NEWS: 'World-mode' iPhone due next year, says fanboi rumor

The Jobsian cult is hard at work on a "world-mode" iPhone capable of
tapping both CDMA and GSM/UMTS wireless networks, according to the
fanboi rumor mill.

MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/08/worldmode_iphone_rumor/>

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:9iqdf5dd21hr81vmltlmp2rpr55pmuu7ff@4ax.com:

> The Jobsian cult is hard at work on a "world-mode" iPhone capable of
> tapping both CDMA and GSM/UMTS wireless networks, according to the
> fanboi rumor mill.
>

Let's start a rumor about true multitasking, external memory slot, swapable
battery packs, slideout keyboard, open source OS that will run anything,
800 x 400 display with high res touchpad/stylus, Flash, WMx,
Realvideo/audio, OGG, FLAC, DivX and all the other video codecs........etc.

Should be fun.....(c;]

Oh, wait, that'll be out soon, the Nokia N900....

--
Larry

Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, John Navas
chose the tried and tested strategy of:

> The Jobsian cult

I assume you intend cult as an insult, but surely spraying these messages across
usenet only serves to further the aims of the 'cult'?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
11:08:00 up 22 days, 11:19, 4 users, load average: 0.13, 0.17, 0.17
"Stupid is a condition. Ignorance is a choice" -- Wiley Miller

alexd wrote:
> Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, John Navas
> chose the tried and tested strategy of:
>
>> The Jobsian cult
>
> I assume you intend cult as an insult, but surely spraying these messages across
> usenet only serves to further the aims of the 'cult'?
>

As did your reply...

On 11/9/09 6:17 AM, in article
4eSdnQFxFP7FlWXXnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4p2d@speakeasy.net, "Not Me" <Not.Me@Home.Base>
wrote:

> alexd wrote:
>> Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, John
>> Navas
>> chose the tried and tested strategy of:
>>
>>> The Jobsian cult
>>
>> I assume you intend cult as an insult, but surely spraying these messages
>> across
>> usenet only serves to further the aims of the 'cult'?
>>
>
> As did your reply...
As yours.

And mine...

George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 11/9/09 6:17 AM, in article
> 4eSdnQFxFP7FlWXXnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4p2d@speakeasy.net, "Not Me" <Not.Me@Home.Base>
> wrote:
>
>> alexd wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, John
>>> Navas
>>> chose the tried and tested strategy of:
>>>
>>>> The Jobsian cult
>>> I assume you intend cult as an insult, but surely spraying these messages
>>> across
>>> usenet only serves to further the aims of the 'cult'?
>>>
>> As did your reply...
> As yours.
>
> And mine...
>


Bingo.

The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.

Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
via its successful AppStore marketplace.

But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.

MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

In article <dmkqg5po1p78fahabtqigc768nam6dg4as@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>
> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>
> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>

Let me get this straight. You are taking Apple to task because they
are not saving people from themselves? I would agree from Apple's
standpoint. They wanna screw with the phones, it is hardly Apple's
responsibility to save them from their own idiocy.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <dmkqg5po1p78fahabtqigc768nam6dg4as@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.

why would apple have an inclination for anti-malware software? out of
the box, it's basically impossible for an iphone to have any malware.

malware can only run on the iphone *if* the user jailbreaks their phone
*and* installs ssh *and* leaves it open with the default password. none
of that is supported by apple, and, apple has been continually making
it more difficult to jailbreak.

> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
> years,

admitting that a platform is open to attack and needing anti-virus
software is not something about which to be proud.

> but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
> via its successful AppStore marketplace.

which also means that the malware would require approval, so in effect,
there is no problem unless the user jailbreaks the phone, which is
something beyond apple's control.

> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.

and apple is correct.

On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahabtqigc768nam6dg4as@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>
Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.

Try again, NavASS, to find something to ***** about. You have already worn
out DSLRs and Apple products.

Moron.

Troll.

