| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 49:48:23 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,303 |
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I *DO* trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck, the free app which is
commonly used in Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
problems, but have you paid for its Pro features? If you want to get
the best performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money well-spent.
While your OP to this topic was 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that
your own insight is *blind*.-a Worse than blind, badly distorted beyond
recognition.
I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
I suspect HO never even thought to question the honesty of "John Daniel" someone who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with nothing to
quantify who and what he is!
On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I *DO* trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck, the free app which is
commonly used in Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
problems, but have you paid for its Pro features? If you want to get
the best performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money well-spent.
While your OP to this topic was 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that
your own insight is *blind*. Worse than blind, badly distorted beyond
recognition.
I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
I suspect HO never even thought to question the honesty of "John Daniel"
someone who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with nothing to
quantify who and what he is!
He even removed his LinkedIn page when I questioned him!
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-BC-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg
No honest fellow would do that!
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I *DO* trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck, the free app which is
commonly used in Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
problems, but have you paid for its Pro features? If you want to get >>>>> the best performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money well-spent.
While your OP to this topic was 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that
your own insight is *blind*. Worse than blind, badly distorted beyond >>>> recognition.
I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
I suspect HO never even thought to question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>> someone who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with nothing to
quantify who and what he is!
He even removed his LinkedIn page when I questioned him!
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-BC-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg
No honest fellow would do that!
What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical question... why could a person who
is generally honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, especially if they are being followed around by someone asking questions over and over?
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I *DO* trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck, the free app which is
commonly used in Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
problems, but have you paid for its Pro features? If you want to get >>>>>> the best performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money well-spent.
While your OP to this topic was 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>> your own insight is *blind*. Worse than blind, badly distorted beyond >>>>> recognition.
I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
I suspect HO never even thought to question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>> someone who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with nothing to
quantify who and what he is!
He even removed his LinkedIn page when I questioned him!
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-BC-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg
No honest fellow would do that!
What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical question... why could a person who
is generally honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, especially if >> they are being followed around by someone asking questions over and over?
appreciate your question rCo it's fair to ask why I see that as a red flag.
Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page isn't, by itself, proof
of dishonesty. But context matters. When someone runs a paid software product, makes strong claims about its capabilities, refuses to answer reasonable support emails (even when support is part of the paid
package), and then vanishes from multiple platforms when asked
legitimate questions rCo thatrCOs where the suspicion starts.
Removing a LinkedIn profile after being asked for clarity on credentials
or background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but it can appear
evasive rCo especially if the individual is selling something to the
public and benefiting from trust built within communities like MacRumors
or Apple Support forums.
I'm not trying to hound anyone rCo but transparency and accountability matter, especially in tech where users often rely on software to
diagnose or alter critical systems. ItrCOs not unreasonable to ask: Who is behind this tool IrCOm being told to trust?
So yes rCo context, not just the act, is what shapes my view.
What's hilarious is you asking the most dishonest person on Usenet
for advice regarding honesty.
Now that's quite funny.
Oh, BTW, lose the ChatGpt replies.
On 24/07/2025 22:25, pothead wrote:
What's hilarious is you asking the most dishonest person on Usenet
for advice regarding honesty.
Now that's quite funny.
You are mistaken, ma'am.
Oh, BTW, lose the ChatGpt replies.
<sigh> I rather gave the game away, didn't I?!! Sorry about that.
I agree with what I posted though.
What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical question... why could a person who
is generally honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, especially if >> they are being followed around by someone asking questions over and over?
appreciate your question rCo it's fair to ask why I see that as a red flag.
Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page isn't, by itself, proof
of dishonesty. But context matters. When someone runs a paid software product, makes strong claims about its capabilities, refuses to answer reasonable support emails (even when support is part of the paid
package), and then vanishes from multiple platforms when asked
legitimate questions rCo thatrCOs where the suspicion starts.
On 2025-07-24, David B. <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/07/2025 22:25, pothead wrote:
What's hilarious is you asking the most dishonest person on Usenet
for advice regarding honesty.
Now that's quite funny.
You are mistaken, ma'am.
I am not.
And you know it but you won't admit it.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
--Oh, BTW, lose the ChatGpt replies.
<sigh> I rather gave the game away, didn't I?!! Sorry about that.
I agree with what I posted though.
NP.
On 2025-07-24, David B. <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I *DO* trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck, the free app which is >>>>>>> commonly used in Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose >>>>>>> problems, but have you paid for its Pro features? If you want to get >>>>>>> the best performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money well-spent.
While your OP to this topic was 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>> your own insight is *blind*. Worse than blind, badly distorted beyond >>>>>> recognition.
I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
I suspect HO never even thought to question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>> someone who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with nothing to
quantify who and what he is!
He even removed his LinkedIn page when I questioned him!
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-BC-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg
No honest fellow would do that!
What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical question... why could a person who
is generally honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, especially if
they are being followed around by someone asking questions over and over? >>
appreciate your question rCo it's fair to ask why I see that as a red flag.
Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page isn't, by itself, proof
of dishonesty. But context matters. When someone runs a paid software
product, makes strong claims about its capabilities, refuses to answer
reasonable support emails (even when support is part of the paid
package), and then vanishes from multiple platforms when asked
legitimate questions rCo thatrCOs where the suspicion starts.
Removing a LinkedIn profile after being asked for clarity on credentials
or background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but it can appear
evasive rCo especially if the individual is selling something to the
public and benefiting from trust built within communities like MacRumors
or Apple Support forums.
I'm not trying to hound anyone rCo but transparency and accountability
matter, especially in tech where users often rely on software to
diagnose or alter critical systems. ItrCOs not unreasonable to ask: Who is >> behind this tool IrCOm being told to trust?
So yes rCo context, not just the act, is what shapes my view.
What's hilarious is you asking the most dishonest person on Usenet
for advice regarding honesty.
Now that's quite funny.
Oh, BTW, lose the ChatGpt replies.
On Jul 24, 2025 at 1:30:26rC>PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical question... why could a person who
is generally honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, especially if
they are being followed around by someone asking questions over and over? >>
appreciate your question rCo it's fair to ask why I see that as a red flag.
Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page isn't, by itself, proof
of dishonesty. But context matters. When someone runs a paid software
product, makes strong claims about its capabilities, refuses to answer
reasonable support emails (even when support is part of the paid
package), and then vanishes from multiple platforms when asked
legitimate questions rCo thatrCOs where the suspicion starts.
"Reasonable support emails"? Does that include "Where do you work?" and "how much money have you made from EtreCheck?" and "What is your business address?"
and accusing him CONSTANTLY of including "malware" in the download? All based
only on your own paranoia.
You have done nothing BUT hound this poor guy for YEARS. And yet you are STILL surprised when you get banned from every moderated support forum in the galaxy.
Countless smart people - meaning anyone with an IQ higher than a 5th grade kid
- have looked at it and told you over and over that it is safe.
Stupid people should listen to smart people. Not the voices in their heads.
On Jul 24, 2025 at 3:46:52rC>PM MST, "pothead" wrote <105ud4s$1kler$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-07-24, David B. <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/07/2025 22:25, pothead wrote:
What's hilarious is you asking the most dishonest person on Usenet
for advice regarding honesty.
Now that's quite funny.
You are mistaken, ma'am.
I am not.
And you know it but you won't admit it.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
A white supremacist making accusations but cannot show MIDs or quotes to back them. SHOCKING!
Oh, BTW, lose the ChatGpt replies.
<sigh> I rather gave the game away, didn't I?!! Sorry about that.
I agree with what I posted though.
NP.
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I *DO* trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck, the free app which is
commonly used in Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
problems, but have you paid for its Pro features? If you want to get >>>>>> the best performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money well-spent.
While your OP to this topic was 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>> your own insight is *blind*. Worse than blind, badly distorted beyond >>>>> recognition.
I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
I suspect HO never even thought to question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>> someone who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with nothing to
quantify who and what he is!
He even removed his LinkedIn page when I questioned him!
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-BC-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg
No honest fellow would do that!
