrassed for you.
You
admitted you didn't look.
Your acting like this is some "gotcha" shows how useless your years of "investigation" are. You are completely clueless of how things are supposed to
work, yet you pretend you have some special skill to find when they are not.
No.
You are making an ass of yourself with your nonstop focus and attacks on EtreCheck and its developer.
And in your other concurrent post, you
explicitly argued that apps leaving background junk behind should have
uninstallers.
No. I did not. Not even close. Again: you say things without having a clue of what is being said. You do not understand how a .plist file is different from a daemon. I am not saying on some deep technical level, but even on a basic common user level you have not a single clue.
The prose isn't having a strokerCoit's just exposing your massive logical
hypocrisy, and it clearly hit a nerve.
The fact you are attacking me based on your ignorance and paranoia is offensive.
To borrow a phrase from your own signature: You cannot use reason to
show the message to be wrong, so you try to feel somehow superior by
attacking the messenger.
You are the one attacking based on your own ignorance and paranoia.
Care to try again and actually talk about the macOS file system this
time, or are you completely out of your depth?
I have. Repeatedly. In most cases to install an app on macOS just download, open the .dmg (or other package), and drag to Applications (in most cases you do not even need to do that, but it is advised -- especially if it is in a disk image). To uninstall an app, make sure it is not running and drag it to the Trash (Bin).
BY DESIGN files will be left behind in the ~/Library. BY DESIGN. And in most cases there is NO need for any user to look at those files (though for troubleshooting it is sometimes needed). Common places to find those files:
~/Library/Application Support
~/Library/Preferences
~/Library/Caches
~/Library/Logs
There is no gotcha here. There is no big secret. There is nothing hard to understand, There is nothing uncommon you have shown EtreCheck to be doing -- other than perhaps the logs being saved but as I showed he has been open with that for many years. He uses a Zip, I think, and not a DMG. I am not sure why,
but my guess would be so you can run it from your Downloads folder more easily.
This has been covered. I have told you. Others have told you. But when you find out that THINGS ARE WORKING AS THEY SHOULD you fabricate delusions babbling nonsense about some error someone else made. Nope. YOU are the one making the errors here. You are making a complete and total ass of yourself. You are showing yourself to be ignorant and paranoid.
With all that said, I like you. I care about you. :-D
This seems to be getting
worse for you. Please talk to your doctor or someone else who can help you directly. You are not well, my friend.
<font color="#000000">...</font>
No. I did not. Not even close. Again: you say things without having a clue of
what is being said. You do not understand how a .plist file is different from
a daemon. I am not saying on some deep technical level, but even on a basic >> common user level you have not a single clue.
Fascinating backpedaling, Brock.
Let's look at your exact words from
your concurrent post in the other thread today:
"Where it would matter to have an uninstaller is if files are saved in nonstandard places... Some apps install background processes or helpers
and those are not removed by deleting the app -- so it matters even more there."
EtreCheck installs launch daemons/agents (com.etresoft.*) to monitor
storage and run background tasks.
Therefore, by your own explicit--
definition, it is an app where "it matters even more" to have an
uninstaller because dragging it to the Trash leaves background processes running.
Yet here you are, furiously typing out a wall of text claiming that
dragging it to the Trash is "BY DESIGN" and "fine," while pretending you never said what you just said.
As for your amateur psychology and patronizing "concern" about my healthrCothat is the oldest, most transparent white flag on Usenet. When
you lose the technical argument, you pivot to playing the fake-worried doctor.
Stick to the file system, Brock. Your memory for your own posts is
failing you, your logic is in tatters, and your own quotes are right
there in the message headers for everyone to see.
The prose isn't having a strokerCoit's just exposing your massive logical >>> hypocrisy, and it clearly hit a nerve.
The fact you are attacking me based on your ignorance and paranoia is
offensive.
I'm sorry.
To borrow a phrase from your own signature: You cannot use reason to
show the message to be wrong, so you try to feel somehow superior by
attacking the messenger.
You are the one attacking based on your own ignorance and paranoia.
I'm not "attacking" at all.
Care to try again and actually talk about the macOS file system this
time, or are you completely out of your depth?
I have. Repeatedly. In most cases to install an app on macOS just download, >> open the .dmg (or other package), and drag to Applications (in most cases you
do not even need to do that, but it is advised -- especially if it is in a >> disk image). To uninstall an app, make sure it is not running and drag it to >> the Trash (Bin).
