On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote <r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the
keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that something
that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, KDE, Gnome,
XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you are struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can
handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way people could
learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the same
thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
On 2025-10-26 21:09, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 16:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:17, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 14:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 17:06, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:52, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 17:58, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-25 20:21, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 16:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/25/2025 7:50 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I just took advantage of the fact that I had papers lying >>>>>>>>>>>> around to test out the scanning on the iPhone. To say the >>>>>>>>>>>> least, I am shocked at how quick, automatic and accurate it >>>>>>>>>>>> is. I was wrong to be apprehensive.
Thanks for letting us know that our seemingly simple phone >>>>>>>>>>>> could accomplish this important task so well.
And yet they fail to have a button to access the running >>>>>>>>>>> apps. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people.
You could learn something from CrudeSausage, "Joel".
I've used MacOS and while I find that some things are more
cumbersome than in Windows, there is no doubt that you can get >>>>>>>>> things done just as well so long as you are willing to learn >>>>>>>>> the differences. Heck, I even got used to the annoying process >>>>>>>>> of closing an application completely.
You mean hitting Command-Q? That's too hard for you?
It's not. However, there is no reason why pressing the red button >>>>>>> would do anything but achieve the exact same thing. If people
wanted it to remain in memory, they'd minimize it, not close it. >>>>>>>
You can't deal with things that you're not used to...
Got it.
I can and did. I simply point out that it is needlessly annoying. I >>>>> spent most of my time pressing ctrl-q because Apple decided that
8GB of RAM was enough and didn't give me the option to upgrade it
after the fact. Their operating system insists on wasting memory
all the while not allowing you to remedy the problem unless you
think ahead and pay their exorbitant prices. You might enjoy
getting raped in the ass like Joel Crump just because the enormous
dick has an Apple logo on it, but I don't.
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
So you only have one hand.
Got it.
A teacher I work with actually does only have one hand. What should he do?
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the
keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that something
that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, KDE, Gnome,
XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you are
struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can
handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way people could
learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the same
thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden?
Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating
systems?
If you want choice, use Linux.
On 2025-10-26 18:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 21:09, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 16:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:17, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 14:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 17:06, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:52, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 17:58, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-25 20:21, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 16:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/25/2025 7:50 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I just took advantage of the fact that I had papers lying >>>>>>>>>>>>> around to test out the scanning on the iPhone. To say the >>>>>>>>>>>>> least, I am shocked at how quick, automatic and accurate it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is. I was wrong to be apprehensive.
Thanks for letting us know that our seemingly simple phone >>>>>>>>>>>>> could accomplish this important task so well.
And yet they fail to have a button to access the running >>>>>>>>>>>> apps. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people.
You could learn something from CrudeSausage, "Joel".
I've used MacOS and while I find that some things are more >>>>>>>>>> cumbersome than in Windows, there is no doubt that you can get >>>>>>>>>> things done just as well so long as you are willing to learn >>>>>>>>>> the differences. Heck, I even got used to the annoying process >>>>>>>>>> of closing an application completely.
You mean hitting Command-Q? That's too hard for you?
It's not. However, there is no reason why pressing the red
button would do anything but achieve the exact same thing. If >>>>>>>> people wanted it to remain in memory, they'd minimize it, not >>>>>>>> close it.
You can't deal with things that you're not used to...
Got it.
I can and did. I simply point out that it is needlessly annoying. >>>>>> I spent most of my time pressing ctrl-q because Apple decided that >>>>>> 8GB of RAM was enough and didn't give me the option to upgrade it >>>>>> after the fact. Their operating system insists on wasting memory
all the while not allowing you to remedy the problem unless you
think ahead and pay their exorbitant prices. You might enjoy
getting raped in the ass like Joel Crump just because the enormous >>>>>> dick has an Apple logo on it, but I don't.
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
So you only have one hand.
Got it.
A teacher I work with actually does only have one hand. What should he
do?
Look at where the "Command" keys are on the keyboard. Now look at how
few key combinations using it couldn't be operated with one hand.
You're clutching at straws to try to maintain that what is unfamiliar to
you must be worse than what is familiar.
On 2025-10-27 18:20, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 21:09, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 16:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:17, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 14:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 17:06, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:52, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 17:58, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-25 20:21, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 16:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/25/2025 7:50 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I just took advantage of the fact that I had papers lying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> around to test out the scanning on the iPhone. To say the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> least, I am shocked at how quick, automatic and accurate it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is. I was wrong to be apprehensive.
Thanks for letting us know that our seemingly simple phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could accomplish this important task so well.
And yet they fail to have a button to access the running >>>>>>>>>>>>> apps. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You could learn something from CrudeSausage, "Joel".
I've used MacOS and while I find that some things are more >>>>>>>>>>> cumbersome than in Windows, there is no doubt that you can get >>>>>>>>>>> things done just as well so long as you are willing to learn >>>>>>>>>>> the differences. Heck, I even got used to the annoying process >>>>>>>>>>> of closing an application completely.
You mean hitting Command-Q? That's too hard for you?
It's not. However, there is no reason why pressing the red
button would do anything but achieve the exact same thing. If >>>>>>>>> people wanted it to remain in memory, they'd minimize it, not >>>>>>>>> close it.
You can't deal with things that you're not used to...
Got it.
I can and did. I simply point out that it is needlessly annoying. >>>>>>> I spent most of my time pressing ctrl-q because Apple decided that >>>>>>> 8GB of RAM was enough and didn't give me the option to upgrade it >>>>>>> after the fact. Their operating system insists on wasting memory >>>>>>> all the while not allowing you to remedy the problem unless you
think ahead and pay their exorbitant prices. You might enjoy
getting raped in the ass like Joel Crump just because the enormous >>>>>>> dick has an Apple logo on it, but I don't.
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
So you only have one hand.
Got it.
A teacher I work with actually does only have one hand. What should he
do?
Look at where the "Command" keys are on the keyboard. Now look at how
few key combinations using it couldn't be operated with one hand.
You're clutching at straws to try to maintain that what is unfamiliar to
you must be worse than what is familiar.
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one
which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple.
I
like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman
in a dress does Joel Crump.
On 2025-10-27 17:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the
keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that something
that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, KDE, Gnome, >>>> XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you are
struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can
handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way people could >>>> learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the same
thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden?
Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating
systems?
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing users
with a choice?
If you want choice, use Linux.
A lot of choice.
You can choose your icons, your cursors, your wallpaper
but you can also choose your distribution, the package your software
comes in and a multitude of applications for the same purpose all of
which won't cost you a penny.
Meanwhile, just getting software to clean
the junk on your mac is likely to cost you $20.
<snip >--
On 2025-10-26 18:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 21:09, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 16:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:17, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 14:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 17:06, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:52, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 17:58, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-25 20:21, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 16:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/25/2025 7:50 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I just took advantage of the fact that I had papers lying >>>>>>>>>>>>> around to test out the scanning on the iPhone. To say the >>>>>>>>>>>>> least, I am shocked at how quick, automatic and accurate it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is. I was wrong to be apprehensive.
Thanks for letting us know that our seemingly simple phone >>>>>>>>>>>>> could accomplish this important task so well.
And yet they fail to have a button to access the running >>>>>>>>>>>> apps. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people.
You could learn something from CrudeSausage, "Joel".
I've used MacOS and while I find that some things are more >>>>>>>>>> cumbersome than in Windows, there is no doubt that you can get >>>>>>>>>> things done just as well so long as you are willing to learn >>>>>>>>>> the differences. Heck, I even got used to the annoying process >>>>>>>>>> of closing an application completely.
You mean hitting Command-Q? That's too hard for you?
It's not. However, there is no reason why pressing the red button >>>>>>>> would do anything but achieve the exact same thing. If people
wanted it to remain in memory, they'd minimize it, not close it. >>>>>>>>
You can't deal with things that you're not used to...
Got it.
I can and did. I simply point out that it is needlessly annoying. I >>>>>> spent most of my time pressing ctrl-q because Apple decided that
8GB of RAM was enough and didn't give me the option to upgrade it
after the fact. Their operating system insists on wasting memory
all the while not allowing you to remedy the problem unless you
think ahead and pay their exorbitant prices. You might enjoy
getting raped in the ass like Joel Crump just because the enormous >>>>>> dick has an Apple logo on it, but I don't.
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
So you only have one hand.
Got it.
A teacher I work with actually does only have one hand. What should he do? >>
Look at where the "Command" keys are on the keyboard. Now look at how
few key combinations using it couldn't be operated with one hand.
You're clutching at straws to try to maintain that what is unfamiliar to
you must be worse than what is familiar.
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one
which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I
like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman
in a dress does Joel Crump.
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one
which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I
like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even
though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman
in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans,
it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
On 2025-10-27 18:20, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 21:09, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 16:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:17, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 14:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 17:06, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:52, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 17:58, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-25 20:21, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 16:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/25/2025 7:50 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I just took advantage of the fact that I had papers lying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> around to test out the scanning on the iPhone. To say the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> least, I am shocked at how quick, automatic and accurate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is. I was wrong to be apprehensive.
Thanks for letting us know that our seemingly simple phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could accomplish this important task so well.
And yet they fail to have a button to access the running >>>>>>>>>>>>> apps. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You could learn something from CrudeSausage, "Joel".
I've used MacOS and while I find that some things are more >>>>>>>>>>> cumbersome than in Windows, there is no doubt that you can >>>>>>>>>>> get things done just as well so long as you are willing to >>>>>>>>>>> learn the differences. Heck, I even got used to the annoying >>>>>>>>>>> process of closing an application completely.
You mean hitting Command-Q? That's too hard for you?
It's not. However, there is no reason why pressing the red
button would do anything but achieve the exact same thing. If >>>>>>>>> people wanted it to remain in memory, they'd minimize it, not >>>>>>>>> close it.
You can't deal with things that you're not used to...
Got it.
I can and did. I simply point out that it is needlessly annoying. >>>>>>> I spent most of my time pressing ctrl-q because Apple decided
that 8GB of RAM was enough and didn't give me the option to
upgrade it after the fact. Their operating system insists on
wasting memory all the while not allowing you to remedy the
problem unless you think ahead and pay their exorbitant prices. >>>>>>> You might enjoy getting raped in the ass like Joel Crump just
because the enormous dick has an Apple logo on it, but I don't.
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
So you only have one hand.
Got it.
A teacher I work with actually does only have one hand. What should
he do?
Look at where the "Command" keys are on the keyboard. Now look at how
few key combinations using it couldn't be operated with one hand.
You're clutching at straws to try to maintain that what is unfamiliar
to you must be worse than what is familiar.
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one
which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I
like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman
in a dress does Joel Crump.
I like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect
even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard
Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the
keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that something
that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, KDE, Gnome,
XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you are
struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can
handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way people could
learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the same
thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden?
Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating
systems?
If you want choice, use Linux.
P.S. So how long did it take until iPhone users could use an alternate browser as DEFAULT?
Meaning click on a link and something like Chrome or Firefox would open
the link instead of Safari.
Apple makes excellent products but having more choices is not in their
plans.
Do it the Apple way or take the highway.
Darn are you one stupid git snit.
On 2025-10-27 17:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the
keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that something
that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, KDE, Gnome, >>>> XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you are
struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can
handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way people could >>>> learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the same
thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden?
Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating
systems?
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing users
with a choice?
On 10/25/2025 8:51 PM, Alan wrote:
[Apple] fail[s] to have a button to access the running apps [on the >>>>> iPhone]. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people.
Why is a button necessary?
It's something utilized *constantly*, don't you get tired of doing it
their awkward way?
How is it more awkward?
It is DIFFERENT, not any more awkward.
That's like asking why MS puts the taskbar on the screen in Windows,
quick access to multitasking of apps.
Apple has a hard time with veryNo.
basic UI features.
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 18:20, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 21:09, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 16:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:17, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 14:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 17:06, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:52, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 17:58, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-25 20:21, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 16:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/25/2025 7:50 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I just took advantage of the fact that I had papers lying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around to test out the scanning on the iPhone. To say the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least, I am shocked at how quick, automatic and accurate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is. I was wrong to be apprehensive.
Thanks for letting us know that our seemingly simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone could accomplish this important task so well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And yet they fail to have a button to access the running >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You could learn something from CrudeSausage, "Joel".
I've used MacOS and while I find that some things are more >>>>>>>>>>>> cumbersome than in Windows, there is no doubt that you can >>>>>>>>>>>> get things done just as well so long as you are willing to >>>>>>>>>>>> learn the differences. Heck, I even got used to the annoying >>>>>>>>>>>> process of closing an application completely.
You mean hitting Command-Q? That's too hard for you?
It's not. However, there is no reason why pressing the red >>>>>>>>>> button would do anything but achieve the exact same thing. If >>>>>>>>>> people wanted it to remain in memory, they'd minimize it, not >>>>>>>>>> close it.
You can't deal with things that you're not used to...
Got it.
I can and did. I simply point out that it is needlessly
annoying. I spent most of my time pressing ctrl-q because Apple >>>>>>>> decided that 8GB of RAM was enough and didn't give me the option >>>>>>>> to upgrade it after the fact. Their operating system insists on >>>>>>>> wasting memory all the while not allowing you to remedy the
problem unless you think ahead and pay their exorbitant prices. >>>>>>>> You might enjoy getting raped in the ass like Joel Crump just >>>>>>>> because the enormous dick has an Apple logo on it, but I don't. >>>>>>>>
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
So you only have one hand.
Got it.
A teacher I work with actually does only have one hand. What should
he do?