What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical question... why could a person who
is generally honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, especially if >> they are being followed around by someone asking questions over and over?
appreciate your question rCo it's fair to ask why I see that as a red flag.
Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page isn't, by itself, proof
of dishonesty. But context matters. When someone runs a paid software product, makes strong claims about its capabilities, refuses to answer reasonable support emails (even when support is part of the paid
package), and then vanishes from multiple platforms when asked
legitimate questions rCo thatrCOs where the suspicion starts.
Removing a LinkedIn profile after being asked for clarity on credentials
or background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but it can appear
evasive rCo especially if the individual is selling something to the
public and benefiting from trust built within communities like MacRumors
or Apple Support forums.
I'm not trying to hound anyone rCo but transparency and accountability matter, especially in tech where users often rely on software to
diagnose or alter critical systems. ItrCOs not unreasonable to ask: Who is behind this tool IrCOm being told to trust?
So yes rCo context, not just the act, is what shapes my view.--
On 24/07/2025 23:47, Tyrone wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 1:30:26rC>PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>
What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical question... why could a person who
is generally honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, especially if
they are being followed around by someone asking questions over and over? >>>
appreciate your question rCo it's fair to ask why I see that as a red flag.
Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But context matters. When someone runs a paid software
product, makes strong claims about its capabilities, refuses to answer
reasonable support emails (even when support is part of the paid
package), and then vanishes from multiple platforms when asked
legitimate questions rCo thatrCOs where the suspicion starts.
"Reasonable support emails"? Does that include "Where do you work?" and "how
much money have you made from EtreCheck?" and "What is your business address?"
and accusing him CONSTANTLY of including "malware" in the download? All based
only on your own paranoia.
You have done nothing BUT hound this poor guy for YEARS. And yet you are
STILL surprised when you get banned from every moderated support forum in the
galaxy.
Countless smart people - meaning anyone with an IQ higher than a 5th grade kid
- have looked at it and told you over and over that it is safe.
Stupid people should listen to smart people. Not the voices in their heads.
Tyrone,
Thank you for your reply rCo but I must respectfully push back on your framing of the situation.
YourCOve reduced years of legitimate inquiry into a caricature of
harassment. ThatrCOs neither accurate nor fair. At no point have I rCLconstantly accusedrCY the developer of including malware. What I have
done rCo and continue to do rCo is ask straightforward, good-faith questions about transparency, particularly concerning a paid software product that claims to diagnose system problems on Macs.
When someone accepts payment and promises support, then goes silent when questions arise (not just from me, I might add), itrCOs entirely
reasonable to raise concerns. Especially when:
Emails to the official support address are ignored,
The developer avoids public forums when questions are asked,
And online traces of their presence rCo like a LinkedIn page rCo
quietly vanish.
As for the nature of my questions: asking where a developer is based,
what business name they operate under, or how much theyrCOve earned from a product thatrCOs on sale to the public is not unreasonable. Especially in
an era where online scams are sadly common.
YourCOre welcome to dismiss these concerns as rCLparanoia,rCY but IrCOd rather
take a cautious and questioning approach than blindly defer to rCLsmart peoplerCY or marketing claims. After all, how many tech-related scandals started with people telling critics to rCLjust trust the expertsrCY?
Respectfully,
David B.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 3:46:52rC>PM MST, "pothead" wrotei agree with the parts of your post i agree with
<105ud4s$1kler$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-07-24, David B. <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/07/2025 22:25, pothead wrote:
What's hilarious is you asking the most dishonest person on Usenet
for advice regarding honesty.
Now that's quite funny.
You are mistaken, ma'am.
I am not.
And you know it but you won't admit it.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
A white supremacist making accusations but cannot show MIDs or quotes to back
them. SHOCKING!
Oh, BTW, lose the ChatGpt replies.
<sigh> I rather gave the game away, didn't I?!! Sorry about that.
I agree with what I posted though.
NP.
Stupid people should listen to smart people.
Not the voices in their heads.
On 24/07/2025 23:47, Tyrone wrote:
<snip>
Stupid people should listen to smart people.
Unfortunately, stupid people (like Brooksy) *don't* listen to smart
people, they are too stupid / arrogant to realise they are stupid and so they *never* stop being stupid.
Not the voices in their heads.
And *another* whole issue when it comes to Brooksy ... or is it another
or part of the same thing?
Stupid enough to not realise he is and also stupid enough to hold
fantasy over fact?
I'm having similar issues dealing with someone just like him now. He
can't understand a DMM or a PC based diagnostic unit and so resorts to
using a hammer on everything.
No matter how many time you explain or get him to hold fire, the urge to
do *anything*, even if that just causes damage, causes others more work, doesn't seem to stop him and he never learns from it. He simply doesn't
know he doesn't know.
Then the support stops and he sits in all the stuff that was working but
he then broke because he doesn't understand how to use it properly.
On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I *DO* trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck, the free app which is >>>>>>> commonly used in Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose >>>>>>> problems, but have you paid for its Pro features? If you want to get >>>>>>> the best performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money well-spent.
While your OP to this topic was 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>> your own insight is *blind*. Worse than blind, badly distorted beyond >>>>>> recognition.
I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
I suspect HO never even thought to question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>> someone who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with nothing to
quantify who and what he is!
He even removed his LinkedIn page when I questioned him!
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-BC-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg
No honest fellow would do that!
What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical question... why could a person who
is generally honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, especially if
they are being followed around by someone asking questions over and over? >>
appreciate your question rCo it's fair to ask why I see that as a red flag.
Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page isn't, by itself, proof
of dishonesty. But context matters. When someone runs a paid software
product, makes strong claims about its capabilities, refuses to answer
reasonable support emails (even when support is part of the paid
package), and then vanishes from multiple platforms when asked
legitimate questions rCo thatrCOs where the suspicion starts.
What questions?
Removing a LinkedIn profile after being asked for clarity on credentials
or background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but it can appear
evasive rCo especially if the individual is selling something to the
public and benefiting from trust built within communities like MacRumors
or Apple Support forums.
There can also be extenuating circumstances of not wanting someone to keep asking questions seen as inappropriate.
I'm not trying to hound anyone rCo but transparency and accountability
matter, especially in tech where users often rely on software to
diagnose or alter critical systems. ItrCOs not unreasonable to ask: Who is >> behind this tool IrCOm being told to trust?
If you do not trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you want.
So yes rCo context, not just the act, is what shapes my view.
On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I *DO* trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck, the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose >>>>>>>> problems, but have you paid for its Pro features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the best performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money well-spent.
While your OP to this topic was 'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>>> your own insight is *blind*. Worse than blind, badly distorted beyond >>>>>>> recognition.
I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
I suspect HO never even thought to question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with nothing to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is!
He even removed his LinkedIn page when I questioned him!
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-BC-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg
No honest fellow would do that!
What makes you think that? Not a rhetorical question... why could a person who
is generally honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page, especially if
they are being followed around by someone asking questions over and over? >>>
appreciate your question rCo it's fair to ask why I see that as a red flag.
Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But context matters. When someone runs a paid software
product, makes strong claims about its capabilities, refuses to answer
reasonable support emails (even when support is part of the paid
package), and then vanishes from multiple platforms when asked
legitimate questions rCo thatrCOs where the suspicion starts.
What questions?
Removing a LinkedIn profile after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but it can appear
evasive rCo especially if the individual is selling something to the
public and benefiting from trust built within communities like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support forums.
There can also be extenuating circumstances of not wanting someone to keep >> asking questions seen as inappropriate.
I'm not trying to hound anyone rCo but transparency and accountability
matter, especially in tech where users often rely on software to
diagnose or alter critical systems. ItrCOs not unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this tool IrCOm being told to trust?
If you do not trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you want.
So yes rCo context, not just the act, is what shapes my view.
Hi Brock,
Fair pointsrCoand thank you for asking respectfully. I genuinely donrCOt
have a problem with people removing their LinkedIn page in general.
You're absolutely right that there can be valid, personal reasons for
doing sorCoespecially if someone feels harassed or unduly scrutinised.