BY DESIGN files will be left behind in the ~/Library. BY DESIGN. And in most >> cases there is NO need for any user to look at those files (though for
troubleshooting it is sometimes needed). Common places to find those files: >>
~/Library/Application Support
~/Library/Preferences
~/Library/Caches
~/Library/Logs
There is no gotcha here. There is no big secret. There is nothing hard to
understand, There is nothing uncommon you have shown EtreCheck to be doing --
other than perhaps the logs being saved but as I showed he has been open with
that for many years. He uses a Zip, I think, and not a DMG. I am not sure why,
but my guess would be so you can run it from your Downloads folder more
easily.
Where did YOU run it from? I found the Zip file in my Trash/Bin!
This has been covered. I have told you. Others have told you. But when you >> find out that THINGS ARE WORKING AS THEY SHOULD you fabricate delusions
babbling nonsense about some error someone else made. Nope. YOU are the one >> making the errors here. You are making a complete and total ass of yourself. >> You are showing yourself to be ignorant and paranoid.
With all that said, I like you. I care about you. :-D
This seems to be getting
worse for you. Please talk to your doctor or someone else who can help you >> directly. You are not well, my friend.
I've never been better, thanks.
On May 26, 2026 at 6:56:10rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7ln3qFrmsvU1@mid.individual.net>:
Only "bad guys" need fear me!
Not true. You target developers and then harp, for years, in multiple
forums about things you imagine are wrong or scary they are not. That is
a harm to those developers. We have discussed this -- it is not as
though you do as Carroll and Gremlin and other trolls and arresting
SEEKING to cause harm, nor do you dox and target their family lives, but
you do lean that way with your repeated insinuations with these
developers.
On 27/05/2026 07:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 27/05/2026 00:22, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:27:06rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7ml1qF1qbmU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 23:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:01:33rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7mjhtF1ib4U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 20:55, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
<n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>:
I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased
EtreCheck.
You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do >>>>>>>> not care about it. I am not concerned about it. There are many, >>>>>>>> many software packages I do not run -- not based on fear.
You HAVE run it!
As we have discussed multiple times.
Indeed.
Are there copies of past reports lingering in your
Library?
Do you know WHERE to look?
HAVE you looked?
Please advise.
I believe I deleted them since the last time we discussed this.
Were you not surprised to find them there?!!!
I did not know they were there but it was not really surprising or
concerning in any way.
*I'm shocked*!
It is absolutely fascinating to watch you hand-wave away a complete
lack of basic macOS file-system awareness as "not surprising or
concerning."
For someone who frequently pontificates on these groups about how
things "should" work on the Mac platform, admitting that you blindly
run software without having the foggiest notion of what it leaves
behind in your ~/Library/Application Support/ or ~/Library/Caches/
directories is quite the self-own.
If you "did not know they were there" until it was pointed out to you,
it proves you weren't looking, didn't know where to look, and lacked
the curiosity to check.
For an ordinary end-user? Perfectly fine. For someone masquerading as
a technical authority on a computer workshop group? ItrCOs a bit of an
embarrassment, Brock.
Your AI had a stroke. Efnu
Translation: "I have absolutely no technical defense for getting caught completely clueless about my own Mac's file system, so I'll try a weak deflection instead."
Notice how you completely failed to address the actual point, Brock? You admitted you didn't know those files were lingering in your Library. You admitted you didn't look. And in your other concurrent post, you
explicitly argued that apps leaving background junk behind should have uninstallers.
The prose isn't having a strokerCoit's just exposing your massive
logical hypocrisy, and it clearly hit a nerve.
To borrow a phrase from your own signature: You cannot use reason to
show the message to be wrong, so you try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
Care to try again and actually talk about the macOS file system this
time, or are you completely out of your depth?
"David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> news:n7nj6gF63u8U1@mid.individual.net Wed, 27 May 2026 07:01:36 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 27/05/2026 07:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
On 27/05/2026 00:22, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:27:06rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7ml1qF1qbmU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 23:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 3:01:33rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7mjhtF1ib4U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 26/05/2026 20:55, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
<n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>:
I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased
EtreCheck.
You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do >>>>>>>>> not care about it. I am not concerned about it. There are many, >>>>>>>>> many software packages I do not run -- not based on fear.