Look at where the "Command" keys are on the keyboard. Now look at how
few key combinations using it couldn't be operated with one hand.
You're clutching at straws to try to maintain that what is unfamiliar
to you must be worse than what is familiar.
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one
which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I
like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect
even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard
Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
What simple thing does macOS make cumbersome.
And remember that you not understanding a thing doesn't mean it's cumbersome.
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
I like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect
even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard
Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
Yeah...
You're an asshole.
We all get that now.
On 2025-10-27 15:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 17:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the
keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that something >>>>> that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, KDE,
Gnome,
XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you are
struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can
handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way people could >>>>> learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the same
thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden?
Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating
systems?
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing
users with a choice?
Every UI has conventions. That is a macO convention, and it isn't even
the only way to quit an app.
On 2025-10-28 00:27, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 17:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to >>>>>>>> remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the
keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that something >>>>>> that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, KDE,
Gnome,
XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you are >>>>> struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can
handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way people could >>>>>> learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the same
thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden?
Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating
systems?
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing
users with a choice?
Every UI has conventions. That is a macO convention, and it isn't even
the only way to quit an app.
Do us all a favour and list them all.
On 2025-10-28 00:24, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 18:20, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 21:09, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 16:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:17, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 14:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 17:06, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:52, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 17:58, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-25 20:21, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 16:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:I've used MacOS and while I find that some things are more >>>>>>>>>>>>> cumbersome than in Windows, there is no doubt that you can >>>>>>>>>>>>> get things done just as well so long as you are willing to >>>>>>>>>>>>> learn the differences. Heck, I even got used to the annoying >>>>>>>>>>>>> process of closing an application completely.
On 10/25/2025 7:50 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I just took advantage of the fact that I had papers lying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around to test out the scanning on the iPhone. To say the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least, I am shocked at how quick, automatic and accurate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is. I was wrong to be apprehensive.
Thanks for letting us know that our seemingly simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone could accomplish this important task so well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And yet they fail to have a button to access the running >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You could learn something from CrudeSausage, "Joel". >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean hitting Command-Q? That's too hard for you?
It's not. However, there is no reason why pressing the red >>>>>>>>>>> button would do anything but achieve the exact same thing. If >>>>>>>>>>> people wanted it to remain in memory, they'd minimize it, not >>>>>>>>>>> close it.
You can't deal with things that you're not used to...
Got it.
I can and did. I simply point out that it is needlessly
annoying. I spent most of my time pressing ctrl-q because Apple >>>>>>>>> decided that 8GB of RAM was enough and didn't give me the option >>>>>>>>> to upgrade it after the fact. Their operating system insists on >>>>>>>>> wasting memory all the while not allowing you to remedy the
problem unless you think ahead and pay their exorbitant prices. >>>>>>>>> You might enjoy getting raped in the ass like Joel Crump just >>>>>>>>> because the enormous dick has an Apple logo on it, but I don't. >>>>>>>>>
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
So you only have one hand.
Got it.
A teacher I work with actually does only have one hand. What should
he do?
Look at where the "Command" keys are on the keyboard. Now look at how
few key combinations using it couldn't be operated with one hand.
You're clutching at straws to try to maintain that what is unfamiliar
to you must be worse than what is familiar.
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one
which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I
like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect
even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard
Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
What simple thing does macOS make cumbersome.
And remember that you not understanding a thing doesn't mean it's
cumbersome.
We've already gone through this: closing a program entirely.
Additionally, MacOS only recently got the ability to snap windows to the
side or the corner. For the longest time, the process was a lot more cumbersome than it was in Windows or Linux.
However, I don't even see the point of discussing it with you. Apple
could force users to go through 50 clicks to get something done compared
to two or three in Linux or Windows and you'd still defend it and mock
anyone who doesn't appreciate it.
[Apple] fail[s] to have a button to access the running apps [on
the iPhone]. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people.
Why is a button necessary?
It's something utilized *constantly*, don't you get tired of doing
it their awkward way?
How is it more awkward?
It is DIFFERENT, not any more awkward.
That's like asking why MS puts the taskbar on the screen in Windows,
Apple puts the Dock in the same place as Windows puts the taskbar.
quick access to multitasking of apps.
And gives pretty much the exact same functionality.
Apple has a hard time with very basic UI features.No.
YOU have a hard time realizing different isn't worse.
On 10/28/2025 12:31 AM, Alan wrote:
[Apple] fail[s] to have a button to access the running apps [on >>>>>>> the iPhone]. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people.
Why is a button necessary?
It's something utilized *constantly*, don't you get tired of doing
it their awkward way?
How is it more awkward?
It is DIFFERENT, not any more awkward.
That's like asking why MS puts the taskbar on the screen in Windows,
Apple puts the Dock in the same place as Windows puts the taskbar.
It's better than the iOS way, at least.
quick access to multitasking of apps.
And gives pretty much the exact same functionality.
Apple has a hard time with very basic UI features.No.
YOU have a hard time realizing different isn't worse.
The iOS method is awkward to me, it's OK with me if you like it better.Awkward to you doesn't mean that it's bad, right?
On 2025-10-28 00:27, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 17:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to >>>>>>>> remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the
keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that something >>>>>> that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, KDE,
Gnome,
XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you are >>>>> struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can
handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way people
could
learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the same
thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden?
Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating
systems?
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing
users with a choice?
Every UI has conventions. That is a macO convention, and it isn't even
the only way to quit an app.
Do us all a favour and list them all.
On 2025-10-28 00:24, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 18:20, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 21:09, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 16:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:17, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 14:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 17:06, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:52, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 17:58, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-25 20:21, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 16:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:I've used MacOS and while I find that some things are more >>>>>>>>>>>>> cumbersome than in Windows, there is no doubt that you can >>>>>>>>>>>>> get things done just as well so long as you are willing to >>>>>>>>>>>>> learn the differences. Heck, I even got used to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> annoying process of closing an application completely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/25/2025 7:50 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I just took advantage of the fact that I had papers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying around to test out the scanning on the iPhone. To >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say the least, I am shocked at how quick, automatic and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accurate it is. I was wrong to be apprehensive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for letting us know that our seemingly simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone could accomplish this important task so well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And yet they fail to have a button to access the running >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You could learn something from CrudeSausage, "Joel". >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean hitting Command-Q? That's too hard for you?
It's not. However, there is no reason why pressing the red >>>>>>>>>>> button would do anything but achieve the exact same thing. If >>>>>>>>>>> people wanted it to remain in memory, they'd minimize it, not >>>>>>>>>>> close it.
You can't deal with things that you're not used to...
Got it.
I can and did. I simply point out that it is needlessly
annoying. I spent most of my time pressing ctrl-q because Apple >>>>>>>>> decided that 8GB of RAM was enough and didn't give me the
option to upgrade it after the fact. Their operating system >>>>>>>>> insists on wasting memory all the while not allowing you to >>>>>>>>> remedy the problem unless you think ahead and pay their
exorbitant prices. You might enjoy getting raped in the ass >>>>>>>>> like Joel Crump just because the enormous dick has an Apple >>>>>>>>> logo on it, but I don't.
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to >>>>>>> remove it to get onto the keyboard.
So you only have one hand.
Got it.
A teacher I work with actually does only have one hand. What should >>>>> he do?
Look at where the "Command" keys are on the keyboard. Now look at
how few key combinations using it couldn't be operated with one hand.
You're clutching at straws to try to maintain that what is
unfamiliar to you must be worse than what is familiar.
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the
one which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things
simple. I like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not
perfect even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way
Richard Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
What simple thing does macOS make cumbersome.
And remember that you not understanding a thing doesn't mean it's
cumbersome.
We've already gone through this: closing a program entirely.
Additionally, MacOS only recently got the ability to snap windows to the side or the corner. For the longest time, the process was a lot more cumbersome than it was in Windows or Linux.
However, I don't even see the point of discussing it with you. AppleI'm not mocking you for not appreciating anything, bigot.
could force users to go through 50 clicks to get something done compared
to two or three in Linux or Windows and you'd still defend it and mock anyone who doesn't appreciate it.
[Apple] fail[s] to have a button to access the running apps [on >>>>>>>> the iPhone]. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people.
Why is a button necessary?
It's something utilized *constantly*, don't you get tired of doing >>>>>> it their awkward way?
How is it more awkward?
It is DIFFERENT, not any more awkward.
That's like asking why MS puts the taskbar on the screen in Windows,
Apple puts the Dock in the same place as Windows puts the taskbar.
It's better than the iOS way, at least.
No. It's different than the iOS way...
...because phones and tablets are different than personal computers.
Awkward to you doesn't mean that it's bad, right?quick access to multitasking of apps.
And gives pretty much the exact same functionality.
Apple has a hard time with very basic UI features.No.
YOU have a hard time realizing different isn't worse.
The iOS method is awkward to me, it's OK with me if you like it better.
On 2025-10-28 00:25, Alan wrote:But I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks, asshole.
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
I like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect
even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard
Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
Yeah...
You're an asshole.
We all get that now.
I truly don't care, Alan. The very fact that you're unable to admit to a single flaw in Apple's products makes you one too.
On 2025-10-28 06:04, CrudeSausage wrote:How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
On 2025-10-28 00:27, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 17:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>> remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the >>>>>>> keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that
something
that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, KDE, >>>>>>> Gnome,
XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you are >>>>>> struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can >>>>>> handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way people >>>>>>> could
learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the same >>>>>>> thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden?
Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating
systems?
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing
users with a choice?
Every UI has conventions. That is a macO convention, and it isn't
even the only way to quit an app.
Do us all a favour and list them all.
1. Select "Quit" from the application menu (the menu with the same name
as the application that is always present and in the same place for
every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the app.
Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a burden.
On 2025-10-28 06:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 00:24, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 18:20, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 21:09, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 16:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:17, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 14:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 17:06, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:52, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 17:58, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-25 20:21, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 16:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:I've used MacOS and while I find that some things are more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cumbersome than in Windows, there is no doubt that you can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get things done just as well so long as you are willing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn the differences. Heck, I even got used to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> annoying process of closing an application completely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/25/2025 7:50 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I just took advantage of the fact that I had papers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying around to test out the scanning on the iPhone. To >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say the least, I am shocked at how quick, automatic and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accurate it is. I was wrong to be apprehensive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for letting us know that our seemingly simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone could accomplish this important task so well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And yet they fail to have a button to access the running >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You could learn something from CrudeSausage, "Joel". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean hitting Command-Q? That's too hard for you?
It's not. However, there is no reason why pressing the red >>>>>>>>>>>> button would do anything but achieve the exact same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>> If people wanted it to remain in memory, they'd minimize it, >>>>>>>>>>>> not close it.
You can't deal with things that you're not used to...
Got it.
I can and did. I simply point out that it is needlessly
annoying. I spent most of my time pressing ctrl-q because >>>>>>>>>> Apple decided that 8GB of RAM was enough and didn't give me >>>>>>>>>> the option to upgrade it after the fact. Their operating
system insists on wasting memory all the while not allowing >>>>>>>>>> you to remedy the problem unless you think ahead and pay their >>>>>>>>>> exorbitant prices. You might enjoy getting raped in the ass >>>>>>>>>> like Joel Crump just because the enormous dick has an Apple >>>>>>>>>> logo on it, but I don't.
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to >>>>>>>> remove it to get onto the keyboard.
So you only have one hand.
Got it.
A teacher I work with actually does only have one hand. What
should he do?
Look at where the "Command" keys are on the keyboard. Now look at
how few key combinations using it couldn't be operated with one hand. >>>>>
You're clutching at straws to try to maintain that what is
unfamiliar to you must be worse than what is familiar.
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the
one which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things
simple. I like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not
perfect even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way
Richard Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
What simple thing does macOS make cumbersome.
And remember that you not understanding a thing doesn't mean it's
cumbersome.
We've already gone through this: closing a program entirely.
Additionally, MacOS only recently got the ability to snap windows to
the side or the corner. For the longest time, the process was a lot
more cumbersome than it was in Windows or Linux.
We have gone through this and apparently you're too thick to get it:
YOU not liking how something is done doesn't automatically make it "cumbersome".
And while macOS recently gained that ability, it had the ability from forever to make a window expand to fill the entire screen.
I find the snapping function of both macOS AND Windows to be annoying, because it wants to happen when I move a window too close to a corner or edge of the screen.
However, I don't even see the point of discussing it with you. AppleI'm not mocking you for not appreciating anything, bigot.
could force users to go through 50 clicks to get something done
compared to two or three in Linux or Windows and you'd still defend it
and mock anyone who doesn't appreciate it.
I'm mocking you because you don't know the difference between you not preferring something and that thing being bad.
The Mac method for closing apps is DIFFERENT.
You don't like it? I really couldn't care less.
On 2025-10-28 06:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 00:25, Alan wrote:But I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks, asshole.
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
I like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect
even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard
Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
Yeah...
You're an asshole.
We all get that now.
I truly don't care, Alan. The very fact that you're unable to admit to
a single flaw in Apple's products makes you one too.
On 2025-10-28 13:01, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 06:04, CrudeSausage wrote:How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
On 2025-10-28 00:27, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 17:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden?
Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating >>>>>> systems?
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing
users with a choice?
Every UI has conventions. That is a macO convention, and it isn't
even the only way to quit an app.
Do us all a favour and list them all.
1. Select "Quit" from the application menu (the menu with the same
name as the application that is always present and in the same place
for every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the
app. Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a
burden.