However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from more than just that
single act. I paid for EtreCheckrCOs Power User package rCo which includes support rCo and asked legitimate technical questions about the app.
Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply. ThatrCOs not just frustrating; itrCOs unacceptable when support is part of the paid offering.
At the same time, IrCOve seen posts quietly vanish, evasive replies in
public forums, and a lack of any concrete way to verify the developerrCOs background or qualifications.
In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page
right after being questioned only deepened my unease.
This isnrCOt personal,
and itrCOs certainly not about Snit rCo herCOs a friend,--
not a foe! I just believe that if someone is asking users to trust them
with diagnostic tools that can touch sensitive parts of a system, there should be some accountability. ThatrCOs all.
On 25/07/2025 18:29, Brock McNuggets asked yet MORE questions!
Hi Brock,
Thanks again for engaging politely rCo I really do appreciate it. Let me
try to clarify a few things:
"What questions? Please be specific."
Certainly. The questions I asked John Daniel directly (via the contact details provided for EtreCheck support) were strictly technical and
focused on:
Clarification of what data EtreCheck collects and where it is
stored or transmitted.
The purpose and function of specific background processes launched
by the app.
The reasons for observed outbound connections made by EtreCheck
when run in offline mode.
Why EtreCheck triggered false positives in several independent
malware and telemetry monitoring tools.
None of those were answered rCo not even with a simple acknowledgment. I
sent polite follow-ups and eventually asked via a public forum whether
others had received support. At that point, John vanished from LinkedIn,
and some of my posts disappeared from public view (as did others
questioning similar things).
"You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is malware..."
I do understand that concern. Let me be clear: IrCOve never declared EtreCheck to be malware.
What I have said is that, given the opacity
surrounding its operation and the developer's refusal to answer straightforward queries, it raises red flags. ThatrCOs a risk-based statement, not a claim of confirmed malicious intent. As someone with a
long history of dealing with systems security, I view tools that evade transparency with extra caution.
"What makes you think you are entitled to know ANYTHING about his background or qualifications?"
Fair question. My answer: IrCOm not entitled to anything beyond what he voluntarily offers. But if someone wants to sell a product that alters
or scans system-level components rCo especially on macOS rCo and markets
that tool on the basis of authority or credibility, then itrCOs perfectly valid to ask: What qualifies this person to give diagnostics or
remediation advice? If someone benefits commercially from trust, then transparency helps support that trust.
"When you focus on him as a person... that makes it personal."
I get that distinction, and I accept that the line can blur. My aim has
never been to dig into private matters or launch ad hominem attacks rCo
far from it. IrCOve raised questions only in relation to the product and
the support structure around it.
If a person is presenting themselves as
a software authority but declines to engage in support or basic identity verification, then yes rCo some personal accountability becomes relevant.
As for Snit rCo again, let me reiterate rCo I consider him a friend. We disagree sometimes, as all friends do, but IrCOd never treat him as an
enemy. I hope he knows that.
On Jul 25, 2025 at 11:02:23rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <mehv5hFovapU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/07/2025 18:29, Brock McNuggets asked yet MORE questions!
Hi Brock,
Thanks again for engaging politely rCo I really do appreciate it. Let me
try to clarify a few things:
"What questions? Please be specific."
Certainly. The questions I asked John Daniel directly (via the contact
details provided for EtreCheck support) were strictly technical and
focused on:
Clarification of what data EtreCheck collects and where it is
stored or transmitted.
The purpose and function of specific background processes launched
by the app.
The reasons for observed outbound connections made by EtreCheck
when run in offline mode.
Why EtreCheck triggered false positives in several independent
malware and telemetry monitoring tools.
If these were a bunch of emails I can see where it is a bit much, but overall those are not of concern.
None of those were answered rCo not even with a simple acknowledgment. I
sent polite follow-ups and eventually asked via a public forum whether
others had received support. At that point, John vanished from LinkedIn,
and some of my posts disappeared from public view (as did others
questioning similar things).
"You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is malware..."
I do understand that concern. Let me be clear: IrCOve never declared
EtreCheck to be malware.
You have repeatedly insinuated.
What I have said is that, given the opacity
surrounding its operation and the developer's refusal to answer
straightforward queries, it raises red flags. ThatrCOs a risk-based
statement, not a claim of confirmed malicious intent. As someone with a
long history of dealing with systems security, I view tools that evade
transparency with extra caution.
What "long history of dealing with systems security"?
"What makes you think you are entitled to know ANYTHING about his
background or qualifications?"
Fair question. My answer: IrCOm not entitled to anything beyond what he
voluntarily offers. But if someone wants to sell a product that alters
or scans system-level components rCo especially on macOS rCo and markets
that tool on the basis of authority or credibility, then itrCOs perfectly
valid to ask: What qualifies this person to give diagnostics or
remediation advice? If someone benefits commercially from trust, then
transparency helps support that trust.
If you do not like the response simply do not use the product and, please, let
it go. The obsession you have here is unhealthy for you.
"When you focus on him as a person... that makes it personal."
I get that distinction, and I accept that the line can blur. My aim has
never been to dig into private matters or launch ad hominem attacks rCo
far from it. IrCOve raised questions only in relation to the product and
the support structure around it.
No: you also asked about his personal life.
If a person is presenting themselves as
a software authority but declines to engage in support or basic identity
verification, then yes rCo some personal accountability becomes relevant.
Not really... but if you need it and are not getting it then let it go and just do not use the product.
As for Snit rCo again, let me reiterate rCo I consider him a friend. We
disagree sometimes, as all friends do, but IrCOd never treat him as an
enemy. I hope he knows that.
I do. And I hope you know I feel the same way.
On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
wrote >>>> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in
On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I DO trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck,
Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the bestproblems, but have you paid for its Pro
performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money well-spent.
'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>>> yourWhile your OP to this topic was
own insight is blind. Worse than blind, badly
distorted beyond >>>>>>> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>>
I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someoneI suspect HO never even thought to
who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with
nothing to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is!
questioned him! >>>>>He even removed his LinkedIn page when I
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No honest
fellow would do that! >>>>
question... why could a person who >>>> is generallyWhat makes you think that? Not a rhetorical
honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page,
especially if >>>> they are being followed around by
someone asking questions over and over? >>> >>>
why I see that as a red flag. >>>appreciate your question rCo it's fair to ask
isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. ButLet me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page
context matters. When someone runs a paid software
capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonableproduct, makes strong claims about its
support emails (even when support is part of the
paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple
platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions rCo
thatrCOs where the suspicion starts. >> >> What
questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile
after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or
background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but
it can appear >>> evasive rCo especially if the
individual is selling something to the >>> public
and benefiting from trust built within communities
like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support forums. >> >>
There can also be extenuating circumstances of not
wanting someone to keep >> asking questions seen as
inappropriate. >>> >>> I'm not trying to hound
anyone rCo but transparency and accountability >>>
matter, especially in tech where users often rely on
software to >>> diagnose or alter critical systems.
ItrCOs not unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this
tool IrCOm being told to trust? >> >> If you do not
trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you
want. >>> >>> So yes rCo context, not just the act,
is what shapes my view.
Hi Brock,
Fair pointsrCoand thank you for asking respectfully.
I genuinely donrCOt have a problem with people
removing their LinkedIn page in general. You're
absolutely right that there can be valid, personal
reasons for doing sorCoespecially if someone feels
harassed or unduly scrutinised.
However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from
more than just that single act. I paid for
EtreCheckrCOs Power User package rCo which includes
support rCo and asked legitimate technical questions
about the app.
What questions? Please be specific.
Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply.
ThatrCOs not just frustrating; itrCOs unacceptable
when support is part of the paid offering.
You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is
malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have an
unhealthy focus on the software -- which is odd --
and also on the author -- which is harmful.
At the same time, IrCOve seen posts quietly vanish,
evasive replies in public forums, and a lack of
any concrete way to verify the developerrCOs
background or qualifications.
What makes you think you are entitled to know
ANYTHING about his background or qualifications?
In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page
right after being questioned only deepened my
unease.