You HAVE run it!
As we have discussed multiple times.
Indeed.
Are there copies of past reports lingering in your
Library?
Do you know WHERE to look?
HAVE you looked?
Please advise.
I believe I deleted them since the last time we discussed this.
Were you not surprised to find them there?!!!
I did not know they were there but it was not really surprising or
concerning in any way.
*I'm shocked*!
It is absolutely fascinating to watch you hand-wave away a complete
lack of basic macOS file-system awareness as "not surprising or
concerning."
For someone who frequently pontificates on these groups about how
things "should" work on the Mac platform, admitting that you blindly
run software without having the foggiest notion of what it leaves
behind in your ~/Library/Application Support/ or ~/Library/Caches/
directories is quite the self-own.
If you "did not know they were there" until it was pointed out to you, >>>> it proves you weren't looking, didn't know where to look, and lacked
the curiosity to check.
For an ordinary end-user? Perfectly fine. For someone masquerading as
a technical authority on a computer workshop group? ItrCOs a bit of an >>>> embarrassment, Brock.
Your AI had a stroke. Efnu
Translation: "I have absolutely no technical defense for getting caught
completely clueless about my own Mac's file system, so I'll try a weak
deflection instead."
Notice how you completely failed to address the actual point, Brock? You
admitted you didn't know those files were lingering in your Library. You
admitted you didn't look. And in your other concurrent post, you
explicitly argued that apps leaving background junk behind should have
uninstallers.
The prose isn't having a strokerCoit's just exposing your massive
logical hypocrisy, and it clearly hit a nerve.
To borrow a phrase from your own signature: You cannot use reason to
show the message to be wrong, so you try to feel somehow superior by
attacking the messenger.
Care to try again and actually talk about the macOS file system this
time, or are you completely out of your depth?
I must admit how comical this is. You are in no position to question anyone else concerning Mac or anything else. Snit actually does know more about the machine sitting in front of him than you ever will. What's especially funny about that is the fact he doesn't actually know very much. It's interesting how you gave snit a free pass every single other time he's stepped on his clit, but now you feel it necessary to try and ride him because you didn't like his responses. What's coming next, David? Are you going to create a gsv for him as well? He's an idiot for ever trusting you. He was warned. Now
he's starting to experience what you're really like. h0h0h0.
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> news:6a15c674$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Tue, 26 May 2026 16:12:36
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 6:56:10rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7ln3qFrmsvU1@mid.individual.net>:
Only "bad guys" need fear me!
Not true. You target developers and then harp, for years, in multiple
forums about things you imagine are wrong or scary they are not. That is
a harm to those developers. We have discussed this -- it is not as
though you do as Carroll and Gremlin and other trolls and arresting
SEEKING to cause harm, nor do you dox and target their family lives, but
you do lean that way with your repeated insinuations with these
developers.
You're wrong, Snit. David has tried to dox me, multiple times. His first attempt was for my not answering his emails in a timely according to him manner. As if the world revolves around David and I should stop whatever I was
doing and spend all my energy answering his off the wall queries. The same garbage he's been going back and forth with you about, essentially. You can falsely call me a troll all you like - it doesn't change reality. It doesn't show you in a good light and it never will. You David and peecent are well known trolls. I am not. Label as you like though, the functionally illiterate fraud one worked so well for you. :)
For the record, *nobody* fears him. Why should anyone? He's incompetent on his
best days as you've learned for yourself. A real scatter brain.
Brock said ....
You have shown no evidence of this. I was quite certain it did not. To
check I downloaded it and ran it. Then I uninstalled it by dragging it
to AppCleaner.
https://shottr.cc/s/PDfQ/SCR-20260527-b1c
None of those are as you describe. Not a launch daemons/agents to be found.
=
<SIGH>
You don't see it in AppCleaner, Brock....
....... *because you didn't actually trigger it*!
EtreCheck is designed to run in user space by default. However, the
moment a user utilizes its advanced features rCo such as checking full storage performance or granting "Full Disk Access" to scan restricted
system areas rCo the application explicitly prompts for an administrator password.
It is at that exact moment of admin authorization that macOS copies and registers the privileged helper tool binary into the root directory: /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper
If you merely downloaded the app, opened it, and immediately dragged it
into AppCleaner without executing any of those elevated administrative diagnostics, the privileged helper was never deployed onto your system.