On 2025-10-28 13:05, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 06:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 00:24, Alan wrote:
What simple thing does macOS make cumbersome.
And remember that you not understanding a thing doesn't mean it's
cumbersome.
We've already gone through this: closing a program entirely.
Additionally, MacOS only recently got the ability to snap windows to
the side or the corner. For the longest time, the process was a lot
more cumbersome than it was in Windows or Linux.
We have gone through this and apparently you're too thick to get it:
YOU not liking how something is done doesn't automatically make it
"cumbersome".
And while macOS recently gained that ability, it had the ability from
forever to make a window expand to fill the entire screen.
I find the snapping function of both macOS AND Windows to be annoying,
because it wants to happen when I move a window too close to a corner
or edge of the screen.
You find it annoying because Apple didn't invent it. Had it been the
first to implement it, you'd be lauding the feature. We already know how
you operate. You are a zealot who kneels at the altar of Jobs.
However, I don't even see the point of discussing it with you. AppleI'm not mocking you for not appreciating anything, bigot.
could force users to go through 50 clicks to get something done
compared to two or three in Linux or Windows and you'd still defend
it and mock anyone who doesn't appreciate it.
I'm mocking you because you don't know the difference between you not
preferring something and that thing being bad.
The Mac method for closing apps is DIFFERENT.
You don't like it? I really couldn't care less.
And you don't like that I don't like it? I couldn't care less. The Apple
way is retarded.
On 2025-10-28 13:06, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 06:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 00:25, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
But I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks, asshole.I like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not
perfect even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way >>>>> Richard Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
Yeah...
You're an asshole.
We all get that now.
I truly don't care, Alan. The very fact that you're unable to admit
to a single flaw in Apple's products makes you one too.
Which you just did in the previous post, asshole.
On 2025-10-28 13:05, Alan wrote:
We've already gone through this: closing a program entirely.
Additionally, MacOS only recently got the ability to snap windows to
the side or the corner. For the longest time, the process was a lot
more cumbersome than it was in Windows or Linux.
We have gone through this and apparently you're too thick to get it:
YOU not liking how something is done doesn't automatically make it
"cumbersome".
And while macOS recently gained that ability, it had the ability from
forever to make a window expand to fill the entire screen.
I find the snapping function of both macOS AND Windows to be annoying,
because it wants to happen when I move a window too close to a corner or
edge of the screen.
You find it annoying because Apple didn't invent it.
Had it been the
first to implement it, you'd be lauding the feature.
We already know how
you operate. You are a zealot who kneels at the altar of Jobs.
However, I don't even see the point of discussing it with you. Apple
could force users to go through 50 clicks to get something done
compared to two or three in Linux or Windows and you'd still defend it
and mock anyone who doesn't appreciate it.
I'm not mocking you for not appreciating anything, bigot.
I'm mocking you because you don't know the difference between you not
preferring something and that thing being bad.
The Mac method for closing apps is DIFFERENT.
You don't like it? I really couldn't care less.
And you don't like that I don't like it? I couldn't care less. The Apple
way is retarded.
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing
users with a choice?
Every UI has conventions. That is a macO convention, and it isn't even
the only way to quit an app.
Do us all a favour and list them all.
1. Select "Quit" from the application menu (the menu with the same name
as the application that is always present and in the same place for
every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the app.
Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a burden.
On Oct 28, 2025 at 10:01:47 AM MST, "Alan" wrote <10dqsts$26kfo$4@dont-email.me>:
1. [To completely exit a macOS app,] Select "Quit" from the application menu (the menu with the same name
as the application that is always present and in the same place for
every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the app.
Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a burden.
Excellent summary. You can also use tools like QuitAll, Quitter, or App Tamer to quit apps if you are somehow unable to let go of the idea of apps with no windows -- which use VERY low resources -- being a problem for you.
Really the issue here is macOS offers an ADDED choice -- the choice to leave an app open even with no open windows. This ADDED choice is too much for some.
So be it.
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing
users with a choice?
Every UI has conventions. That is a macO convention, and it isn't
even the only way to quit an app.
Do us all a favour and list them all.
1. Select "Quit" from the application menu (the menu with the same name
as the application that is always present and in the same place for
every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the app.
Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a burden.
How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 13:41:40 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
With the sway WM there is no X...
On 2025-10-28 14:31, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 13:41:40 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
With the sway WM there is no X...
Unlike on the Mac, we have the freedom not to use sway. On MacOS, you're
at the mercy of what some Alan-like knobs at Apple decided was best.
On 2025-10-28 13:01, Alan wrote:How is any of them cumbersome?
On 2025-10-28 06:04, CrudeSausage wrote:How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
On 2025-10-28 00:27, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 17:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>> remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the >>>>>>>> keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that
something
that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, KDE, >>>>>>>> Gnome,
XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you are >>>>>>> struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can >>>>>>> handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way people >>>>>>>> could
learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the same >>>>>>>> thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden?
Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating >>>>>> systems?
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing
users with a choice?
Every UI has conventions. That is a macO convention, and it isn't
even the only way to quit an app.
Do us all a favour and list them all.
1. Select "Quit" from the application menu (the menu with the same
name as the application that is always present and in the same place
for every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the
app. Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a
burden.
On 2025-10-28 13:05, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 06:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 00:24, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 18:20, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 21:09, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 16:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 18:17, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 14:43, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 17:06, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-26 13:52, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 17:58, CrudeSausage wrote:It's not. However, there is no reason why pressing the red >>>>>>>>>>>>> button would do anything but achieve the exact same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If people wanted it to remain in memory, they'd minimize >>>>>>>>>>>>> it, not close it.
On 2025-10-25 20:21, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-25 16:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:I've used MacOS and while I find that some things are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more cumbersome than in Windows, there is no doubt that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can get things done just as well so long as you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing to learn the differences. Heck, I even got used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the annoying process of closing an application >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely.
On 10/25/2025 7:50 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I just took advantage of the fact that I had papers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying around to test out the scanning on the iPhone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To say the least, I am shocked at how quick, automatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and accurate it is. I was wrong to be apprehensive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for letting us know that our seemingly simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone could accomplish this important task so well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And yet they fail to have a button to access the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running apps. Just astounding what LSD damage does to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people.
You could learn something from CrudeSausage, "Joel". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean hitting Command-Q? That's too hard for you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can't deal with things that you're not used to...
Got it.
I can and did. I simply point out that it is needlessly >>>>>>>>>>> annoying. I spent most of my time pressing ctrl-q because >>>>>>>>>>> Apple decided that 8GB of RAM was enough and didn't give me >>>>>>>>>>> the option to upgrade it after the fact. Their operating >>>>>>>>>>> system insists on wasting memory all the while not allowing >>>>>>>>>>> you to remedy the problem unless you think ahead and pay >>>>>>>>>>> their exorbitant prices. You might enjoy getting raped in the >>>>>>>>>>> ass like Joel Crump just because the enormous dick has an >>>>>>>>>>> Apple logo on it, but I don't.
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>> remove it to get onto the keyboard.
So you only have one hand.
Got it.
A teacher I work with actually does only have one hand. What
should he do?
Look at where the "Command" keys are on the keyboard. Now look at >>>>>> how few key combinations using it couldn't be operated with one hand. >>>>>>
You're clutching at straws to try to maintain that what is
unfamiliar to you must be worse than what is familiar.
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the
one which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things
simple. I like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is
not perfect even though the thought of it gives you an erection the >>>>> way Richard Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
What simple thing does macOS make cumbersome.
And remember that you not understanding a thing doesn't mean it's
cumbersome.
We've already gone through this: closing a program entirely.
Additionally, MacOS only recently got the ability to snap windows to
the side or the corner. For the longest time, the process was a lot
more cumbersome than it was in Windows or Linux.
We have gone through this and apparently you're too thick to get it:
YOU not liking how something is done doesn't automatically make it
"cumbersome".
And while macOS recently gained that ability, it had the ability from
forever to make a window expand to fill the entire screen.
I find the snapping function of both macOS AND Windows to be annoying,
because it wants to happen when I move a window too close to a corner
or edge of the screen.
You find it annoying because Apple didn't invent it. Had it been the
first to implement it, you'd be lauding the feature. We already know how
you operate. You are a zealot who kneels at the altar of Jobs.
However, I don't even see the point of discussing it with you. AppleI'm not mocking you for not appreciating anything, bigot.
could force users to go through 50 clicks to get something done
compared to two or three in Linux or Windows and you'd still defend
it and mock anyone who doesn't appreciate it.
I'm mocking you because you don't know the difference between you not
preferring something and that thing being bad.
The Mac method for closing apps is DIFFERENT.
You don't like it? I really couldn't care less.
And you don't like that I don't like it? I couldn't care less. The Apple
way is retarded.
On 2025-10-28 10:41, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 13:01, Alan wrote:How is any of them cumbersome?
On 2025-10-28 06:04, CrudeSausage wrote:How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
On 2025-10-28 00:27, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 17:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden? >>>>>>> Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating >>>>>>> systems?
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing >>>>>> users with a choice?
Every UI has conventions. That is a macO convention, and it isn't
even the only way to quit an app.
Do us all a favour and list them all.
1. Select "Quit" from the application menu (the menu with the same
name as the application that is always present and in the same place
for every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the
app. Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a
burden.
The x is a small target. The Dock icon is larger.
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote <Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one
which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I
like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even
though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman
in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans,
it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
On 10/28/2025 2:11 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 28, 2025 at 10:01:47 AM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10dqsts$26kfo$4@dont-email.me>:
1. [To completely exit a macOS app,] Select "Quit" from the
application menu (the menu with the same name
as the application that is always present and in the same place for
every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the app.
Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a burden.
Excellent summary. You can also use tools like QuitAll, Quitter, or
App Tamer
to quit apps if you are somehow unable to let go of the idea of apps
with no
windows -- which use VERY low resources -- being a problem for you.
Really the issue here is macOS offers an ADDED choice -- the choice to
leave
an app open even with no open windows. This ADDED choice is too much
for some.
So be it.
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the default.
Choice is generally good, though.
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>, brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...There is more to biology than simply what chromosomes someone has.
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I
like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans,
it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
How about a trans person who was born a female?
That is biology snit.
Yet another technical topic of which you know nothing
about.
Now if you would like to discuss mental illness and trans
then at least you are on the correct path.
And spare us the cherry picked cases of 0.000001% who
actually may be nature's mistake and born in the wrong
physical body.
The overwhelming number of trans people do not fit that
metric despite what the sicko left will claim.
You are obviously an Idiot.
On 10/28/2025 5:28 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 10:41, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 13:01, Alan wrote:How is any of them cumbersome?
On 2025-10-28 06:04, CrudeSausage wrote:How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
On 2025-10-28 00:27, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 17:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden? >>>>>>>> Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating >>>>>>>> systems?
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing >>>>>>> users with a choice?
Every UI has conventions. That is a macO convention, and it isn't >>>>>> even the only way to quit an app.
Do us all a favour and list them all.
1. Select "Quit" from the application menu (the menu with the same
name as the application that is always present and in the same place
for every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the
app. Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a
burden.
The x is a small target. The Dock icon is larger.
How much is Apple paying you for all this? I hope you at least got aNo. It's just what you're used to.
free computer, or something. I can't believe you would so consistently defend bizarre UI features. Clicking the close button on the app window should exit the app, that is intuitive and logical.
On 2025-10-28 13:06, Alan wrote:Oh, I left out one thing (deliberately):
On 2025-10-28 06:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 00:25, Alan wrote:But I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks, asshole.
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
I like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not
perfect even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way >>>>> Richard Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
Yeah...
You're an asshole.
We all get that now.
I truly don't care, Alan. The very fact that you're unable to admit
to a single flaw in Apple's products makes you one too.
Which you just did in the previous post, asshole.
On 10/28/2025 12:43 PM, Alan wrote:
Apple puts the Dock in the same place as Windows puts the taskbar.[Apple] fail[s] to have a button to access the running apps [on >>>>>>>>> the iPhone]. Just astounding what LSD damage does to people. >>>>>>>>Why is a button necessary?
It's something utilized *constantly*, don't you get tired of
doing it their awkward way?
How is it more awkward?
It is DIFFERENT, not any more awkward.
That's like asking why MS puts the taskbar on the screen in Windows, >>>>
It's better than the iOS way, at least.
No. It's different than the iOS way...
...because phones and tablets are different than personal computers.
I'm not unaware of that, I can still compare their relative
functionalities.
Awkward to you doesn't mean that it's bad, right?quick access to multitasking of apps.
And gives pretty much the exact same functionality.
Apple has a hard time with very basic UI features.No.
YOU have a hard time realizing different isn't worse.
The iOS method is awkward to me, it's OK with me if you like it better.
I mean, if you like it better, that's OK with me. It's just difficultOf course!
to understand. You talk about screen real estate, which is marginally a fair point, but I don't miss that space using my Samsung.
On 2025-10-28 11:14, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/28/2025 2:11 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 28, 2025 at 10:01:47 AM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10dqsts$26kfo$4@dont-email.me>:
1. [To completely exit a macOS app,] Select "Quit" from theExcellent summary. You can also use tools like QuitAll, Quitter, or
application menu (the menu with the same name
as the application that is always present and in the same place for
every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the app. >>>> Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a burden. >>>
App Tamer
to quit apps if you are somehow unable to let go of the idea of apps
with no
windows -- which use VERY low resources -- being a problem for you.
Really the issue here is macOS offers an ADDED choice -- the choice
to leave
an app open even with no open windows. This ADDED choice is too much
for some.
So be it.
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the default.
Choice is generally good, though.