This isnrCOt personal,
When you focus on him as a person -- his "background
or qualifications" -- that makes it personal and not
professional.
and itrCOs certainly not about Snit rCo herCOs a friend,
not a foe! I just believe that if someone is
asking users to trust them with diagnostic tools
that can touch sensitive parts of a system, there
should be some accountability. ThatrCOs all.
On Jul 25, 2025 at 11:02:23rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <mehv5hFovapU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/07/2025 18:29, Brock McNuggets asked yet MORE questions!
Hi Brock,
Thanks again for engaging politely rCo I really do appreciate it. Let me
try to clarify a few things:
"What questions? Please be specific."
Certainly. The questions I asked John Daniel directly (via the contact
details provided for EtreCheck support) were strictly technical and
focused on:
Clarification of what data EtreCheck collects and where it is
stored or transmitted.
The purpose and function of specific background processes launched
by the app.
The reasons for observed outbound connections made by EtreCheck
when run in offline mode.
Why EtreCheck triggered false positives in several independent
malware and telemetry monitoring tools.
If these were a bunch of emails I can see where it is a bit much, but overall those are not of concern.
None of those were answered rCo not even with a simple acknowledgment. I
sent polite follow-ups and eventually asked via a public forum whether
others had received support. At that point, John vanished from LinkedIn,
and some of my posts disappeared from public view (as did others
questioning similar things).
"You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is malware..."
I do understand that concern. Let me be clear: IrCOve never declared
EtreCheck to be malware.
You have repeatedly insinuated.
What I have said is that, given the opacity
surrounding its operation and the developer's refusal to answer
straightforward queries, it raises red flags. ThatrCOs a risk-based
statement, not a claim of confirmed malicious intent. As someone with a
long history of dealing with systems security, I view tools that evade
transparency with extra caution.
What "long history of dealing with systems security"?
"What makes you think you are entitled to know ANYTHING about his
background or qualifications?"
Fair question. My answer: IrCOm not entitled to anything beyond what he
voluntarily offers. But if someone wants to sell a product that alters
or scans system-level components rCo especially on macOS rCo and markets
that tool on the basis of authority or credibility, then itrCOs perfectly
valid to ask: What qualifies this person to give diagnostics or
remediation advice? If someone benefits commercially from trust, then
transparency helps support that trust.
If you do not like the response simply do not use the product and, please, let
it go. The obsession you have here is unhealthy for you.
"When you focus on him as a person... that makes it personal."
I get that distinction, and I accept that the line can blur. My aim has
never been to dig into private matters or launch ad hominem attacks rCo
far from it. IrCOve raised questions only in relation to the product and
the support structure around it.
No: you also asked about his personal life.
If a person is presenting themselves as
a software authority but declines to engage in support or basic identity
verification, then yes rCo some personal accountability becomes relevant.
Not really... but if you need it and are not getting it then let it go and just do not use the product.
As for Snit rCo again, let me reiterate rCo I consider him a friend. We
disagree sometimes, as all friends do, but IrCOd never treat him as an
enemy. I hope he knows that.
I do. And I hope you know I feel the same way.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 25, 2025 at 11:02:23rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrotei hate snit and i'll tell you why
<mehv5hFovapU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/07/2025 18:29, Brock McNuggets asked yet MORE questions!
Hi Brock,
Thanks again for engaging politely rCo I really do appreciate it. Let me >>> try to clarify a few things:
"What questions? Please be specific."
Certainly. The questions I asked John Daniel directly (via the contact
details provided for EtreCheck support) were strictly technical and
focused on:
Clarification of what data EtreCheck collects and where it is
stored or transmitted.
The purpose and function of specific background processes launched >>> by the app.
The reasons for observed outbound connections made by EtreCheck
when run in offline mode.
Why EtreCheck triggered false positives in several independent
malware and telemetry monitoring tools.
If these were a bunch of emails I can see where it is a bit much, but overall
those are not of concern.
None of those were answered rCo not even with a simple acknowledgment. I >>> sent polite follow-ups and eventually asked via a public forum whether
others had received support. At that point, John vanished from LinkedIn, >>> and some of my posts disappeared from public view (as did others
questioning similar things).
"You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is malware..."
I do understand that concern. Let me be clear: IrCOve never declared
EtreCheck to be malware.
You have repeatedly insinuated.
What I have said is that, given the opacity
surrounding its operation and the developer's refusal to answer
straightforward queries, it raises red flags. ThatrCOs a risk-based
statement, not a claim of confirmed malicious intent. As someone with a
long history of dealing with systems security, I view tools that evade
transparency with extra caution.
What "long history of dealing with systems security"?
"What makes you think you are entitled to know ANYTHING about his
background or qualifications?"
Fair question. My answer: IrCOm not entitled to anything beyond what he
voluntarily offers. But if someone wants to sell a product that alters
or scans system-level components rCo especially on macOS rCo and markets >>> that tool on the basis of authority or credibility, then itrCOs perfectly >>> valid to ask: What qualifies this person to give diagnostics or
remediation advice? If someone benefits commercially from trust, then
transparency helps support that trust.
If you do not like the response simply do not use the product and, please, let
it go. The obsession you have here is unhealthy for you.
"When you focus on him as a person... that makes it personal."
I get that distinction, and I accept that the line can blur. My aim has
never been to dig into private matters or launch ad hominem attacks rCo
far from it. IrCOve raised questions only in relation to the product and >>> the support structure around it.
No: you also asked about his personal life.
If a person is presenting themselves asNot really... but if you need it and are not getting it then let it go and >> just do not use the product.
a software authority but declines to engage in support or basic identity >>> verification, then yes rCo some personal accountability becomes relevant. >>
As for Snit rCo again, let me reiterate rCo I consider him a friend. We
disagree sometimes, as all friends do, but IrCOd never treat him as an
enemy. I hope he knows that.
I do. And I hope you know I feel the same way.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
wrote >>>> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in
On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I DO trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck,
Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the bestproblems, but have you paid for its Pro
performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money well-spent.
'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>>> yourWhile your OP to this topic was
own insight is blind. Worse than blind, badly
distorted beyond >>>>>>> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>>
I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someoneI suspect HO never even thought to
who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with
nothing to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is!
questioned him! >>>>>He even removed his LinkedIn page when I
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B
C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No honest
fellow would do that! >>>>
question... why could a person who >>>> is generallyWhat makes you think that? Not a rhetorical
honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page,
especially if >>>> they are being followed around by
someone asking questions over and over? >>> >>>
why I see that as a red flag. >>>appreciate your question rCo it's fair to ask
isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. ButLet me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page
context matters. When someone runs a paid software
capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonableproduct, makes strong claims about its
support emails (even when support is part of the
paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple
platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions rCo
thatrCOs where the suspicion starts. >> >> What
questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile
after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or
background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but
it can appear >>> evasive rCo especially if the
individual is selling something to the >>> public
and benefiting from trust built within communities
like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support forums. >> >>
There can also be extenuating circumstances of not
wanting someone to keep >> asking questions seen as
inappropriate. >>> >>> I'm not trying to hound
anyone rCo but transparency and accountability >>>
matter, especially in tech where users often rely on
software to >>> diagnose or alter critical systems.
ItrCOs not unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this
tool IrCOm being told to trust? >> >> If you do not
trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you
want. >>> >>> So yes rCo context, not just the act,
is what shapes my view.
Hi Brock,
Fair pointsrCoand thank you for asking respectfully.
I genuinely donrCOt have a problem with people
removing their LinkedIn page in general. You're
absolutely right that there can be valid, personal
reasons for doing sorCoespecially if someone feels
harassed or unduly scrutinised.
However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from
more than just that single act. I paid for
EtreCheckrCOs Power User package rCo which includes
support rCo and asked legitimate technical questions
about the app.
What questions? Please be specific.
Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply.
ThatrCOs not just frustrating; itrCOs unacceptable
when support is part of the paid offering.
You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is
malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have an
unhealthy focus on the software -- which is odd --
and also on the author -- which is harmful.