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.

yes, there is never a need for that on iphones since all developers have
signed contracts disallowing that type of behavior, they'd be liable and
sued into oblivion. plus they are all unix based phones so nothing can
spread unless a default password/username was known.

John Navas wrote:
> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>
> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
> years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
>
> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>
> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
>

C'mon John, everyone knows there's no such thing as a McIntosh virus....

--
..



Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard. - Sam

George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahabtqigc768nam6dg4as@4ax.com,
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>
> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>

Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
that?

--
..



Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard. - Sam

In article <hf198j$c7n$3@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
<windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
> > those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>
> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
> that?

it is virtually impossible for malware to run on iphone out of the box
because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. jailbreaking removes
that protection, and when someone installs sshd and doesn't change the
default password, they're vulnerable to pretty much anything.

On 11/30/09 2:14 PM, in article hf193p$c7n$2@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> John Navas wrote:
>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>
>> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
>> years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
>> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
>> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
>> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
>>
>> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
>> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
>> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>>
>> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
>>
>
> C'mon John, everyone knows there's no such thing as a McIntosh virus....

I really did not believe that audio high fidelity equipment was prone to
computer viri!

Well, goes to show you that one can learn something every day from the
geniuses on Usenet, doesn't it?

On 11/30/09 2:17 PM, in article hf198j$c7n$3@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahabtqigc768nam6dg4as@4ax.com,
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>>
>> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
>> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>>
>
> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
> that?

A cite, please, to the contrary.

BTW:Whatever that is - is more than you have...

nospam wrote:
> In article <hf198j$c7n$3@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
>>> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
>> that?
>
> it is virtually impossible for malware to run on iphone out of the box
> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. jailbreaking removes
> that protection, and when someone installs sshd and doesn't change the
> default password, they're vulnerable to pretty much anything.

Which of course was neither a yes or a no to a yes no question.

--
..



Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard. - Sam

George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 11/30/09 2:14 PM, in article hf193p$c7n$2@posting2.glorb.com,
> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>>
>>> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
>>> years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
>>> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
>>> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
>>> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
>>>
>>> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
>>> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
>>> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>>>
>>> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
>>>
>> C'mon John, everyone knows there's no such thing as a McIntosh virus....
>
> I really did not believe that audio high fidelity equipment was prone to
> computer viri!
>
> Well, goes to show you that one can learn something every day from the
> geniuses on Usenet, doesn't it?
>

Just shows where my interests lie doesn't it...

--
..



Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard. - Sam

George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 11/30/09 2:17 PM, in article hf198j$c7n$3@posting2.glorb.com,
> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahabtqigc768nam6dg4as@4ax.com,
>>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>>>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>>>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>>>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>>>
>>> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
>>> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>>>
>> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
>> that?
>
> A cite, please, to the contrary.
>
> BTW:Whatever that is - is more than you have...
>


A cite for what? You want me to cite you proof for my question?
Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?

You could not possibly know about what I do or do not have, You are
welcome to your assumptions as you wish because IDGAF what you think I
do or don't have and it is totally inconsequential to the point at hand.
But then since you didn't understand a simple yes/no question it's not
hard to believe you dredged up that thought either. Care to try again?

--
..



Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard. - Sam

In article <hf3fv5$kd1$1@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
<windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?

nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.

the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
not that simple.

In article <011220091322446617%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <hf3fv5$kd1$1@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
> > was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>
> nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
>
> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
> not that simple.

And after all that sneak it past the iTunes store approval process.
Even less simple.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

On 12/1/09 10:13 AM, in article hf3fbn$kam$3@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/09 2:14 PM, in article hf193p$c7n$2@posting2.glorb.com,
>> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>>>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>>>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>>>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>>>
>>>> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
>>>> years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
>>>> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
>>>> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
>>>> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
>>>>
>>>> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
>>>> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
>>>> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>>>>
>>>> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
>>>>
>>> C'mon John, everyone knows there's no such thing as a McIntosh virus....
>>
>> I really did not believe that audio high fidelity equipment was prone to
>> computer viri!
>>
>> Well, goes to show you that one can learn something every day from the
>> geniuses on Usenet, doesn't it?
>>
>
> Just shows where my interests lie doesn't it...