Because there is a cost to launching an application every time you want
to edit a new document.
For instance, I'm editing dozens of Word documents for a project.
I've got a modern M3 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM, and launching Word by double-clicking on a document takes about 6 seconds.
While opening that same file when Word is already open takes about 1
second.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close the
last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully quit
every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes the same 5-6 seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
On 2025-10-28 14:42, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:28 PM, Alan wrote:No. It's just what you're used to.
On 2025-10-28 10:41, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 13:01, Alan wrote:How is any of them cumbersome?
How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
1. Select "Quit" from the application menu (the menu with the same
name as the application that is always present and in the same
place for every application and which always contains a "Quit"
command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you
really mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding
the combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and >>>>> choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the
app. Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly
a burden.
The x is a small target. The Dock icon is larger.
How much is Apple paying you for all this? I hope you at least got a
free computer, or something. I can't believe you would so
consistently defend bizarre UI features. Clicking the close button on
the app window should exit the app, that is intuitive and logical.
Why should I have to relaunch an app when I'm working on file after file?
Of course!Apple has a hard time with very basic UI features.No.
YOU have a hard time realizing different isn't worse.
The iOS method is awkward to me, it's OK with me if you like it better. >>> Awkward to you doesn't mean that it's bad, right?
I mean, if you like it better, that's OK with me. It's just difficult
to understand. You talk about screen real estate, which is marginally
a fair point, but I don't miss that space using my Samsung.
Because you reflexively attack what you don't understand!
On 10/28/2025 6:01 PM, Alan wrote:
Of course!Awkward to you doesn't mean that it's bad, right?Apple has a hard time with very basic UI features.No.
YOU have a hard time realizing different isn't worse.
The iOS method is awkward to me, it's OK with me if you like it
better.
I mean, if you like it better, that's OK with me. It's just
difficult to understand. You talk about screen real estate, which is
marginally a fair point, but I don't miss that space using my Samsung.
Because you reflexively attack what you don't understand!
I understand the points you've made, they just don't hold water in my book.It doesn't hold water that you can learn an easy gesture so that you
On 2025-10-28 10:41, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 13:01, Alan wrote:How is any of them cumbersome?
On 2025-10-28 06:04, CrudeSausage wrote:How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
On 2025-10-28 00:27, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 17:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>> remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the >>>>>>>>> keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that >>>>>>>>> something
that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, >>>>>>>>> KDE, Gnome,
XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you >>>>>>>> are
struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can >>>>>>>> handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way
people could
learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the same >>>>>>>>> thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden? >>>>>>> Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating >>>>>>> systems?
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing >>>>>> users with a choice?
Every UI has conventions. That is a macO convention, and it isn't
even the only way to quit an app.
Do us all a favour and list them all.
1. Select "Quit" from the application menu (the menu with the same
name as the application that is always present and in the same place
for every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the
app. Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a
burden.
The x is a small target. The Dock icon is larger.
On 10/28/2025 5:59 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 14:42, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:28 PM, Alan wrote:No. It's just what you're used to.
On 2025-10-28 10:41, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 13:01, Alan wrote:How is any of them cumbersome?
How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
1. Select "Quit" from the application menu (the menu with the same >>>>>> name as the application that is always present and in the same
place for every application and which always contains a "Quit"
command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly >>>>>> universal (except for applications that want to make sure you
really mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding >>>>>> the combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock
and choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab >>>>>> feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the >>>>>> app. Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly >>>>>> a burden.
The x is a small target. The Dock icon is larger.
How much is Apple paying you for all this? I hope you at least got a
free computer, or something. I can't believe you would so
consistently defend bizarre UI features. Clicking the close button
on the app window should exit the app, that is intuitive and logical.
Why should I have to relaunch an app when I'm working on file after file?
You don't, as far as I know, I don't in Windows at least.
On 2025-10-28 11:14, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/28/2025 2:11 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 28, 2025 at 10:01:47 AM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10dqsts$26kfo$4@dont-email.me>:
1. [To completely exit a macOS app,] Select "Quit" from theExcellent summary. You can also use tools like QuitAll, Quitter, or
application menu (the menu with the same name
as the application that is always present and in the same place for
every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the app. >>>> Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a burden. >>>
App Tamer
to quit apps if you are somehow unable to let go of the idea of apps
with no
windows -- which use VERY low resources -- being a problem for you.
Really the issue here is macOS offers an ADDED choice -- the choice
to leave
an app open even with no open windows. This ADDED choice is too much
for some.
So be it.
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the default.
Choice is generally good, though.
Because there is a cost to launching an application every time you want
to edit a new document.
For instance, I'm editing dozens of Word documents for a project.
I've got a modern M3 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM, and launching Word by double-clicking on a document takes about 6 seconds.
While opening that same file when Word is already open takes about 1
second.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close the
last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully quit
every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes the same 5-6 seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
On 2025-10-28 17:28, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 10:41, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 13:01, Alan wrote:How is any of them cumbersome?
On 2025-10-28 06:04, CrudeSausage wrote:How is any of those less cumbersome than just pressing the X?
On 2025-10-28 00:27, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 15:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-27 17:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to >>>>>>>>>>>> remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the >>>>>>>>>> keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that >>>>>>>>>> something
that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, >>>>>>>>>> KDE, Gnome,
XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and >>>>>>>>> you are
struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can >>>>>>>>> handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way >>>>>>>>>> people could
learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the same >>>>>>>>>> thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden? >>>>>>>> Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating >>>>>>>> systems?
How is forcing people to press CTRL-Q to close programs providing >>>>>>> users with a choice?
Every UI has conventions. That is a macO convention, and it isn't >>>>>> even the only way to quit an app.
Do us all a favour and list them all.
1. Select "Quit" from the application menu (the menu with the same
name as the application that is always present and in the same place
for every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the
app. Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a
burden.
The x is a small target. The Dock icon is larger.
Let's make a list of the ways to close an application you listed:
1) Instead of the one click you would need to close an application in Windows or on Linux, you suddenly need two: one for File, one for Quit.
It's not cumbersome, but needlessly annoying.
2) Instead of using one hand and navigating to the top-right to click on
the X, you suddenly need to use two fingers from your free hand to
achieve the same thing.
3) Apple has long convinced people that right-clicking is the Devil.
Suddenly, you're telling them to make a pact with Satan to have access
to closing an application from within the dock. If not a right-click,
you have to press a button on the keyboard while you click to do the
same thing as the second button would on a typical Windows or Linux
mouse. Yet again, more complicated than pressing the X at the top right corner.
4) Admittedly not a burden if you're already busy switching
applications. There is no problem here.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Apple makes closing an application needlessly annoying for no reason. Not one person clicking the red
circle on their first use of MacOS would want or expect it to do
anything other than completely close an application.
On 10/28/2025 5:57 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 11:14, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/28/2025 2:11 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 28, 2025 at 10:01:47 AM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10dqsts$26kfo$4@dont-email.me>:
1. [To completely exit a macOS app,] Select "Quit" from the
application menu (the menu with the same name
as the application that is always present and in the same place for
every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really >>>>> mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the
app.
Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a
burden.
Excellent summary. You can also use tools like QuitAll, Quitter, or
App Tamer
to quit apps if you are somehow unable to let go of the idea of apps
with no
windows -- which use VERY low resources -- being a problem for you.
Really the issue here is macOS offers an ADDED choice -- the choice
to leave
an app open even with no open windows. This ADDED choice is too much
for some.
So be it.
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the default.
Choice is generally good, though.
Because there is a cost to launching an application every time you
want to edit a new document.
For instance, I'm editing dozens of Word documents for a project.
I've got a modern M3 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM, and launching Word
by double-clicking on a document takes about 6 seconds.
While opening that same file when Word is already open takes about 1
second.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close the
last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully quit
every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes the same
5-6 seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I have
LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it running
without closing it out, if I close the main window that should exit it. Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that will execute it.
On 2025-10-28 17:57, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 11:14, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/28/2025 2:11 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 28, 2025 at 10:01:47 AM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10dqsts$26kfo$4@dont-email.me>:
1. [To completely exit a macOS app,] Select "Quit" from the
application menu (the menu with the same name as the
application that is always present and in the same place for
every application and which always contains a "Quit"
command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost
perfectly universal (except for applications that want to
make sure you really mean to execute a quit by adding the
requirement of holding the combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the
Dock and choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the
Command-tab feature for switching between open apps, use
Command-Q to quit the app. Your hand(s) could already be on
the keyboard, so it's hardly a burden.
Excellent summary. You can also use tools like QuitAll,
Quitter, or App Tamer to quit apps if you are somehow unable
to let go of the idea of apps with no windows -- which use
VERY low resources -- being a problem for you.
Really the issue here is macOS offers an ADDED choice -- the
choice to leave an app open even with no open windows. This
ADDED choice is too much for some. So be it.
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the
default. Choice is generally good, though.
Because there is a cost to launching an application every time
you want to edit a new document.
For instance, I'm editing dozens of Word documents for a project.
I've got a modern M3 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM, and launching
Word by double-clicking on a document takes about 6 seconds.
While opening that same file when Word is already open takes about
1 second.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close
the last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully
quit every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes
the same 5-6 seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
So Apple and MacOS assume that you want it to remain in memory
because they believe that you will continue to use the application
whereas Windows (and Linux) gives you the option to keep it loaded
by simply minimizing it after it's loaded, minimizing to tray if you
want it out of the way or push it over to a virtual desktop if you
want it loaded and ready to access but out of the way. One company
thinks that you don't have a brain and does the thinking for you,
the other one assumes that if you were able to purchase their
software, something up there is still functional.
It's sad to see that Apple thinks so little of its users. How long
before they start wiping your ass for you?
On 2025-10-27 14:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the
keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that something
that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, KDE,
Gnome,
XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you are
struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can
handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way people
could learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the
same thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden?
Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating
systems?
If you want choice, use Linux.
P.S. So how long did it take until iPhone users could use an alternate
browser as DEFAULT?
Meaning click on a link and something like Chrome or Firefox would open
the link instead of Safari.
Apple makes excellent products but having more choices is not in their
plans.
Do it the Apple way or take the highway.
Darn are you one stupid git snit.
Apple's products ARE a choice, you nitwit.
On 2025-10-28 14:53, Richard Bone wrote:
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I >>>>> like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans,
it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
How about a trans person who was born a female?
That is biology snit.
Yet another technical topic of which you know nothing
about.
Now if you would like to discuss mental illness and trans
then at least you are on the correct path.
And spare us the cherry picked cases of 0.000001% who
actually may be nature's mistake and born in the wrong
physical body.
The overwhelming number of trans people do not fit that
metric despite what the sicko left will claim.
You are obviously an Idiot.
There is more to biology than simply what chromosomes someone has.
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>, brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I
like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans,
it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
How about a trans person who was born a female?
That is biology snit.
On 10/28/2025 5:57 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 11:14, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/28/2025 2:11 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 28, 2025 at 10:01:47 AM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10dqsts$26kfo$4@dont-email.me>:
1. [To completely exit a macOS app,] Select "Quit" from theExcellent summary. You can also use tools like QuitAll, Quitter, or
application menu (the menu with the same name
as the application that is always present and in the same place for
every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really >>>>> mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the app. >>>>> Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a burden. >>>>
App Tamer
to quit apps if you are somehow unable to let go of the idea of apps
with no
windows -- which use VERY low resources -- being a problem for you.
Really the issue here is macOS offers an ADDED choice -- the choice
to leave
an app open even with no open windows. This ADDED choice is too much
for some.
So be it.
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the default.
Choice is generally good, though.
Because there is a cost to launching an application every time you want
to edit a new document.
For instance, I'm editing dozens of Word documents for a project.
I've got a modern M3 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM, and launching Word by
double-clicking on a document takes about 6 seconds.
While opening that same file when Word is already open takes about 1
second.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close the
last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully quit
every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes the same 5-6
seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I have
LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it running
without closing it out, if I close the main window that should exit it.
Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that will execute it.
On 2025-10-28 10:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 13:06, Alan wrote:Oh, I left out one thing (deliberately):
On 2025-10-28 06:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 00:25, Alan wrote:But I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks, asshole.
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
I like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not
perfect even though the thought of it gives you an erection the
way Richard Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
Yeah...
You're an asshole.
We all get that now.
I truly don't care, Alan. The very fact that you're unable to admit
to a single flaw in Apple's products makes you one too.
Which you just did in the previous post, asshole.
I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks...
...when they've shown they deserve it by making a personal attack on me...
...asshole.
On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 21:26:22 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-27 14:10, Anne M. Dean wrote:
On 27 Oct 2025 02:21:44 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 26, 2025 at 6:42:47 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<r6ALQ.1391124$ctz9.220396@fx16.iad>:
On 2025-10-26 20:58, Sn!pe wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[...]
It is one easy operation that always works.
How is that "needlessly annoying"?
Because if your hand is on the mouse, you don't want to have to
remove it to get onto the keyboard.
What are you doing with your other hand?
While it is obviously not that difficult to have one hand on the
keyboard while the other is on the mouse, the point is that something >>>>> that is trivial in other desktop environments like Windows, KDE,
Gnome,
XFCE or Cinnamon is needlessly unintuitive in MacOS.
What you are running into is macOS gives you more choice and you are
struggling with the added choices. Fair enough. Not all people can
handle more choices.
Sure, we can learn to just close with CTRL-Q the same way people
could learn to double-click on the hyphen in Windows 3.1 to do the
same thing, but it could be less annoying.
Some of us like more choices.