Your screenshot simply proves that an un-triggered feature doesn't
install its components. For users who actually use the full diagnostic
depth of the tool, that background helper is registered rCo and dragging
the .app bundle to the Bin does not remove it.
The technical facts remain unchanged.
----
Kind regards,
David
On May 27, 2026 at 11:16:39rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7oqo7Fc4i6U1@mid.individual.net>:
Brock said ....
You have shown no evidence of this. I was quite certain it did not. To
check I downloaded it and ran it. Then I uninstalled it by dragging it
to AppCleaner.
https://shottr.cc/s/PDfQ/SCR-20260527-b1c
None of those are as you describe. Not a launch daemons/agents to be found. >>
=
<SIGH>
You don't see it in AppCleaner, Brock....
....... *because you didn't actually trigger it*!
EtreCheck is designed to run in user space by default. However, the
moment a user utilizes its advanced features rCo such as checking full
storage performance or granting "Full Disk Access" to scan restricted
system areas rCo the application explicitly prompts for an administrator
password.
And?
It is at that exact moment of admin authorization that macOS copies and
registers the privileged helper tool binary into the root directory:
/Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper
Show evidence of this. And when is it triggered? Does it run if EtreCheck does
not?
If you merely downloaded the app, opened it, and immediately dragged it
into AppCleaner without executing any of those elevated administrative
diagnostics, the privileged helper was never deployed onto your system.
That is not what I did.
Your screenshot simply proves that an un-triggered feature doesn't
install its components. For users who actually use the full diagnostic
depth of the tool, that background helper is registered rCo and dragging
the .app bundle to the Bin does not remove it.
The technical facts remain unchanged.
The claim remains unsupported.
On 27/05/2026 20:57, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 27, 2026 at 11:16:39rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7oqo7Fc4i6U1@mid.individual.net>:
Brock said ....
You have shown no evidence of this. I was quite certain it did not. To
check I downloaded it and ran it. Then I uninstalled it by dragging it
to AppCleaner.
https://shottr.cc/s/PDfQ/SCR-20260527-b1c
None of those are as you describe. Not a launch daemons/agents to be found. >>>
=
<SIGH>
You don't see it in AppCleaner, Brock....
....... *because you didn't actually trigger it*!
EtreCheck is designed to run in user space by default. However, the
moment a user utilizes its advanced features rCo such as checking full
storage performance or granting "Full Disk Access" to scan restricted
system areas rCo the application explicitly prompts for an administrator >>> password.
And?
It is at that exact moment of admin authorization that macOS copies and
registers the privileged helper tool binary into the root directory:
/Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper
Show evidence of this. And when is it triggered? Does it run if EtreCheck does
not?
If you merely downloaded the app, opened it, and immediately dragged it
into AppCleaner without executing any of those elevated administrative
diagnostics, the privileged helper was never deployed onto your system.
That is not what I did.
Your screenshot simply proves that an un-triggered feature doesn't
install its components. For users who actually use the full diagnostic
depth of the tool, that background helper is registered rCo and dragging >>> the .app bundle to the Bin does not remove it.
The technical facts remain unchanged.
The claim remains unsupported.
*WRONG*!!!!!
It is entirely supported, Brock. If you want the hard evidence, look
directly at the application bundle's internal structure.
If you right-click the EtreCheck application bundle, select Show Package Contents, and navigate to /Contents/Library/LaunchServices/, you will
find the embedded helper binary waiting to be deployed: com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper
If you open the applicationrCOs main Info.plist file, you will find the explicit registration key that macOS requires for privilege escalation: SMPrivilegedExecutables pointing directly to
com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper.
As for your questions regarding its operation:
When is it triggered? It is triggered the moment a user attempts a task requiring low-level system access, such as reading restricted system
logs or using the advanced storage benchmark to measure drive
performance. macOS throws the standard security dialogue box asking for
an administrator password to install the helper.
Does it run if EtreCheck does not? No. It is a launch-on-demand
privileged helper daemon managed by launchd. It does not constantly burn
CPU cycles in the background when the main app is closed.
But that completely misses the architectural point we are discussing.
The issue isn't whether it actively hogs your RAM; the issue is persistence.
Once that admin prompt is cleared, macOS copies that binary to the root -level /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/ directory.
When a user--
subsequently drags the EtreCheck .app bundle to the Bin, macOS leaves
that root-level binary behind. It is a permanent orphan on the file
system until manually scrubbed.