At the same time, IrCOve seen posts quietly vanish,
evasive replies in public forums, and a lack of
any concrete way to verify the developerrCOs
background or qualifications.
What makes you think you are entitled to know
ANYTHING about his background or qualifications?
In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page
right after being questioned only deepened my
unease.
This isnrCOt personal,
When you focus on him as a person -- his "background
or qualifications" -- that makes it personal and not
professional.
and itrCOs certainly not about Snit rCo herCOs a friend,
not a foe! I just believe that if someone is
asking users to trust them with diagnostic tools
that can touch sensitive parts of a system, there
should be some accountability. ThatrCOs all.
Preach it saint Snit !
Amen brother Snit.
What a fucking loser you are.
Your post is the ultimate in projection.
You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does daily
all that you are accusing Boater Dave of.
Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting the
pills snit.
Go fuck yourself snit.
I'm not trying to hound anyone
On 25/07/2025 19:06, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 25, 2025 at 11:02:23rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<mehv5hFovapU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/07/2025 18:29, Brock McNuggets asked yet MORE questions!
Hi Brock,
Thanks again for engaging politely rCo I really do appreciate it. Let me >>> try to clarify a few things:
"What questions? Please be specific."
Certainly. The questions I asked John Daniel directly (via the contact
details provided for EtreCheck support) were strictly technical and
focused on:
Clarification of what data EtreCheck collects and where it is
stored or transmitted.
The purpose and function of specific background processes launched >>> by the app.
The reasons for observed outbound connections made by EtreCheck
when run in offline mode.
Why EtreCheck triggered false positives in several independent
malware and telemetry monitoring tools.
If these were a bunch of emails I can see where it is a bit much, but overall
those are not of concern.
None of those were answered rCo not even with a simple acknowledgment. I >>> sent polite follow-ups and eventually asked via a public forum whether
others had received support. At that point, John vanished from LinkedIn, >>> and some of my posts disappeared from public view (as did others
questioning similar things).
"You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is malware..."
I do understand that concern. Let me be clear: IrCOve never declared
EtreCheck to be malware.
You have repeatedly insinuated.
What I have said is that, given the opacity
surrounding its operation and the developer's refusal to answer
straightforward queries, it raises red flags. ThatrCOs a risk-based
statement, not a claim of confirmed malicious intent. As someone with a
long history of dealing with systems security, I view tools that evade
transparency with extra caution.
What "long history of dealing with systems security"?
"What makes you think you are entitled to know ANYTHING about his
background or qualifications?"
Fair question. My answer: IrCOm not entitled to anything beyond what he
voluntarily offers. But if someone wants to sell a product that alters
or scans system-level components rCo especially on macOS rCo and markets >>> that tool on the basis of authority or credibility, then itrCOs perfectly >>> valid to ask: What qualifies this person to give diagnostics or
remediation advice? If someone benefits commercially from trust, then
transparency helps support that trust.
If you do not like the response simply do not use the product and, please, let
it go. The obsession you have here is unhealthy for you.
"When you focus on him as a person... that makes it personal."
I get that distinction, and I accept that the line can blur. My aim has
never been to dig into private matters or launch ad hominem attacks rCo
far from it. IrCOve raised questions only in relation to the product and >>> the support structure around it.
No: you also asked about his personal life.
If a person is presenting themselves asNot really... but if you need it and are not getting it then let it go and >> just do not use the product.
a software authority but declines to engage in support or basic identity >>> verification, then yes rCo some personal accountability becomes relevant. >>
As for Snit rCo again, let me reiterate rCo I consider him a friend. We
disagree sometimes, as all friends do, but IrCOd never treat him as an
enemy. I hope he knows that.
I do. And I hope you know I feel the same way.
Hi Brock,
I appreciate your continued honesty and the fact that we can disagree
without descending into hostility rCo thatrCOs rare and valuable in online discussions, especially here.
Just to clarify one last time: IrCOve never contacted John Daniel about
his personal life. IrCOve only raised concerns relevant to the software herCOs selling and supporting rCo or failing to. The questions I asked were rooted in technical transparency, not curiosity about his private affairs.
As for my background, IrCOve worked with system-level troubleshooting and OS-level tooling rCo both professionally and personally rCo for many
decades. IrCOve seen well-meaning software go rogue due to neglect, poor coding, or inadequate vetting. ThatrCOs why I raise concerns when tools
gain implicit trust in communities while the person behind them avoids scrutiny or questions.
That said, I do hear your point rCo and IrCOll leave it there for now. If others find this discussion helpful or concerning, theyrCOre welcome to
weigh in. Otherwise, IrCOm happy to let it rest.
And Michael rCo thank you. IrCOm glad werCOre clear. Efye
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
wrote >>>> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in
On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I DO trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck,
Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the bestproblems, but have you paid for its Pro
performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money well-spent.
'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>>> yourWhile your OP to this topic was
own insight is blind. Worse than blind, badly
distorted beyond >>>>>>> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>>
I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someoneI suspect HO never even thought to
who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with
nothing to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is!
questioned him! >>>>>He even removed his LinkedIn page when I
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B
C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No honest
fellow would do that! >>>>
question... why could a person who >>>> is generallyWhat makes you think that? Not a rhetorical
honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page,
especially if >>>> they are being followed around by
someone asking questions over and over? >>> >>>
why I see that as a red flag. >>>appreciate your question rCo it's fair to ask
isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. ButLet me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page
context matters. When someone runs a paid software
capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonableproduct, makes strong claims about its
support emails (even when support is part of the
paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple
platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions rCo
thatrCOs where the suspicion starts. >> >> What
questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile
after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or
background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but
it can appear >>> evasive rCo especially if the
individual is selling something to the >>> public
and benefiting from trust built within communities
like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support forums. >> >>
There can also be extenuating circumstances of not
wanting someone to keep >> asking questions seen as
inappropriate. >>> >>> I'm not trying to hound
anyone rCo but transparency and accountability >>>
matter, especially in tech where users often rely on
software to >>> diagnose or alter critical systems.
ItrCOs not unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this
tool IrCOm being told to trust? >> >> If you do not
trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you
want. >>> >>> So yes rCo context, not just the act,
is what shapes my view.
Hi Brock,
Fair pointsrCoand thank you for asking respectfully.
I genuinely donrCOt have a problem with people
removing their LinkedIn page in general. You're
absolutely right that there can be valid, personal
reasons for doing sorCoespecially if someone feels
harassed or unduly scrutinised.
However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from
more than just that single act. I paid for
EtreCheckrCOs Power User package rCo which includes
support rCo and asked legitimate technical questions
about the app.
What questions? Please be specific.
Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply.
ThatrCOs not just frustrating; itrCOs unacceptable
when support is part of the paid offering.
You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is
malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have an
unhealthy focus on the software -- which is odd --
and also on the author -- which is harmful.
At the same time, IrCOve seen posts quietly vanish,
evasive replies in public forums, and a lack of
any concrete way to verify the developerrCOs
background or qualifications.
What makes you think you are entitled to know
ANYTHING about his background or qualifications?
In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page
right after being questioned only deepened my
unease.
This isnrCOt personal,
When you focus on him as a person -- his "background
or qualifications" -- that makes it personal and not
professional.
and itrCOs certainly not about Snit rCo herCOs a friend,
not a foe! I just believe that if someone is
asking users to trust them with diagnostic tools
that can touch sensitive parts of a system, there
should be some accountability. ThatrCOs all.
Preach it saint Snit !
Amen brother Snit.
What a fucking loser you are.
Your post is the ultimate in projection.
You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does daily
all that you are accusing Boater Dave of.
Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting the
pills snit.
Go fuck yourself snit.
On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
wrote >>>> <mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
the free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used in
On 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I DO trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck,
Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the bestproblems, but have you paid for its Pro
performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money well-spent.