You like more choices yet you use Apple with their walled garden?
Do you actually know ANYTHING useful about computers and operating
systems?
If you want choice, use Linux.
P.S. So how long did it take until iPhone users could use an alternate
browser as DEFAULT?
Meaning click on a link and something like Chrome or Firefox would open
the link instead of Safari.
Apple makes excellent products but having more choices is not in their
plans.
Do it the Apple way or take the highway.
Darn are you one stupid git snit.
Apple's products ARE a choice, you nitwit.
Nice play on words.
I was referring to what choice is offered WITHIN each platform Alan. And
in that respect nothing comes close to Linux and none of the other OS are
as restrictive of user choice than Apple.I'm just tired of people who laud choice, but deny that people CHOOSE
But you know that. You just decided to behave like an asshole.
On 2025-10-28 14:53, Richard Bone wrote:
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>, brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I >>>> like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans,
it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
How about a trans person who was born a female?
That is biology snit.There is more to biology than simply what chromosomes someone has.
Yet another technical topic of which you know nothing
about.
Now if you would like to discuss mental illness and trans
then at least you are on the correct path.
And spare us the cherry picked cases of 0.000001% who
actually may be nature's mistake and born in the wrong
physical body.
The overwhelming number of trans people do not fit that
metric despite what the sicko left will claim.
You are obviously an Idiot.
On 2025-10-28 18:00, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 10:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 13:06, Alan wrote:Oh, I left out one thing (deliberately):
On 2025-10-28 06:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 00:25, Alan wrote:But I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks, asshole.
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
I like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not
perfect even though the thought of it gives you an erection the >>>>>>> way Richard Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
Yeah...
You're an asshole.
We all get that now.
I truly don't care, Alan. The very fact that you're unable to admit >>>>> to a single flaw in Apple's products makes you one too.
Which you just did in the previous post, asshole.
I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks...
...when they've shown they deserve it by making a personal attack on
me...
...asshole.
I'm sure you've noticed that I am making little to no effort to get your approval. When I was wrong, I said it but I won't start bending over to
your fruity overlords simply because you believe that using their
products requires total devotion to their choices. When they're good, I state it; when they're bad, I also state it.
Anyways, I've rambled on long enough.Much too long to bother with, Bigot.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
Let's make free software faggot-free.
On 2025-10-28 10:44, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 13:06, Alan wrote:Oh, I left out one thing (deliberately):
On 2025-10-28 06:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 00:25, Alan wrote:But I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks, asshole.
On 2025-10-27 15:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
I like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not
perfect even though the thought of it gives you an erection the way >>>>>> Richard Stallman in a dress does Joel Crump.
Yeah...
You're an asshole.
We all get that now.
I truly don't care, Alan. The very fact that you're unable to admit
to a single flaw in Apple's products makes you one too.
Which you just did in the previous post, asshole.
I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks...
...when they've shown they deserve it by making a personal attack on me...
...asshole.
On 2025-10-28 11:14, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/28/2025 2:11 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 28, 2025 at 10:01:47 AM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10dqsts$26kfo$4@dont-email.me>:
1. [To completely exit a macOS app,] Select "Quit" from theExcellent summary. You can also use tools like QuitAll, Quitter, or
application menu (the menu with the same name
as the application that is always present and in the same place for
every application and which always contains a "Quit" command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost perfectly
universal (except for applications that want to make sure you really
mean to execute a quit by adding the requirement of holding the
combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the Dock and
choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the Command-tab
feature for switching between open apps, use Command-Q to quit the app. >>>> Your hand(s) could already be on the keyboard, so it's hardly a burden. >>>
App Tamer
to quit apps if you are somehow unable to let go of the idea of apps
with no
windows -- which use VERY low resources -- being a problem for you.
Really the issue here is macOS offers an ADDED choice -- the choice to
leave
an app open even with no open windows. This ADDED choice is too much
for some.
So be it.
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the default.
Choice is generally good, though.
Because there is a cost to launching an application every time you want
to edit a new document.
For instance, I'm editing dozens of Word documents for a project.
I've got a modern M3 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM, and launching Word by double-clicking on a document takes about 6 seconds.
While opening that same file when Word is already open takes about 1 second.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close the
last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully quit
every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes the same 5-6 seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
We have gone through this and apparently you're too thick to get it:
YOU not liking how something is done doesn't automatically make it
"cumbersome".
And while macOS recently gained that ability, it had the ability from
forever to make a window expand to fill the entire screen.
I find the snapping function of both macOS AND Windows to be annoying,
because it wants to happen when I move a window too close to a corner
or edge of the screen.
You find it annoying because Apple didn't invent it. Had it been the
first to implement it, you'd be lauding the feature. We already know how
you operate. You are a zealot who kneels at the altar of Jobs.
Nope. Not in the slightest.
I find it annoying because it takes the decision out of my hands accidentally.
In my opinion, it's bad UI to make something that will act if I just get
too close to the edge of the screen.
In article <10dre9r$2et0v$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
On 2025-10-28 14:53, Richard Bone wrote:
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,There is more to biology than simply what chromosomes someone has.
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I >>>>>> like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans, >>>>> it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
How about a trans person who was born a female?
That is biology snit.
Yet another technical topic of which you know nothing
about.
Now if you would like to discuss mental illness and trans
then at least you are on the correct path.
And spare us the cherry picked cases of 0.000001% who
actually may be nature's mistake and born in the wrong
physical body.
The overwhelming number of trans people do not fit that
metric despite what the sicko left will claim.
You are obviously an Idiot.
Of course there is. It's known as a mental disease.
3) Apple has long convinced people that right-clicking is the Devil.
Nope. Utter bullshit. Apple added right-click to macOS in Mac OS 8...
...in 1997.
Suddenly, you're telling them to make a pact with Satan to have
access to closing an application from within the dock. If not a right-
click, you have to press a button on the keyboard while you click to
do the same thing as the second button would on a typical Windows or
Linux mouse. Yet again, more complicated than pressing the X at the
top right corner.
Or long-press. One finger, no two-button mouse necessary, nor a modifier key.
4) Admittedly not a burden if you're already busy switching
applications. There is no problem here.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Apple makes closing an application
needlessly annoying for no reason. Not one person clicking the red
circle on their first use of MacOS would want or expect it to do
anything other than completely close an application.
Nope.
Not what you're used to is not automatically "annoying".
In article <10dre9r$2et0v$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
On 2025-10-28 14:53, Richard Bone wrote:
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,There is more to biology than simply what chromosomes someone has.
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I >>>>>> like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans, >>>>> it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
How about a trans person who was born a female?
That is biology snit.
Yet another technical topic of which you know nothing
about.
Now if you would like to discuss mental illness and trans
then at least you are on the correct path.
And spare us the cherry picked cases of 0.000001% who
actually may be nature's mistake and born in the wrong
physical body.
The overwhelming number of trans people do not fit that
metric despite what the sicko left will claim.
You are obviously an Idiot.
Of course there is. It's known as a mental disease.
in that respect nothing comes close to Linux and none of the other OS are
And nothing comes close to requiring as much effort as Linux to get it
to usable.
as restrictive of user choice than Apple.I'm just tired of people who laud choice, but deny that people CHOOSE
But you know that. You just decided to behave like an asshole.
Apple products.
On 2025-10-28 15:45, Richard Bone wrote:
In article <10dre9r$2et0v$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
On 2025-10-28 14:53, Richard Bone wrote:
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,There is more to biology than simply what chromosomes someone has.
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been >>>>>>> released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>>>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I >>>>>>> like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>>>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>>>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans, >>>>>> it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
How about a trans person who was born a female?
That is biology snit.
Yet another technical topic of which you know nothing
about.
Now if you would like to discuss mental illness and trans
then at least you are on the correct path.
And spare us the cherry picked cases of 0.000001% who
actually may be nature's mistake and born in the wrong
physical body.
The overwhelming number of trans people do not fit that
metric despite what the sicko left will claim.
You are obviously an Idiot.
Of course there is. It's known as a mental disease.
Nope. It's known by actual experts as differences in the way genetic information is expressed.
On 2025-10-28 15:25, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 17:57, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 11:14, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/28/2025 2:11 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 28, 2025 at 10:01:47 AM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10dqsts$26kfo$4@dont-email.me>:
1. [To completely exit a macOS app,] Select "Quit" from the
application menu (the menu with the same name as the
application that is always present and in the same place for
every application and which always contains a "Quit"
command).
2. Use the keyboard shortcut, Command-Q; which is almost
perfectly universal (except for applications that want to
make sure you really mean to execute a quit by adding the
requirement of holding the combination for a short period)
3. Right-click or long-press the application's icon in the
Dock and choose "Quit" from the menu that pops up.
4. Without bringing the app into focus while using the
Command-tab feature for switching between open apps, use
Command-Q to quit the app. Your hand(s) could already be on
the keyboard, so it's hardly a burden.
Excellent summary. You can also use tools like QuitAll,
Quitter, or App Tamer to quit apps if you are somehow unable
to let go of the idea of apps with no windows -- which use
VERY low resources -- being a problem for you.
Really the issue here is macOS offers an ADDED choice -- the
choice to leave an app open even with no open windows. This
ADDED choice is too much for some. So be it.
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the
default. Choice is generally good, though.
Because there is a cost to launching an application every time
you want to edit a new document.
For instance, I'm editing dozens of Word documents for a project.
I've got a modern M3 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM, and launching
Word by double-clicking on a document takes about 6 seconds.
While opening that same file when Word is already open takes about
1 second.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close
the last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully
quit every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes
the same 5-6 seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
So Apple and MacOS assume that you want it to remain in memory
because they believe that you will continue to use the application
whereas Windows (and Linux) gives you the option to keep it loaded
by simply minimizing it after it's loaded, minimizing to tray if you
want it out of the way or push it over to a virtual desktop if you
want it loaded and ready to access but out of the way. One company
thinks that you don't have a brain and does the thinking for you,
the other one assumes that if you were able to purchase their
software, something up there is still functional.
It's sad to see that Apple thinks so little of its users. How long
before they start wiping your ass for you?
What are the steps required to keep Word open without a document open?
How do you do it?
I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks...
...when they've shown they deserve it by making a personal attack on
me...
...asshole.
I'm sure you've noticed that I am making little to no effort to get
your approval. When I was wrong, I said it but I won't start bending
over to your fruity overlords simply because you believe that using
their products requires total devotion to their choices. When they're
good, I state it; when they're bad, I also state it.
My "fruity overlords""
Really: that says everything I need to know about you.
<snip>
Anyways, I've rambled on long enough.Much too long to bother with, Bigot.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
Let's make free software faggot-free.
You get that Jesus wasn't white...
..right?
It doesn't hold water that you can learn an easy gesture so that youOf course!Awkward to you doesn't mean that it's bad, right?Apple has a hard time with very basic UI features.No.
YOU have a hard time realizing different isn't worse.
The iOS method is awkward to me, it's OK with me if you like it
better.
I mean, if you like it better, that's OK with me. It's just
difficult to understand. You talk about screen real estate, which
is marginally a fair point, but I don't miss that space using my
Samsung.
Because you reflexively attack what you don't understand!
I understand the points you've made, they just don't hold water in my
book.
don't need to use screen real estate at all times...
...for something you don't use at all times?
On 2025-10-28 18:25, Alan wrote:
<snip >
3) Apple has long convinced people that right-clicking is the Devil.
Nope. Utter bullshit. Apple added right-click to macOS in Mac OS 8...
...in 1997.
I never said that it didn't support right-clicking; I said that it
actively discouraged people from right-clicking by making all touchpads
and mice provided with their machines have a single button.
You could
get a different mouse afterwards and get the functionality, but Apple
didn't provide it by default. For the company, it was more convenient to click that one button simultaneously with a key to accomplish the same
thing.
Suddenly, you're telling them to make a pact with Satan to have
access to closing an application from within the dock. If not a right-
click, you have to press a button on the keyboard while you click to
do the same thing as the second button would on a typical Windows or
Linux mouse. Yet again, more complicated than pressing the X at the
top right corner.
Or long-press. One finger, no two-button mouse necessary, nor a modifier
key.
Are you saying that if a user presses clicks the red button and holds
the clicks for a certain period of time, the application completely
removes itself from memory? If that's the case, I wasn't aware.
4) Admittedly not a burden if you're already busy switching
applications. There is no problem here.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Apple makes closing an application
needlessly annoying for no reason. Not one person clicking the red
circle on their first use of MacOS would want or expect it to do
anything other than completely close an application.
Nope.
Not what you're used to is not automatically "annoying".
Say that to the people who routinely return their machines in favour of
a Windows one citing annoyance with MacOS.
Granted, there is an equal or
larger number of users doing the reverse, but the fact remains that
people do find some of the operating system's behaviour to be cumbersome.
No. It's just what you're used to.The x is a small target. The Dock icon is larger.
How much is Apple paying you for all this? I hope you at least got
a free computer, or something. I can't believe you would so
consistently defend bizarre UI features. Clicking the close button
on the app window should exit the app, that is intuitive and logical.
Why should I have to relaunch an app when I'm working on file after
file?
You don't, as far as I know, I don't in Windows at least.
Yes, you do.
If you close the last Word document, the application quits.
You've been insisting that that is better.
On 10/28/2025 6:17 PM, Alan wrote:
It doesn't hold water that you can learn an easy gesture so that youOf course!Awkward to you doesn't mean that it's bad, right?Apple has a hard time with very basic UI features.No.
YOU have a hard time realizing different isn't worse.
The iOS method is awkward to me, it's OK with me if you like it >>>>>>> better.