The directory paths are real, the code structure inside the app bundle
is real, and the mechanism is standard macOS security architecture. The
only thing unsupported here is your denial of how the software is built.
On May 27, 2026 at 3:26:37rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7p9ctFecb6U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 27/05/2026 20:57, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 27, 2026 at 11:16:39rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7oqo7Fc4i6U1@mid.individual.net>:
Brock said ....
You have shown no evidence of this. I was quite certain it did not. To >>>> check I downloaded it and ran it. Then I uninstalled it by dragging it >>>> to AppCleaner.
https://shottr.cc/s/PDfQ/SCR-20260527-b1c
None of those are as you describe. Not a launch daemons/agents to be found.
=
<SIGH>
You don't see it in AppCleaner, Brock....
....... *because you didn't actually trigger it*!
EtreCheck is designed to run in user space by default. However, the
moment a user utilizes its advanced features rCo such as checking full >>>> storage performance or granting "Full Disk Access" to scan restricted
system areas rCo the application explicitly prompts for an administrator >>>> password.
And?
It is at that exact moment of admin authorization that macOS copies and >>>> registers the privileged helper tool binary into the root directory:
/Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper
Show evidence of this. And when is it triggered? Does it run if EtreCheck does
not?
If you merely downloaded the app, opened it, and immediately dragged it >>>> into AppCleaner without executing any of those elevated administrative >>>> diagnostics, the privileged helper was never deployed onto your system. >>>That is not what I did.
Your screenshot simply proves that an un-triggered feature doesn't
install its components. For users who actually use the full diagnostic >>>> depth of the tool, that background helper is registered rCo and dragging >>>> the .app bundle to the Bin does not remove it.
The technical facts remain unchanged.
The claim remains unsupported.
*WRONG*!!!!!
It is entirely supported, Brock. If you want the hard evidence, look
directly at the application bundle's internal structure.
If you right-click the EtreCheck application bundle, select Show Package
Contents, and navigate to /Contents/Library/LaunchServices/, you will
find the embedded helper binary waiting to be deployed:
com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper
If you open the applicationrCOs main Info.plist file, you will find the
explicit registration key that macOS requires for privilege escalation:
SMPrivilegedExecutables pointing directly to
com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper.
As for your questions regarding its operation:
When is it triggered? It is triggered the moment a user attempts a task
requiring low-level system access, such as reading restricted system
logs or using the advanced storage benchmark to measure drive
performance. macOS throws the standard security dialogue box asking for
an administrator password to install the helper.
Does it run if EtreCheck does not? No. It is a launch-on-demand
privileged helper daemon managed by launchd. It does not constantly burn
CPU cycles in the background when the main app is closed.
But that completely misses the architectural point we are discussing.
The issue isn't whether it actively hogs your RAM; the issue is persistence. >>
Once that admin prompt is cleared, macOS copies that binary to the root
-level /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/ directory.
Please back this claim. And then READ what I have written to you and try to understand it.
On 28/05/2026 09:13, David Kennedy wrote:
On 27/05/2026 16:37, Brock McNuggets wrote:
lots of stuff...
I don't suppose that there's any chance you could stop responding to
the moron?
What on earth makes you think that Brock is a moron?
He has two university degrees!
On 28/05/2026 00:21, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 27, 2026 at 3:26:37rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7p9ctFecb6U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 27/05/2026 20:57, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 27, 2026 at 11:16:39rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7oqo7Fc4i6U1@mid.individual.net>:
Brock said ....
You have shown no evidence of this. I was quite certain it did not. To >>>>> check I downloaded it and ran it. Then I uninstalled it by dragging it >>>>> to AppCleaner.
https://shottr.cc/s/PDfQ/SCR-20260527-b1c
None of those are as you describe. Not a launch daemons/agents to be found.
=
<SIGH>
You don't see it in AppCleaner, Brock....
....... *because you didn't actually trigger it*!
EtreCheck is designed to run in user space by default. However, the
moment a user utilizes its advanced features rCo such as checking full >>>>> storage performance or granting "Full Disk Access" to scan restricted >>>>> system areas rCo the application explicitly prompts for an administrator >>>>> password.
And?
It is at that exact moment of admin authorization that macOS copies and >>>>> registers the privileged helper tool binary into the root directory: >>>>> /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper
Show evidence of this. And when is it triggered? Does it run if EtreCheck does
not?