'well-spoken' it belies the fact that >>>>>>> yourWhile your OP to this topic was
own insight is blind. Worse than blind, badly
distorted beyond >>>>>>> recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>>
I have NO DOUBTS about HO, a fellow naval officer.
question the honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someoneI suspect HO never even thought to
who is simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with
nothing to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is!
questioned him! >>>>>He even removed his LinkedIn page when I
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B
C-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No honest
fellow would do that! >>>>
question... why could a person who >>>> is generallyWhat makes you think that? Not a rhetorical
honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page,
especially if >>>> they are being followed around by
someone asking questions over and over? >>> >>>
why I see that as a red flag. >>>appreciate your question rCo it's fair to ask
isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. ButLet me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page
context matters. When someone runs a paid software
capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonableproduct, makes strong claims about its
support emails (even when support is part of the
paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple
platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions rCo
thatrCOs where the suspicion starts. >> >> What
questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile
after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or
background doesn't automatically signal guilt, but
it can appear >>> evasive rCo especially if the
individual is selling something to the >>> public
and benefiting from trust built within communities
like MacRumors >>> or Apple Support forums. >> >>
There can also be extenuating circumstances of not
wanting someone to keep >> asking questions seen as
inappropriate. >>> >>> I'm not trying to hound
anyone rCo but transparency and accountability >>>
matter, especially in tech where users often rely on
software to >>> diagnose or alter critical systems.
ItrCOs not unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this
tool IrCOm being told to trust? >> >> If you do not
trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you
want. >>> >>> So yes rCo context, not just the act,
is what shapes my view.
Hi Brock,
Fair pointsrCoand thank you for asking respectfully.
I genuinely donrCOt have a problem with people
removing their LinkedIn page in general. You're
absolutely right that there can be valid, personal
reasons for doing sorCoespecially if someone feels
harassed or unduly scrutinised.
However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from
more than just that single act. I paid for
EtreCheckrCOs Power User package rCo which includes
support rCo and asked legitimate technical questions
about the app.
What questions? Please be specific.
Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply.
ThatrCOs not just frustrating; itrCOs unacceptable
when support is part of the paid offering.
You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is
malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have an
unhealthy focus on the software -- which is odd --
and also on the author -- which is harmful.
At the same time, IrCOve seen posts quietly vanish,
evasive replies in public forums, and a lack of
any concrete way to verify the developerrCOs
background or qualifications.
What makes you think you are entitled to know
ANYTHING about his background or qualifications?
In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page
right after being questioned only deepened my
unease.
This isnrCOt personal,
When you focus on him as a person -- his "background
or qualifications" -- that makes it personal and not
professional.
and itrCOs certainly not about Snit rCo herCOs a friend,
not a foe! I just believe that if someone is
asking users to trust them with diagnostic tools
that can touch sensitive parts of a system, there
should be some accountability. ThatrCOs all.
Preach it saint Snit !
Amen brother Snit.
What a fucking loser you are.
Your post is the ultimate in projection.
You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does daily
all that you are accusing Boater Dave of.
Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting the
pills snit.
Go fuck yourself snit.
These days in order to save money, snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona is mixing up his own brand of jenkem. That's when he isn't
huffing glue from a bag.
snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix
Arizona is the most dishonest poster on Usenet.
Possibly the Internet as a whole.
Do not trust anything snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix
Arizona posts because the chances are excellent that he is lying.
Why don't you join with the other members of ACW and completely,
100%, ignore and not reply directly to snit?
We welcome you.
On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria
<TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
B."" >> wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>:On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26rC>AM MST, ""David
B."" >> wrote >>>>
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David
<mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >> >>>>
well-spent. >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While your OP tothe free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used inOn 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I DO trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck,
Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the bestproblems, but have you paid for its Pro
performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money
this topic was >> 'well-spoken' it belies the fact
that >>>>>>> your >> own insight is blind. Worse
than blind, badly >> distorted beyond >>>>>>>
recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I have NO DOUBTS
about HO, a fellow naval officer. >> >>>>>> >>>>>>
I suspect HO never even thought to >> question the
honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone >> who is
simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with >> nothing
to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >> >>>>>
questioned him! >>>>> >> >>>>>He even removed his LinkedIn page when I >>
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B
honest >> fellow would do that! >>>> >> >>>> WhatC-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No
makes you think that? Not a rhetorical >>
question... why could a person who >>>> is generally
by >> someone asking questions over and over? >>>honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page,
especially if >>>> they are being followed around
to ask >> why I see that as a red flag. >>> >> >>>appreciate your question rCo it's fair
Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page >>
isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But >>
context matters. When someone runs a paid software
capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable >>product, makes strong claims about its >>
support emails (even when support is part of the >>
paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple
questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile >>platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions rCo
thatrCOs where the suspicion starts. >> >> What >>
after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or
but >> it can appear >>> evasive rCo especially if thebackground doesn't automatically signal guilt,
communities >> like MacRumors >>> or Apple Supportindividual is selling something to the >>> public
and benefiting from trust built within
forums. >> >> >> There can also be extenuating
circumstances of not >> wanting someone to keep >>
asking questions seen as >> inappropriate. >>> >>>
I'm not trying to hound >> anyone rCo but transparency
and accountability >>> >> matter, especially in tech
where users often rely on >> software to >>>
diagnose or alter critical systems. >> ItrCOs not
unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this >> tool
IrCOm being told to trust? >> >> If you do not >>
trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you
act, >> is what shapes my view. >> > >> >want. >>> >>> So yes rCo context, not just the
respectfully. >> > I genuinely donrCOt have a problemHi Brock,
Fair pointsrCoand thank you for asking
with people >> > removing their LinkedIn page in
general. You're >> > absolutely right that there
can be valid, personal >> > reasons for doing
sorCoespecially if someone feels >> > harassed or
unduly scrutinised. >> >
questions >> > about the app.However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from
more than just that single act. I paid for
EtreCheckrCOs Power User package rCo which includes
support rCo and asked legitimate technical
an >> unhealthy focus on the software -- which is
What questions? Please be specific.
Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply.
ThatrCOs not just frustrating; itrCOs unacceptable
when support is part of the paid offering.
You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is
malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have
odd -- >> and also on the author -- which is harmful.
vanish, >> > evasive replies in public forums, and a
At the same time, IrCOve seen posts quietly
lack of >> > any concrete way to verify the
developerrCOs >> > background or qualifications.
"background >> or qualifications" -- that makes it
What makes you think you are entitled to know
ANYTHING about his background or qualifications?
In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page
right after being questioned only deepened my
unease.
This isnrCOt personal,
When you focus on him as a person -- his
personal and not >> professional.
friend, >> > not a foe! I just believe that if
and itrCOs certainly not about Snit rCo herCOs a
someone is >> > asking users to trust them with
diagnostic tools >> > that can touch sensitive parts
of a system, there >> > should be some
accountability. ThatrCOs all.
Preach it saint Snit !
Amen brother Snit.
What a fucking loser you are.
Your post is the ultimate in projection.
You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does
daily all that you are accusing Boater Dave of.
Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting
the pills snit.
Go fuck yourself snit.
These days in order to save money, snit Michael
Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona is mixing up his
own brand of jenkem. That's when he isn't huffing
glue from a bag.
snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix
Arizona is the most dishonest poster on Usenet.
Possibly the Internet as a whole.
Do not trust anything snit Michael Glasser of
Prescott/Phoenix Arizona posts because the chances
are excellent that he is lying.