I mean, if you like it better, that's OK with me. It's just
difficult to understand. You talk about screen real estate, which >>>>> is marginally a fair point, but I don't miss that space using my
Samsung.
Because you reflexively attack what you don't understand!
I understand the points you've made, they just don't hold water in my
book.
don't need to use screen real estate at all times...
...for something you don't use at all times?
I don't miss the screen space on my phone. In fact, I would rather give that up to get the button.That makes no sense at all.
On 2025-10-28 18:45, Alan wrote:
< snip >
I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks...
...when they've shown they deserve it by making a personal attack on
me...
...asshole.
I'm sure you've noticed that I am making little to no effort to get
your approval. When I was wrong, I said it but I won't start bending
over to your fruity overlords simply because you believe that using
their products requires total devotion to their choices. When they're
good, I state it; when they're bad, I also state it.
My "fruity overlords""
Really: that says everything I need to know about you.
Oh no! Homosexuals deserve to be respected in seeking to groom our
children and convince them that they need puberty blockers and to
eventually put their genitals in the rubbish bin! Whatever was I
thinking when I offended the people who want the most innocent elements
of society to sterilize themselves in the most horrific way!
<snip>
Anyways, I've rambled on long enough.Much too long to bother with, Bigot.
I assure you that I'm crying right now. I can't imagine how I will ever
come back from being called a bigot!
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
Let's make free software faggot-free.
You get that Jesus wasn't white...
..right?
Pontius Pilate described Jesus as having a golden-coloured beard and
hair which contrasted heavily with the typical black beard of the people around him and their darker complexions. The Archko volume says the same
in mentioning that his hair was the colour of new wine and mentions that
he had soft blue eyes. The people who claim that He wasn't white are
people who have no knowledge of historical records and who make stuff up
to push their "social justice" idiocy. Furthermore, I love Jesus because
of who He is and what He did, not how he looks.
Some will say that it is "impossible" because He was from the MiddleBut the important thing is your need to believe that Jesus was white...
East all the while ignoring that as God, He can take whatever form He wishes.
On Oct 28, 2025 at 2:53:12PM MST, "Richard Bone" wrote <MPG.436b055296a9523d989692@usnews.blocknews.net>:
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>, brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I >>>> like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans,
it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
It varies by person, and gender is not just about chromosomes. It is about genes (the SrY gene and others, about hormones, about hormone blockers, about hormone receptors, and much more).
How about a trans person who was born a female?
Same idea.
That is biology snit.
Correct. And yet you reject it for your bigotry. Remember, it is those of us who are NOT bigots who respect the biology and the science. You reject it to push hatred.
In article <69014507$1$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>, brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 28, 2025 at 2:53:12 PM MST, "Richard Bone" wrote
<MPG.436b055296a9523d989692@usnews.blocknews.net>:
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I >>>>>> like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans, >>>>> it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
It varies by person, and gender is not just about chromosomes. It is about >> genes (the SrY gene and others, about hormones, about hormone blockers, about
hormone receptors, and much more).
How about a trans person who was born a female?
Same idea.
That is biology snit.
Correct. And yet you reject it for your bigotry. Remember, it is those of us >> who are NOT bigots who respect the biology and the science. You reject it to >> push hatred.
Hatred?
Bigotry?
Follow the science?
That one is laughable. See COVID for examples.
So why are numerous hospitals now refusing to perform
trans surgery?
So much for following the science.
If the best you can come up with is the bigotry, hate
argument it means you have nothing worthwhile to present
as evidence of your beliefs.
IOw, you are yet another liberal, lying, mental case.
On Oct 28, 2025 at 2:58:19PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10dre9r$2et0v$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-10-28 14:53, Richard Bone wrote:
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I >>>>> like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans, >>>> it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
How about a trans person who was born a female?
That is biology snit.
Yet another technical topic of which you know nothing
about.
Now if you would like to discuss mental illness and trans
then at least you are on the correct path.
And spare us the cherry picked cases of 0.000001% who
actually may be nature's mistake and born in the wrong
physical body.
The overwhelming number of trans people do not fit that
metric despite what the sicko left will claim.
You are obviously an Idiot.
There is more to biology than simply what chromosomes someone has.
By far. Here... though the bigots will never accept the science:
On 2025-10-28 18:45, Alan wrote:
<snip >
I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks...
...when they've shown they deserve it by making a personal attack on
me...
...asshole.
I'm sure you've noticed that I am making little to no effort to get
your approval. When I was wrong, I said it but I won't start bending
over to your fruity overlords simply because you believe that using
their products requires total devotion to their choices. When they're
good, I state it; when they're bad, I also state it.
My "fruity overlords""
Really: that says everything I need to know about you.
Oh no! Homosexuals deserve to be respected in seeking to groom our
children and convince them that they need puberty blockers and to
eventually put their genitals in the rubbish bin! Whatever was I
thinking when I offended the people who want the most innocent elements
of society to sterilize themselves in the most horrific way!
In article <690144b3$1$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>, brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 28, 2025 at 2:58:19 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10dre9r$2et0v$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-10-28 14:53, Richard Bone wrote:
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been >>>>>>> released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>>>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I >>>>>>> like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>>>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>>>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans, >>>>>> it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
How about a trans person who was born a female?
That is biology snit.
Yet another technical topic of which you know nothing
about.
Now if you would like to discuss mental illness and trans
then at least you are on the correct path.
And spare us the cherry picked cases of 0.000001% who
actually may be nature's mistake and born in the wrong
physical body.
The overwhelming number of trans people do not fit that
metric despite what the sicko left will claim.
You are obviously an Idiot.
There is more to biology than simply what chromosomes someone has.
By far. Here... though the bigots will never accept the science:
Well then maybe you can explain the many people who have
been talked into gender-affirmation surgery and regret it
so they want to de-transistion.
In article <69014507$1$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>, brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 28, 2025 at 2:53:12 PM MST, "Richard Bone" wrote
<MPG.436b055296a9523d989692@usnews.blocknews.net>:
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been
released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I >>>>>> like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans, >>>>> it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
It varies by person, and gender is not just about chromosomes. It is about >> genes (the SrY gene and others, about hormones, about hormone blockers, about
hormone receptors, and much more).
How about a trans person who was born a female?
Same idea.
That is biology snit.
Correct. And yet you reject it for your bigotry. Remember, it is those of us >> who are NOT bigots who respect the biology and the science. You reject it to >> push hatred.
Hatred?
Bigotry?
Follow the science?
That one is laughable. See COVID for examples.
So why are numerous hospitals now refusing to perform
trans surgery?
So much for following the science.--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
If the best you can come up with is the bigotry, hate
argument it means you have nothing worthwhile to present
as evidence of your beliefs.
IOw, you are yet another liberal, lying, mental case.
In article <690144b3$1$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>, brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 28, 2025 at 2:58:19 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10dre9r$2et0v$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-10-28 14:53, Richard Bone wrote:
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been >>>>>>> released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most
complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>>>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I >>>>>>> like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even >>>>>>> though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman >>>>>>> in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans, >>>>>> it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
How about a trans person who was born a female?
That is biology snit.
Yet another technical topic of which you know nothing
about.
Now if you would like to discuss mental illness and trans
then at least you are on the correct path.
And spare us the cherry picked cases of 0.000001% who
actually may be nature's mistake and born in the wrong
physical body.
The overwhelming number of trans people do not fit that
metric despite what the sicko left will claim.
You are obviously an Idiot.
There is more to biology than simply what chromosomes someone has.
By far. Here... though the bigots will never accept the science:
A lot of good info with 233 sources (extra credit if you find the typo!):
https://youtu.be/szf4hzQ5ztg
Quick summary of the whole it all comes down to XX/XY claims:
https://www.tiktok.com/@renegadescienceteacher/video/6842833187891055877
More details from authoritative sources:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender/
-----
Sex is supposed to be simple—at least at the molecular level. The biological
explanations that appear in textbooks amount to X + X = and X + Y = . Venus or
Mars, pink or blue. As science looks more closely, however, it becomes
increasingly clear that a pair of chromosomes do not always suffice to
distinguish girl/boy—either from the standpoint of sex (biological traits) or
of gender (social identity).
-----
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
-----
Even more scientifically complex is a mismatch between gender and the sex on a
person’s birth certificate. Some evidence suggests that transgender identity
has genetic or hormonal roots, but its exact biological correlates are
unclear. Whatever the cause, organizations such as the American Academy of >> Pediatrics advise physicians to treat people according to their preferred
gender, regardless of appearance or genetics.
The research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and
female, and gender as a spectrum that includes transgender people and those >> who identify as neither male nor female. The US administration’s proposal >> would ignore that expert consensus.
-----
https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html#:~:text=Genetic%20Components%20of%20Sex%20and,and%20most%20men%20are%2046XY
-----
The process of biological sex differentiation (development of a given sex) >> involves many genetically regulated, hierarchical developmental steps.
...
Gender, typically described in terms of masculinity and femininity, is a
social construction that varies across different cultures and over time. (6) >> There are a number of cultures, for example, in which greater gender diversity
exists and sex and gender are not always neatly divided along binary lines >> such as male and female or homosexual and heterosexual. The Berdache in North
America, the fa’afafine (Samoan for “the way of a woman”) in the Pacific, and
the kathoey in Thailand are all examples of different gender categories that >> differ from the traditional Western division of people into males and females.
Further, among certain North American native communities, gender is seen more
in terms of a continuum than categories, with special acknowledgement of
“two-spirited” people who encompass both masculine and feminine qualities and
characteristics. It is apparent, then, that different cultures have taken
different approaches to creating gender distinctions, with more or less
recognition of fluidity and complexity of gender.
-----
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/think-gender-comes-down-to-x-and-y-chromosomes-think-again/article24811543/
-----
Think gender comes down to X and Y chromosomes? Think again
...
But biology doesn't work that way. Biological phenomena don't necessarily fit
into human-ordained binary categories. So while humans insist that you're
either male or female – that you have either XY or XX sex chromosomes – >> biology begs to differ.
...
So what's the answer? There isn't one, at least if we're looking for the
answer in biology. We must not fall back on biology. Rather, we must always >> remember that it is we, not biology, who decide who counts as male or female.
And it is we who must take responsibility for our decisions.
-----
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/content/two-spirits_map-html/
-----
On nearly every continent, and for all of recorded history, thriving cultures
have recognized, revered, and integrated more than two genders. Terms such as
“transgender” and “gay” are strictly new constructs that assume three things:
that there are only two sexes (male/female), as many as two sexualities
(gay/straight), and only two genders (man/woman).
Yet hundreds of distinct societies around the globe have their own
long-established traditions for third, fourth, fifth, or more genders. The >> subject of Two Spirits, Fred Martinez, for example, was not a boy who wanted >> to be a girl, but both a boy and a girl — an identity his Navajo culture >> recognized and revered as nádleehí. Meanwhile, Hina of Kumu Hina is part of a
a native Hawaiian culture that has traditionally revered and respected mahu, >> those who embody both male and female spirit.
Most Western societies have no direct correlation for this tradition, nor for
the many other communities without strict either/or conceptions of sex,
sexuality, and gender. Worldwide, the sheer variety of gender expression is >> almost limitless. Take a tour and learn how other cultures see gender
diversity.
-----
http://usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html
-----
During the early 1970s, Dr. Julianne Imperato, a Cornell endocrinologist,
conducted an expedition to the Dominican Republic to investigate reports of an
isolated village where children appearing to be girls turned into men at
puberty. In the village, these children were known as 'guevedoces' (literally,
penis at 12 years). Also known locally as machihembras ('first women, then >> man'), these pseudohermaphrodites were documented serially in the following >> photographs published originally in the American Journal of Medicne (Am. J. >> Med. 62: 170-191, 1977):
-----
Well then maybe you can explain the many people who have
been talked into gender-affirmation surgery and regret it
so they want to de-transistion.
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the default.
Choice is generally good, though.
Because there is a cost to launching an application every time you
want to edit a new document.
For instance, I'm editing dozens of Word documents for a project.
I've got a modern M3 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM, and launching Word
by double-clicking on a document takes about 6 seconds.
While opening that same file when Word is already open takes about 1
second.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close
the last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully quit
every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes the same
5-6 seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I
have LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it
running without closing it out, if I close the main window that should
exit it. Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that will
execute it.
What word processor is that?
On 10/28/2025 6:25 PM, Alan wrote:
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the default.
Choice is generally good, though.
Because there is a cost to launching an application every time you
want to edit a new document.
For instance, I'm editing dozens of Word documents for a project.
I've got a modern M3 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM, and launching
Word by double-clicking on a document takes about 6 seconds.
While opening that same file when Word is already open takes about 1
second.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close
the last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully quit
every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes the same
5-6 seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I
have LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it
running without closing it out, if I close the main window that
should exit it. Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that
will execute it.
What word processor is that?
On further investigation, I started to realize what you were saying,
leaving a blank document open isn't the same as having the shell of LO
open (minimizing such will exit it, apparently). Nevertheless, leaving
a blank document open is an option.
On 2025-10-28 16:56, Richard Bone wrote:
In article <690144b3$1$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 28, 2025 at 2:58:19 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10dre9r$2et0v$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-10-28 14:53, Richard Bone wrote:
In article <690021c3$3$4167$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
On Oct 27, 2025 at 5:31:53 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z9ULQ.776167$80J6.507406@fx12.iad>:
On 10/27/2025 6:47 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'm familiar with every commercial operating system that has been >>>>>>>> released since the late 80s and Linux. While Linux is the most >>>>>>>> complicated and Windows the most prone to corruption, MacOS is the one >>>>>>>> which makes simple things cumbersome and cumbersome things simple. I >>>>>>>> like most of them, but there is no doubt that MacOS is not perfect even
though the thought of it gives you an erection the way Richard Stallman
in a dress does Joel Crump.