If you merely downloaded the app, opened it, and immediately dragged it >>>>> into AppCleaner without executing any of those elevated administrative >>>>> diagnostics, the privileged helper was never deployed onto your system. >>>>That is not what I did.
Your screenshot simply proves that an un-triggered feature doesn't
install its components. For users who actually use the full diagnostic >>>>> depth of the tool, that background helper is registered rCo and dragging >>>>> the .app bundle to the Bin does not remove it.
The technical facts remain unchanged.
The claim remains unsupported.
*WRONG*!!!!!
It is entirely supported, Brock. If you want the hard evidence, look
directly at the application bundle's internal structure.
If you right-click the EtreCheck application bundle, select Show Package >>> Contents, and navigate to /Contents/Library/LaunchServices/, you will
find the embedded helper binary waiting to be deployed:
com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper
If you open the applicationrCOs main Info.plist file, you will find the
explicit registration key that macOS requires for privilege escalation:
SMPrivilegedExecutables pointing directly to
com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper.
As for your questions regarding its operation:
When is it triggered? It is triggered the moment a user attempts a task
requiring low-level system access, such as reading restricted system
logs or using the advanced storage benchmark to measure drive
performance. macOS throws the standard security dialogue box asking for
an administrator password to install the helper.
Does it run if EtreCheck does not? No. It is a launch-on-demand
privileged helper daemon managed by launchd. It does not constantly burn >>> CPU cycles in the background when the main app is closed.
But that completely misses the architectural point we are discussing.
The issue isn't whether it actively hogs your RAM; the issue is persistence.
Once that admin prompt is cleared, macOS copies that binary to the root
-level /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/ directory.
Please back this claim. And then READ what I have written to you and try to >> understand it.
I back the claim by citing Apple's own official developer specifications
for the macOS security framework.
The mechanism we are discussing is called SMJobBless
(part of the
Service Management framework). Under ApplerCOs secure architecture, when
an application bundle uses this API to install a privileged helper tool:
The operating system validates the tool's code signature against the
parent app's signature.
The launchd system daemon explicitly copies the helper tool binary into
the root-level system directory: /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/
A corresponding configuration property list is created inside: /Library/LaunchDaemons/
This is entirely handled by the system, not the application itself.
Because these files are written to the root-level system directories
under administrative ownership, they are entirely decoupled from the
user's local application folder.
When a user drags an .app bundle from /Applications to the Bin, macOS executes a simple file-system deletion of that specific directory
bundle. It does not trace root-level system directories to clean up associated daemons or privileged helpers. Apple explicitly prevents
standard application bundle deletion from modifying root-level system directories for security reasons.
If you want independent confirmation of this platform-wide behaviour,--
you can look at any standard macOS administration guide regarding the
Service Management framework, or look at how other premium utilities
handle uninstallation. The permanence of these files is exactly why developers who use SMJobBless must explicitly code a custom "Uninstall" routine to invoke an authenticated helper script to clean up /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/.
The claim is backed by the core architectural rules of the operating
system you are using.
--
I hope this helps
David
Brock McNuggets<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> news:6a15c674$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Tue, 26 May 2026 16:12:36
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On May 26, 2026 at 6:56:10rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7ln3qFrmsvU1@mid.individual.net>:
Only "bad guys" need fear me!
Not true. You target developers and then harp, for years, in multiple forums about things you imagine are wrong or scary they are not. That is
a harm to those developers. We have discussed this -- it is not as
though you do as Carroll and Gremlin and other trolls and arresting
SEEKING to cause harm, nor do you dox and target their family lives, but you do lean that way with your repeated insinuations with these
developers.
You're wrong, Snit. David has tried to dox me, multiple times.
His first
attempt was for my not answering his emails in a timely according to him manner. As if the world revolves around David and I should stop whatever I was
doing and spend all my energy answering his off the wall queries. The same garbage he's been going back and forth with you about, essentially. You can falsely call me a troll all you like - it doesn't change reality. It doesn't show you in a good light and it never will. You David and peecent are well known trolls. I am not. Label as you like though, the functionally illiterate fraud one worked so well for you. :)
For the record, *nobody* fears him. Why should anyone? He's incompetent on his
best days as you've learned for yourself. A real scatter brain.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 45:27:09 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,372 |