Why don't you join with the other members of ACW and
completely, 100%, ignore and not reply directly to
snit? We welcome you.
pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria
<TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote:
Brock McNuggets wrote:B."" >> wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>:
On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26rC>AM MST, ""David
B."" >> wrote >>>>
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David
<mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >> >>>>
well-spent. >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While your OP tothe free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used inOn 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I DO trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck,
Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the bestproblems, but have you paid for its Pro
performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money
this topic was >> 'well-spoken' it belies the fact
that >>>>>>> your >> own insight is blind. Worse
than blind, badly >> distorted beyond >>>>>>>
recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I have NO DOUBTS
about HO, a fellow naval officer. >> >>>>>> >>>>>>
I suspect HO never even thought to >> question the
honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone >> who is
simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with >> nothing
to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >> >>>>>
questioned him! >>>>> >> >>>>>He even removed his LinkedIn page when I >>
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B
honest >> fellow would do that! >>>> >> >>>> WhatC-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No
makes you think that? Not a rhetorical >>
question... why could a person who >>>> is generally
by >> someone asking questions over and over? >>>honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page,
especially if >>>> they are being followed around
to ask >> why I see that as a red flag. >>> >> >>>appreciate your question rCo it's fair
Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page >>
isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But >>
context matters. When someone runs a paid software
capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable >>product, makes strong claims about its >>
support emails (even when support is part of the >>
paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple
questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile >>platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions rCo
thatrCOs where the suspicion starts. >> >> What >>
after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or
but >> it can appear >>> evasive rCo especially if thebackground doesn't automatically signal guilt,
communities >> like MacRumors >>> or Apple Supportindividual is selling something to the >>> public
and benefiting from trust built within
forums. >> >> >> There can also be extenuating
circumstances of not >> wanting someone to keep >>
asking questions seen as >> inappropriate. >>> >>>
I'm not trying to hound >> anyone rCo but transparency
and accountability >>> >> matter, especially in tech
where users often rely on >> software to >>>
diagnose or alter critical systems. >> ItrCOs not
unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this >> tool
IrCOm being told to trust? >> >> If you do not >>
trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you
act, >> is what shapes my view. >> > >> >want. >>> >>> So yes rCo context, not just the
respectfully. >> > I genuinely donrCOt have a problemHi Brock,
Fair pointsrCoand thank you for asking
with people >> > removing their LinkedIn page in
general. You're >> > absolutely right that there
can be valid, personal >> > reasons for doing
sorCoespecially if someone feels >> > harassed or
unduly scrutinised. >> >
questions >> > about the app.However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from
more than just that single act. I paid for
EtreCheckrCOs Power User package rCo which includes
support rCo and asked legitimate technical
an >> unhealthy focus on the software -- which is
What questions? Please be specific.
Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply.
ThatrCOs not just frustrating; itrCOs unacceptable
when support is part of the paid offering.
You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is
malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have
odd -- >> and also on the author -- which is harmful.
vanish, >> > evasive replies in public forums, and a
At the same time, IrCOve seen posts quietly
lack of >> > any concrete way to verify the
developerrCOs >> > background or qualifications.
"background >> or qualifications" -- that makes it
What makes you think you are entitled to know
ANYTHING about his background or qualifications?
In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page
right after being questioned only deepened my
unease.
This isnrCOt personal,
When you focus on him as a person -- his
personal and not >> professional.
friend, >> > not a foe! I just believe that if
and itrCOs certainly not about Snit rCo herCOs a
someone is >> > asking users to trust them with
diagnostic tools >> > that can touch sensitive parts
of a system, there >> > should be some
accountability. ThatrCOs all.
Preach it saint Snit !
Amen brother Snit.
What a fucking loser you are.
Your post is the ultimate in projection.
You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does
daily all that you are accusing Boater Dave of.
Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting
the pills snit.
Go fuck yourself snit.
These days in order to save money, snit Michael
Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona is mixing up his
own brand of jenkem. That's when he isn't huffing
glue from a bag.
snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix
Arizona is the most dishonest poster on Usenet.
Possibly the Internet as a whole.
Do not trust anything snit Michael Glasser of
Prescott/Phoenix Arizona posts because the chances
are excellent that he is lying.
Why don't you join with the other members of ACW and
completely, 100%, ignore and not reply directly to
snit? We welcome you.
Thanks. I will join the rest of you in ignoring
shithead snit.
I have some very interesting, current,
information regarding snit that I am in the process of
verifying.
If it turns out to be accurate I will post
here.
Happy day to all.
pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria
<TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote:
Brock McNuggets wrote:B."" >> wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>:
On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26rC>AM MST, ""David
B."" >> wrote >>>>
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David
<mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >> >>>>
well-spent. >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While your OP tothe free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used inOn 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I DO trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck,
Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the bestproblems, but have you paid for its Pro
performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money
this topic was >> 'well-spoken' it belies the fact
that >>>>>>> your >> own insight is blind. Worse
than blind, badly >> distorted beyond >>>>>>>
recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I have NO DOUBTS
about HO, a fellow naval officer. >> >>>>>> >>>>>>
I suspect HO never even thought to >> question the
honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone >> who is
simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with >> nothing
to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >> >>>>>
questioned him! >>>>> >> >>>>>He even removed his LinkedIn page when I >>
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B
honest >> fellow would do that! >>>> >> >>>> WhatC-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No
makes you think that? Not a rhetorical >>
question... why could a person who >>>> is generally
by >> someone asking questions over and over? >>>honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page,
especially if >>>> they are being followed around
to ask >> why I see that as a red flag. >>> >> >>>appreciate your question rCo it's fair
Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page >>
isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But >>
context matters. When someone runs a paid software
capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable >>product, makes strong claims about its >>
support emails (even when support is part of the >>
paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple
questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile >>platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions rCo
thatrCOs where the suspicion starts. >> >> What >>
after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or
but >> it can appear >>> evasive rCo especially if thebackground doesn't automatically signal guilt,
communities >> like MacRumors >>> or Apple Supportindividual is selling something to the >>> public
and benefiting from trust built within
forums. >> >> >> There can also be extenuating
circumstances of not >> wanting someone to keep >>
asking questions seen as >> inappropriate. >>> >>>
I'm not trying to hound >> anyone rCo but transparency
and accountability >>> >> matter, especially in tech
where users often rely on >> software to >>>
diagnose or alter critical systems. >> ItrCOs not
unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this >> tool
IrCOm being told to trust? >> >> If you do not >>
trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you
act, >> is what shapes my view. >> > >> >want. >>> >>> So yes rCo context, not just the
respectfully. >> > I genuinely donrCOt have a problemHi Brock,
Fair pointsrCoand thank you for asking
with people >> > removing their LinkedIn page in
general. You're >> > absolutely right that there
can be valid, personal >> > reasons for doing
sorCoespecially if someone feels >> > harassed or
unduly scrutinised. >> >
questions >> > about the app.However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from
more than just that single act. I paid for
EtreCheckrCOs Power User package rCo which includes
support rCo and asked legitimate technical
an >> unhealthy focus on the software -- which is
What questions? Please be specific.
Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply.
ThatrCOs not just frustrating; itrCOs unacceptable
when support is part of the paid offering.
You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is
malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have
odd -- >> and also on the author -- which is harmful.
vanish, >> > evasive replies in public forums, and a
At the same time, IrCOve seen posts quietly
lack of >> > any concrete way to verify the
developerrCOs >> > background or qualifications.
"background >> or qualifications" -- that makes it
What makes you think you are entitled to know
ANYTHING about his background or qualifications?
In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page
right after being questioned only deepened my
unease.
This isnrCOt personal,
When you focus on him as a person -- his
personal and not >> professional.
friend, >> > not a foe! I just believe that if
and itrCOs certainly not about Snit rCo herCOs a
someone is >> > asking users to trust them with
diagnostic tools >> > that can touch sensitive parts
of a system, there >> > should be some
accountability. ThatrCOs all.
Preach it saint Snit !
Amen brother Snit.
What a fucking loser you are.
Your post is the ultimate in projection.
You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does
daily all that you are accusing Boater Dave of.
Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting
the pills snit.
Go fuck yourself snit.
These days in order to save money, snit Michael
Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona is mixing up his
own brand of jenkem. That's when he isn't huffing
glue from a bag.
snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix
Arizona is the most dishonest poster on Usenet.
Possibly the Internet as a whole.
Do not trust anything snit Michael Glasser of
Prescott/Phoenix Arizona posts because the chances
are excellent that he is lying.
Why don't you join with the other members of ACW and
completely, 100%, ignore and not reply directly to
snit? We welcome you.
Thanks. I will join the rest of you in ignoring
shithead snit. I have some very interesting, current,
information regarding snit that I am in the process of
verifying. If it turns out to be accurate I will post
here.