He's not trans, dipshit. You can't just decide to say you're trans, >>>>>>> it's an innate characteristic, they're born that way, phobe.
Right wingers do not respect biology.
So what chromosomes does a trans person who was born a
male have?
How about a trans person who was born a female?
That is biology snit.
Yet another technical topic of which you know nothing
about.
Now if you would like to discuss mental illness and trans
then at least you are on the correct path.
And spare us the cherry picked cases of 0.000001% who
actually may be nature's mistake and born in the wrong
physical body.
The overwhelming number of trans people do not fit that
metric despite what the sicko left will claim.
You are obviously an Idiot.
There is more to biology than simply what chromosomes someone has.
By far. Here... though the bigots will never accept the science:
Well then maybe you can explain the many people who have
been talked into gender-affirmation surgery and regret it
so they want to de-transistion.
Sure. How many are there?
On 10/28/2025 6:25 PM, Alan wrote:
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the default.
Choice is generally good, though.
Because there is a cost to launching an application every time you
want to edit a new document.
For instance, I'm editing dozens of Word documents for a project.
I've got a modern M3 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM, and launching Word
by double-clicking on a document takes about 6 seconds.
While opening that same file when Word is already open takes about 1
second.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close
the last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully quit
every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes the same
5-6 seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I
have LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it
running without closing it out, if I close the main window that should
exit it. Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that will
execute it.
What word processor is that?
On further investigation, I started to realize what you were saying,
leaving a blank document open isn't the same as having the shell of LO
open (minimizing such will exit it, apparently). Nevertheless, leaving
a blank document open is an option.
On Oct 28, 2025 at 3:04:41 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote <Z5bMQ.611722$Tux4.102590@fx11.iad>:
On 10/28/2025 5:57 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 11:14, Joel W. Crump wrote:
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the default.
Choice is generally good, though.
Because there is a cost to launching an application every time you want
to edit a new document.
For instance, I'm editing dozens of Word documents for a project.
I've got a modern M3 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM, and launching Word by >>> double-clicking on a document takes about 6 seconds.
While opening that same file when Word is already open takes about 1
second.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close the
last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully quit
every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes the same 5-6
seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I have
LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it running
without closing it out, if I close the main window that should exit it.
Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that will execute it.
Why should it close? What is the benefit? What is the benefit for it to NOT close? What are the tradeoffs?
On 2025-10-28 15:41, CrudeSausage wrote:
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
Let's make free software faggot-free.
You get that Jesus wasn't white...
..right?
On 10/28/2025 6:38 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 28, 2025 at 3:04:41 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<Z5bMQ.611722$Tux4.102590@fx11.iad>:
On 10/28/2025 5:57 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 11:14, Joel W. Crump wrote:
I think the question to me is why fully exiting isn't the default.
Choice is generally good, though.
Because there is a cost to launching an application every time you want >>>> to edit a new document.
For instance, I'm editing dozens of Word documents for a project.
I've got a modern M3 MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM, and launching Word by >>>> double-clicking on a document takes about 6 seconds.
While opening that same file when Word is already open takes about 1
second.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close the >>>> last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully quit
every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes the same 5-6 >>>> seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I have
LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it running
without closing it out, if I close the main window that should exit it.
Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that will execute it.
Why should it close? What is the benefit? What is the benefit for it to NOT >> close? What are the tradeoffs?
The example of a word processor app is a good one in this context, it's
true - it's the kind of app that could benefit from Apple's method. But
this method applies to all kinds of apps, in macOS. Perhaps the theory
is that virtual memory will store anything that goes unused, not a bad theory, but it takes away control from the user, is I think what we're
having an issue with. Having clear control of apps is something a lot
of users want.
On 2025-10-28 16:32, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/28/2025 6:17 PM, Alan wrote:That makes no sense at all.
It doesn't hold water that you can learn an easy gesture so that youOf course!Awkward to you doesn't mean that it's bad, right?Apple has a hard time with very basic UI features.No.
YOU have a hard time realizing different isn't worse.
The iOS method is awkward to me, it's OK with me if you like it >>>>>>>> better.
I mean, if you like it better, that's OK with me. It's just
difficult to understand. You talk about screen real estate, which >>>>>> is marginally a fair point, but I don't miss that space using my
Samsung.
Because you reflexively attack what you don't understand!
I understand the points you've made, they just don't hold water in
my book.
don't need to use screen real estate at all times...
...for something you don't use at all times?
I don't miss the screen space on my phone. In fact, I would rather
give that up to get the button.
The gesture is no more difficult to use than the button. You just have
to know it. That takes literally 5 seconds when you first get the phone.
After that, you get the space all the time for absolutely no loss of functionality.
That makes no sense at all.you can learn an easy gesture so that you
don't need to use screen real estate at all times...
...for something you don't use at all times?
I don't miss the screen space on my phone. In fact, I would rather
give that up to get the button.
The gesture is no more difficult to use than the button. You just have
to know it. That takes literally 5 seconds when you first get the phone.
After that, you get the space all the time for absolutely no loss of functionality.
On 2025-10-28 16:29, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 18:45, Alan wrote:
< snip >
I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks...
...when they've shown they deserve it by making a personal attack
on me...
...asshole.
I'm sure you've noticed that I am making little to no effort to get
your approval. When I was wrong, I said it but I won't start bending
over to your fruity overlords simply because you believe that using
their products requires total devotion to their choices. When
they're good, I state it; when they're bad, I also state it.
My "fruity overlords""
Really: that says everything I need to know about you.
Oh no! Homosexuals deserve to be respected in seeking to groom our
children and convince them that they need puberty blockers and to
eventually put their genitals in the rubbish bin! Whatever was I
thinking when I offended the people who want the most innocent
elements of society to sterilize themselves in the most horrific way!
You're literally making up shit that doesn't happen...
...but that's irrelevant...
...because all I'm pointing out your attempt to denigrate me.
Pontius Pilate described Jesus as having a golden-coloured beard and
hair which contrasted heavily with the typical black beard of the
people around him and their darker complexions. The Archko volume says
the same in mentioning that his hair was the colour of new wine and
mentions that he had soft blue eyes. The people who claim that He
wasn't white are people who have no knowledge of historical records
and who make stuff up to push their "social justice" idiocy.
Furthermore, I love Jesus because of who He is and what He did, not
how he looks.
In a book written... ...when?
Some will say that it is "impossible" because He was from the MiddleBut the important thing is your need to believe that Jesus was white...
East all the while ignoring that as God, He can take whatever form He
wishes.
...because to think otherwise is have to acknowledge your own bigotry.
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close
the last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully quit >>>>> every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes the same >>>>> 5-6 seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I
have LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it
running without closing it out, if I close the main window that
should exit it. Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that
will execute it.
What word processor is that?
On further investigation, I started to realize what you were saying,
leaving a blank document open isn't the same as having the shell of LO
open (minimizing such will exit it, apparently). Nevertheless,
leaving a blank document open is an option.
Sounds very intuitive!
Leave a document you don't need open to keep other documents loading quickly!
LOL!
On Oct 28, 2025 at 5:02:26 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10drlij$2hkcp$8@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-10-28 16:56, Richard Bone wrote:
Well then maybe you can explain the many people who have
been talked into gender-affirmation surgery and regret it
so they want to de-transistion.
Sure. How many are there?
About 1%. And that is showing signs of regret. Reversal is FAR less common than that.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33968550/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38685500/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2808129
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33968550/
This is much lower than most surgeries.
On Oct 28, 2025 at 5:06:26 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote <6UcMQ.778228$80J6.337693@fx12.iad>:
On 10/28/2025 6:25 PM, Alan wrote:
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I
have LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it
running without closing it out, if I close the main window that should >>>> exit it. Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that will
execute it.
What word processor is that?
On further investigation, I started to realize what you were saying,
leaving a blank document open isn't the same as having the shell of LO
open (minimizing such will exit it, apparently). Nevertheless, leaving
a blank document open is an option.
Minimizing will exit it?
On 10/28/2025 7:45 PM, Alan wrote:
That makes no sense at all.you can learn an easy gesture so that you don't need to use screen
real estate at all times...
...for something you don't use at all times?
I don't miss the screen space on my phone. In fact, I would rather
give that up to get the button.
The gesture is no more difficult to use than the button. You just have
to know it. That takes literally 5 seconds when you first get the phone.
After that, you get the space all the time for absolutely no loss of
functionality.
I would get weary of doing the swipe trick, just to be able to
multitask. The button is needed, for my sanity in using the device. Samsung groks that.
On 2025-10-28 19:48, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 16:29, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 18:45, Alan wrote:
< snip >
I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks...
...when they've shown they deserve it by making a personal attack >>>>>> on me...
...asshole.
I'm sure you've noticed that I am making little to no effort to get >>>>> your approval. When I was wrong, I said it but I won't start
bending over to your fruity overlords simply because you believe
that using their products requires total devotion to their choices. >>>>> When they're good, I state it; when they're bad, I also state it.
My "fruity overlords""
Really: that says everything I need to know about you.
Oh no! Homosexuals deserve to be respected in seeking to groom our
children and convince them that they need puberty blockers and to
eventually put their genitals in the rubbish bin! Whatever was I
thinking when I offended the people who want the most innocent
elements of society to sterilize themselves in the most horrific way!
You're literally making up shit that doesn't happen...
...but that's irrelevant...
...because all I'm pointing out your attempt to denigrate me.
Everything I mentioned is indeed happening. Here is just one relic media attempt to downplay it: <https://globalnews.ca/news/6399468/bc-gender- change-court/> . Heck, he got six months in prison for speaking out
against it: <https://genderreport.ca/bc-father-in-prison-for-speaking- out-about-daughters-medical-transition/>. The homosexuals and the
demonic pedophiles of the left are behind the process of going to
schools and convincing children that it's cool to do so whether you want
to admit it or not. Just because the relic media you rely on chooses not
to report it doesn't mean that it's not happening. Way to reveal that
you're affiliated with the demonic pedophiles though (but let's keep pretending that you never revealed that you're a flaming leftist, ol'
chap).
Pontius Pilate described Jesus as having a golden-coloured beard and
hair which contrasted heavily with the typical black beard of the
people around him and their darker complexions. The Archko volume
says the same in mentioning that his hair was the colour of new wine
and mentions that he had soft blue eyes. The people who claim that He
wasn't white are people who have no knowledge of historical records
and who make stuff up to push their "social justice" idiocy.
Furthermore, I love Jesus because of who He is and what He did, not
how he looks.
In a book written... ...when?
They were circulated during the days of the early church but I doubt
anyone could say exactly when they were written.
Read your own words...Some will say that it is "impossible" because He was from the MiddleBut the important thing is your need to believe that Jesus was white...
East all the while ignoring that as God, He can take whatever form He
wishes.
...because to think otherwise is have to acknowledge your own bigotry.
Your belief that I think whiteness is a pre-requisite to being a good
person is ridiculous. While black culture is repulsive and muhammedans
are a scourge on Western Civilization, there is no doubt that there is a handful of people from their culture which contributed to society
positively rather than destroy it.
Unlike on the Mac, we have the freedom not to use sway. On MacOS, you're
at the mercy of what some Alan-like knobs at Apple decided was best.
On 10/28/2025 8:07 PM, Alan wrote:
I have the option on a Mac to either leave Word open after I close >>>>>> the last document OR leave it running.
With Word for Windows, I have no option but to have Word fully
quit every time I close the last open document, and my PC takes
the same 5-6 seconds to open a file from a cold start.
So which OS is offering more choices?
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I
have LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it
running without closing it out, if I close the main window that
should exit it. Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that
will execute it.
What word processor is that?
On further investigation, I started to realize what you were saying,
leaving a blank document open isn't the same as having the shell of
LO open (minimizing such will exit it, apparently). Nevertheless,
leaving a blank document open is an option.
Sounds very intuitive!
Leave a document you don't need open to keep other documents loading
quickly!
LOL!
If I don't minimize LO's shell, it will remain open, the thing is that
the blank document keeps a *specific* component of the suite running.
It's not as counterintuitive as it sounds in this debate, I'm imaginingKeep your mind empty of any new ideas!
that MS Office isn't entirely different with how this would work, that there's a launcher shell when no document is open, but I'm not gonna download the free trial to find out, I already know what I prefer.
On 10/28/2025 8:09 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 28, 2025 at 5:06:26 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<6UcMQ.778228$80J6.337693@fx12.iad>:
On 10/28/2025 6:25 PM, Alan wrote:
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I
have LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it
running without closing it out, if I close the main window that should >>>>> exit it. Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that will
execute it.
What word processor is that?
On further investigation, I started to realize what you were saying,
leaving a blank document open isn't the same as having the shell of LO
open (minimizing such will exit it, apparently). Nevertheless, leaving >>> a blank document open is an option.
Minimizing will exit it?
So it appeared, yeah. I had never encountered this before discussing it here, I just leave a blank LO Writer document open for quick access when
I need to create a plain-text PDF (I don't own a physical printer).