Happy day to all.
On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria <TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote:
pothead wrote:
On 2025-07-25, Tegenaria
<TegenariaArach@incogni.net> wrote:
Brock McNuggets wrote:B."" >> wrote >> <mef8tiFbassU1@mid.individual.net>:
On Jul 25, 2025 at 12:30:33rC>AM MST, ""David B.""
wrote <megq4pFila5U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 25/07/2025 00:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 10:30:26rC>AM MST, ""David
B."" >> wrote >>>>
On 24/07/2025 18:14, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Jul 24, 2025 at 9:47:44rC>AM MST, ""David
<mef6dgF8lp9U4@mid.individual.net>: >> >>>>
well-spent. >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While your OP tothe free app which is >>>>>>>> commonly used inOn 24/07/2025 17:05, David B. wrote:
On 24/07/2025 16:43, Mike Easter wrote:
BDB wrote:
I DO trust Howard Oakley!
And HO trusts and extols Etre.
*Maybe mistakenly*.
YourCOre probably familiar with EtreCheck,
Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose
features? If you want to get >>>>>>>> the bestproblems, but have you paid for its Pro
performance from your Mac, thatrCOs money
this topic was >> 'well-spoken' it belies the fact
that >>>>>>> your >> own insight is blind. Worse
than blind, badly >> distorted beyond >>>>>>>
recognition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I have NO DOUBTS
about HO, a fellow naval officer. >> >>>>>> >>>>>>
I suspect HO never even thought to >> question the
honesty of "John Daniel" >>>>>> someone >> who is
simply a "will-o'-the-wisp" persona with >> nothing
to >>>>>> quantify who and what he is! >> >>>>>
questioned him! >>>>> >> >>>>>He even removed his LinkedIn page when I >>
https://i.ibb.co/NnQtbS98/BC9-C56-A5-B16-B-446-D-A5-B
honest >> fellow would do that! >>>> >> >>>> WhatC-63293-B2-D4440-1-105-c.jpg >>>>> >>>>> No
makes you think that? Not a rhetorical >>
question... why could a person who >>>> is generally
by >> someone asking questions over and over? >>>honest and decent not remove their LinkedIn page,
especially if >>>> they are being followed around
to ask >> why I see that as a red flag. >>> >> >>>appreciate your question rCo it's fair
Let me be clear: simply removing a LinkedIn page >>
isn't, by itself, proof >>> of dishonesty. But >>
context matters. When someone runs a paid software
capabilities, refuses to answer >>> reasonable >>product, makes strong claims about its >>
support emails (even when support is part of the >>
paid >>> package), and then vanishes from multiple
questions? >>> >>> Removing a LinkedIn profile >>platforms when asked >>> legitimate questions rCo
thatrCOs where the suspicion starts. >> >> What >>
after being asked for clarity on credentials >>> or
but >> it can appear >>> evasive rCo especially if thebackground doesn't automatically signal guilt,
communities >> like MacRumors >>> or Apple Supportindividual is selling something to the >>> public
and benefiting from trust built within
forums. >> >> >> There can also be extenuating
circumstances of not >> wanting someone to keep >>
asking questions seen as >> inappropriate. >>> >>>
I'm not trying to hound >> anyone rCo but transparency
and accountability >>> >> matter, especially in tech
where users often rely on >> software to >>>
diagnose or alter critical systems. >> ItrCOs not
unreasonable to ask: Who is >>> behind this >> tool
IrCOm being told to trust? >> >> If you do not >>
trust it then do not use it. Not sure what else you
act, >> is what shapes my view. >> > >> >want. >>> >>> So yes rCo context, not just the
respectfully. >> > I genuinely donrCOt have a problemHi Brock,
Fair pointsrCoand thank you for asking
with people >> > removing their LinkedIn page in
general. You're >> > absolutely right that there
can be valid, personal >> > reasons for doing
sorCoespecially if someone feels >> > harassed or
unduly scrutinised. >> >
questions >> > about the app.However, my concerns about John Daniel stem from
more than just that single act. I paid for
EtreCheckrCOs Power User package rCo which includes
support rCo and asked legitimate technical
an >> unhealthy focus on the software -- which is
What questions? Please be specific.
Despite multiple attempts, I received no reply.
ThatrCOs not just frustrating; itrCOs unacceptable
when support is part of the paid offering.
You have also repeatedly insinuated that it is
malware, which is deeply inappropriate, and have
odd -- >> and also on the author -- which is harmful.
vanish, >> > evasive replies in public forums, and a
At the same time, IrCOve seen posts quietly
lack of >> > any concrete way to verify the
developerrCOs >> > background or qualifications.
"background >> or qualifications" -- that makes it
What makes you think you are entitled to know
ANYTHING about his background or qualifications?
In that context, pulling a LinkedIn page
right after being questioned only deepened my
unease.
This isnrCOt personal,
When you focus on him as a person -- his
personal and not >> professional.
friend, >> > not a foe! I just believe that if
and itrCOs certainly not about Snit rCo herCOs a
someone is >> > asking users to trust them with
diagnostic tools >> > that can touch sensitive parts
of a system, there >> > should be some
accountability. ThatrCOs all.
Preach it saint Snit !
Amen brother Snit.
What a fucking loser you are.
Your post is the ultimate in projection.
You are a fucking, son of a bitch liar who does
daily all that you are accusing Boater Dave of.
Isn't it a little early in the day to be hitting
the pills snit.
Go fuck yourself snit.
These days in order to save money, snit Michael
Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix Arizona is mixing up his
own brand of jenkem. That's when he isn't huffing
glue from a bag.
snit Michael Glasser of Prescott/Phoenix
Arizona is the most dishonest poster on Usenet.
Possibly the Internet as a whole.
Do not trust anything snit Michael Glasser of
Prescott/Phoenix Arizona posts because the chances
are excellent that he is lying.
Why don't you join with the other members of ACW and
completely, 100%, ignore and not reply directly to
snit? We welcome you.
Thanks. I will join the rest of you in ignoring
shithead snit. I have some very interesting, current,
information regarding snit that I am in the process of
verifying. If it turns out to be accurate I will post
here.
Happy day to all.
Since snit Michael Glasser of Prescott / Phoenix Arizona has
been stalking and harassing people for years it's open season
on him. He can dish it out, let's see if he can take it.
As long as it is public information of course.
Thanks for joining with us in ignoring snit.
It's already having an effect as he is trying in vain to
start new threads (circus tents) to keep his troll farm alive.
I suspect a snit breakdown is coming.
Don't touch that dial!
ROTFLMAO!
Since snit Michael Glasser of Prescott / Phoenix Arizona has
been stalking and harassing people for years it's open season
on him. He can dish it out, let's see if he can take it.
As long as it is public information of course.
Thanks for joining with us in ignoring snit.
It's already having an effect as he is trying in vain to
start new threads (circus tents) to keep his troll farm alive.
I suspect a snit breakdown is coming.
Don't touch that dial!
ROTFLMAO!
-- pothead "I have a lot of friends who are Democrats, and theyrCOre
idiots. I always say they have big hearts and little brains. Almost
every single policy rolled out failed.rCY -- Jamie Dimon CEO JPMorgan Chase.
Why should anyone sympathize with an obvious fascist and friend of #47
like you seem to be?
On 27.07.25 00:34, pothead wrote:
Since snit Michael Glasser of Prescott / Phoenix Arizona has
been stalking and harassing people for years it's open season
on him. He can dish it out, let's see if he can take it.
As long as it is public information of course.
Thanks for joining with us in ignoring snit.
It's already having an effect as he is trying in vain to
start new threads (circus tents) to keep his troll farm alive.
I suspect a snit breakdown is coming.
Don't touch that dial!
ROTFLMAO!
-- pothead "I have a lot of friends who are Democrats, and theyrCOre
idiots. I always say they have big hearts and little brains. Almost
every single policy rolled out failed.rCY -- Jamie Dimon CEO JPMorgan Chase.
Why should anyone sympathize with an obvious fascist and friend of #47
like you seem to be?