Everything I mentioned is indeed happening. Here is just one relic
media attempt to downplay it: <https://globalnews.ca/news/6399468/bc-
gender- change-court/> . Heck, he got six months in prison for
speaking out against it: <https://genderreport.ca/bc-father-in-prison-
for-speaking- out-about-daughters-medical-transition/>. The
homosexuals and the demonic pedophiles of the left are behind the
process of going to schools and convincing children that it's cool to
do so whether you want to admit it or not. Just because the relic
media you rely on chooses not to report it doesn't mean that it's not
happening. Way to reveal that you're affiliated with the demonic
pedophiles though (but let's keep pretending that you never revealed
that you're a flaming leftist, ol' chap).
Way to miss the point.
Pontius Pilate described Jesus as having a golden-coloured beard and
hair which contrasted heavily with the typical black beard of the
people around him and their darker complexions. The Archko volume
says the same in mentioning that his hair was the colour of new wine
and mentions that he had soft blue eyes. The people who claim that
He wasn't white are people who have no knowledge of historical
records and who make stuff up to push their "social justice" idiocy.
Furthermore, I love Jesus because of who He is and what He did, not
how he looks.
In a book written... ...when?
They were circulated during the days of the early church but I doubt
anyone could say exactly when they were written.
Known to be written LONG after the events of Jesus's life...
...if he even really existed.
Read your own words...Some will say that it is "impossible" because He was from the MiddleBut the important thing is your need to believe that Jesus was white...
East all the while ignoring that as God, He can take whatever form
He wishes.
...because to think otherwise is have to acknowledge your own bigotry.
Your belief that I think whiteness is a pre-requisite to being a good
person is ridiculous. While black culture is repulsive and muhammedans
are a scourge on Western Civilization, there is no doubt that there is
a handful of people from their culture which contributed to society
positively rather than destroy it.
...you utterly horrid ignorant bigot.
Deal with it:
Jesus was of the same race that you now denigrate.
On 2025-10-28 21:11, Alan wrote:
Everything I mentioned is indeed happening. Here is just one relic
media attempt to downplay it: <https://globalnews.ca/news/6399468/bc-gender-
change-court/> . Heck, he got six months in prison for
speaking out against it:
<https://genderreport.ca/bc-father-in-prison-for-speaking-
out-about-daughters-medical-transition/>. The
homosexuals and the demonic pedophiles of the left are behind the
process of going to schools and convincing children that it's cool to
do so whether you want to admit it or not. Just because the relic
media you rely on chooses not to report it doesn't mean that it's not
happening. Way to reveal that you're affiliated with the demonic
pedophiles though (but let's keep pretending that you never revealed
that you're a flaming leftist, ol' chap).
Way to miss the point.
Way to ignore the content because it reveals that you have been lied to
yet seem to enjoy living in a bubble. The fossil media you rely on has
no credibility and hasn't had any since the creation of Operation Mockingbird. What you know about the world is what they want you to know which amounts to nothing, and you seem overjoyed about it.
On 2025-10-28 19:48, Alan wrote:
On 2025-10-28 16:29, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-10-28 18:45, Alan wrote:
<snip >
I don't try to denigrate people with personal attacks...
...when they've shown they deserve it by making a personal attack
on me...
...asshole.
I'm sure you've noticed that I am making little to no effort to get
your approval. When I was wrong, I said it but I won't start bending >>>>> over to your fruity overlords simply because you believe that using
their products requires total devotion to their choices. When
they're good, I state it; when they're bad, I also state it.
My "fruity overlords""
Really: that says everything I need to know about you.
Oh no! Homosexuals deserve to be respected in seeking to groom our
children and convince them that they need puberty blockers and to
eventually put their genitals in the rubbish bin! Whatever was I
thinking when I offended the people who want the most innocent
elements of society to sterilize themselves in the most horrific way!
You're literally making up shit that doesn't happen...
...but that's irrelevant...
...because all I'm pointing out your attempt to denigrate me.
Everything I mentioned is indeed happening. Here is just one relic media attempt to downplay it: <https://globalnews.ca/news/6399468/bc-gender-change-court/> . Heck, he
got six months in prison for speaking out against it: <https://genderreport.ca/bc-father-in-prison-for-speaking-out-about-daughters-medical-transition/>.
The homosexuals and the demonic pedophiles of the left are behind the
process of going to schools and convincing children that it's cool to do
so whether you want to admit it or not. Just because the relic media you
rely on chooses not to report it doesn't mean that it's not happening.
Way to reveal that you're affiliated with the demonic pedophiles though
(but let's keep pretending that you never revealed that you're a flaming leftist, ol' chap).
Pontius Pilate described Jesus as having a golden-coloured beard and
hair which contrasted heavily with the typical black beard of the
people around him and their darker complexions. The Archko volume says
the same in mentioning that his hair was the colour of new wine and
mentions that he had soft blue eyes. The people who claim that He
wasn't white are people who have no knowledge of historical records
and who make stuff up to push their "social justice" idiocy.
Furthermore, I love Jesus because of who He is and what He did, not
how he looks.
In a book written... ...when?
They were circulated during the days of the early church but I doubt
anyone could say exactly when they were written.
Some will say that it is "impossible" because He was from the MiddleBut the important thing is your need to believe that Jesus was white...
East all the while ignoring that as God, He can take whatever form He
wishes.
...because to think otherwise is have to acknowledge your own bigotry.
Your belief that I think whiteness is a pre-requisite to being a good
person is ridiculous. While black culture is repulsive and muhammedans
are a scourge on Western Civilization, there is no doubt that there is a handful of people from their culture which contributed to society
positively rather than destroy it.
That makes no sense at all.you can learn an easy gesture so that you don't need to use screen
real estate at all times...
...for something you don't use at all times?
I don't miss the screen space on my phone. In fact, I would rather
give that up to get the button.
The gesture is no more difficult to use than the button. You just
have to know it. That takes literally 5 seconds when you first get
the phone.
After that, you get the space all the time for absolutely no loss of
functionality.
I would get weary of doing the swipe trick, just to be able to
multitask. The button is needed, for my sanity in using the device.
Samsung groks that.
Why? What about it is any more difficult than tapping a button.
If you need a button for your sanity, it is only a reflection of YOUR
brain damage...
...or that you never had much brain power to begin with.
On 2025-10-28 21:11, Alan wrote:
Everything I mentioned is indeed happening. Here is just one relic
media attempt to downplay it: <https://globalnews.ca/news/6399468/bc-
gender- change-court/> . Heck, he got six months in prison for
speaking out against it: <https://genderreport.ca/bc-father-in-
prison- for-speaking- out-about-daughters-medical-transition/>. The
homosexuals and the demonic pedophiles of the left are behind the
process of going to schools and convincing children that it's cool to
do so whether you want to admit it or not. Just because the relic
media you rely on chooses not to report it doesn't mean that it's not
happening. Way to reveal that you're affiliated with the demonic
pedophiles though (but let's keep pretending that you never revealed
that you're a flaming leftist, ol' chap).
Way to miss the point.
Way to ignore the content because it reveals that you have been lied to
yet seem to enjoy living in a bubble. The fossil media you rely on has
no credibility and hasn't had any since the creation of Operation Mockingbird. What you know about the world is what they want you to know which amounts to nothing, and you seem overjoyed about it.
Pontius Pilate described Jesus as having a golden-coloured beard
and hair which contrasted heavily with the typical black beard of
the people around him and their darker complexions. The Archko
volume says the same in mentioning that his hair was the colour of
new wine and mentions that he had soft blue eyes. The people who
claim that He wasn't white are people who have no knowledge of
historical records and who make stuff up to push their "social
justice" idiocy. Furthermore, I love Jesus because of who He is and >>>>> what He did, not how he looks.
In a book written... ...when?
They were circulated during the days of the early church but I doubt
anyone could say exactly when they were written.
Known to be written LONG after the events of Jesus's life...
...if he even really existed.
Way to reveal, yet again, that you are allied with the demonic
pedophiles. Other historians wrote of Jesus's existence and finding
those accounts is trivial. However, there is no appeasing you filthy hippies. This will be the final post I read from you.
Read your own words...Some will say that it is "impossible" because He was from theBut the important thing is your need to believe that Jesus was white... >>>>
Middle East all the while ignoring that as God, He can take
whatever form He wishes.
...because to think otherwise is have to acknowledge your own bigotry.
Your belief that I think whiteness is a pre-requisite to being a good
person is ridiculous. While black culture is repulsive and
muhammedans are a scourge on Western Civilization, there is no doubt
that there is a handful of people from their culture which
contributed to society positively rather than destroy it.
...you utterly horrid ignorant bigot.
Deal with it:
Jesus was of the same race that you now denigrate.
Something you have no evidence for.
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I >>>>>> have LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it >>>>>> running without closing it out, if I close the main window that
should exit it. Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that >>>>>> will execute it.
What word processor is that?
On further investigation, I started to realize what you were saying,
leaving a blank document open isn't the same as having the shell of
LO open (minimizing such will exit it, apparently). Nevertheless,
leaving a blank document open is an option.
Sounds very intuitive!
Leave a document you don't need open to keep other documents loading
quickly!
LOL!
If I don't minimize LO's shell, it will remain open, the thing is that
the blank document keeps a *specific* component of the suite running.
Which is a cludge for sure.
It's not as counterintuitive as it sounds in this debate, I'mKeep your mind empty of any new ideas!
imagining that MS Office isn't entirely different with how this would
work, that there's a launcher shell when no document is open, but I'm
not gonna download the free trial to find out, I already know what I
prefer.
Got it!
On 2025-10-28 18:07, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 10/28/2025 8:09 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Oct 28, 2025 at 5:06:26 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<6UcMQ.778228$80J6.337693@fx12.iad>:
On 10/28/2025 6:25 PM, Alan wrote:
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, I >>>>>> have LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave it
running without closing it out, if I close the main window that
should
exit it. Still easy enough to reopen it or open a file that will
execute it.
What word processor is that?
On further investigation, I started to realize what you were saying,
leaving a blank document open isn't the same as having the shell of LO >>>> open (minimizing such will exit it, apparently). Nevertheless, leaving >>>> a blank document open is an option.
Minimizing will exit it?
So it appeared, yeah. I had never encountered this before discussing
it here, I just leave a blank LO Writer document open for quick access
when I need to create a plain-text PDF (I don't own a physical printer).
You mean you will NOW leave a blank document open...
...right?
You earlier claimed this concept was new to you, right?
On 10/28/2025 9:09 PM, Alan wrote:
That makes no sense at all.you can learn an easy gesture so that you don't need to use screen >>>>>> real estate at all times...
...for something you don't use at all times?
I don't miss the screen space on my phone. In fact, I would rather >>>>> give that up to get the button.
The gesture is no more difficult to use than the button. You just
have to know it. That takes literally 5 seconds when you first get
the phone.
After that, you get the space all the time for absolutely no loss of
functionality.
I would get weary of doing the swipe trick, just to be able to
multitask. The button is needed, for my sanity in using the device.
Samsung groks that.
Why? What about it is any more difficult than tapping a button.
If you need a button for your sanity, it is only a reflection of YOUR
brain damage...
...or that you never had much brain power to begin with.
"When you lose small mind you free your life."
On 10/28/2025 9:25 PM, Alan wrote:
I can leave the word processor open with nothing open within it, >>>>>>> I have LO's word processor pinned to my taskbar in fact, I leave >>>>>>> it running without closing it out, if I close the main window
that should exit it. Still easy enough to reopen it or open a
file that will execute it.
What word processor is that?
On further investigation, I started to realize what you were
saying, leaving a blank document open isn't the same as having the
shell of LO open (minimizing such will exit it, apparently).
Nevertheless, leaving a blank document open is an option.
Sounds very intuitive!
Leave a document you don't need open to keep other documents loading
quickly!
LOL!
If I don't minimize LO's shell, it will remain open, the thing is
that the blank document keeps a *specific* component of the suite
running.
Which is a cludge for sure.
You can't leave the window open?
It's not as counterintuitive as it sounds in this debate, I'mKeep your mind empty of any new ideas!
imagining that MS Office isn't entirely different with how this would
work, that there's a launcher shell when no document is open, but I'm
not gonna download the free trial to find out, I already know what I
prefer.
Got it!
When the "new idea" is installing Microsoft Office (for Windows, specifically, again I liked the Mac version), you can rest assured my
mind will be *void*.
I would get weary of doing the swipe trick, just to be able to
multitask [on an iPhone]. The button is needed, for my sanity in using the device.
Samsung groks that.
Why? What about it is any more difficult than tapping a button.
If you need a button for your sanity, it is only a reflection of YOUR
brain damage...
...or that you never had much brain power to begin with.
"When you lose small mind you free your life."
"Bad platitudes are no substitute for a cogent argument".
On 10/29/2025 12:48 AM, Alan wrote:
I would get weary of doing the swipe trick, just to be able to
multitask [on an iPhone]. The button is needed, for my sanity in
using the device. Samsung groks that.
Why? What about it is any more difficult than tapping a button.
If you need a button for your sanity, it is only a reflection of
YOUR brain damage...
...or that you never had much brain power to begin with.
"When you lose small mind you free your life."
"Bad platitudes are no substitute for a cogent argument".
It's not a platitude, it's truth you'll never know.
Other than that at the time he is supposed to have lived, people barely
moved around; certainly not people of his supposed social status.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 18:56:57 -0700, Alan wrote:
Other than that at the time he is supposed to have lived, people barely
moved around; certainly not people of his supposed social status.
You are familiar with the resettlement policies of the Neo Assyrians,
aren't you? The Achaemenid Empire? The Phoenicians? I don't have a dog in this fight but the view that people never made it further than 3 miles
from home is naive. Galilee was a rather diverse place.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,075 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 90:35:05 |
| Calls: | 13,798 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,989 |
| D/L today: |
5,332 files (1,536M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,438,212 |