English is not your primary language?

On 12/1/09 10:23 AM, in article hf3fv5$kd1$1@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/09 2:17 PM, in article hf198j$c7n$3@posting2.glorb.com,
>> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahabtqigc768nam6dg4as@4ax.com,
>>>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>>>>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>>>>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>>>>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>>>>
>>>> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
>>>> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>>>>
>>> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
>>> that?
>>
>> A cite, please, to the contrary.
>>
>> BTW:Whatever that is - is more than you have...
>>
>
>
> A cite for what? You want me to cite you proof for my question?
> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>
<straw snipped>

I thought that English was your problem. Now I see that it is of an organic
nature.

Carry on. You ARE special...

On 12/1/09 12:22 PM, in article 011220091322446617%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <hf3fv5$kd1$1@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>
> nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
>
> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
> not that simple.

By asking others to "put everything on" their "belief" reveals an almost
theological neurosis. When he carries on with the "you don't know who I am"
diatribe, it is almost certain that he is somewhat unstable.

Our game-boy "Fox" has a biological disorder, so I am cutting him some
slack. When one has flawed logic, it is cruel and futile to engage them in a
rational discussion.

nospam wrote:
> In article <hf3fv5$kd1$1@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>
> nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
>

It was not I that said it, but it still does not negate the question

> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
> not that simple.


You just said it again, "effectively zero." ARE you or not willing
to risk everything that you own on that fact? Simple.

--
..



"A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy

Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <011220091322446617%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <hf3fv5$kd1$1@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
>> <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>> nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
>>
>> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
>> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
>> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
>> not that simple.
>
> And after all that sneak it past the iTunes store approval process.
> Even less simple.
>

Or in email or a website through wifi, even simpler.

--
..



"A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy

George Kerby wrote:

>>>>> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
>>>>> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>>>>>
>>>> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
>>>> that?
>>> A cite, please, to the contrary.
>>>
>>> BTW:Whatever that is - is more than you have...
>>>
>>
>> A cite for what? You want me to cite you proof for my question?
>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>>
> <straw snipped>
>
> I thought that English was your problem. Now I see that it is of an organic
> nature.
>
> Carry on. You ARE special...
>


It is quite obvious to me that it is you who has the defect, but I
believe it more emotional in nature. You can not possibly provide any
tangible answers so you run amok in your reply, or you are incapable of
following the threaded view provided by your Microsoft reader and are
attributing words to me that I did not type. You who are running around
referring to people as morons and idiots can not even muster a simple
yes or no. Care to try again?

Are you willing to bet everything you have on the idea that it is
impossible or almost impossible for malware to run on an iPhone? Very
simple, yes or no. Now show us all the magnitude of your intelligence.


--
..



"A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy

George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 12/1/09 12:22 PM, in article 011220091322446617%nospam@nospam.invalid,
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <hf3fv5$kd1$1@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
>> <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>> nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
>>
>> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
>> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
>> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
>> not that simple.
>
> By asking others to "put everything on" their "belief" reveals an almost
> theological neurosis. When he carries on with the "you don't know who I am"
> diatribe, it is almost certain that he is somewhat unstable.

By refusing to provide an answer you are showing that you are
embarrassed by said answer. Or that you do not understand the concept.
By telling someone on Usenet whom you do not know and know nothing about
that you are "monetarily worth more" you are obviously presumptuous.
narcissistic and rather short sighted. It is almost certain that you are
unstable and have delusions of grandeur desiring to be a great
psychotherapist.

>
> Our game-boy "Fox" has a biological disorder, so I am cutting him some
> slack. When one has flawed logic, it is cruel and futile to engage them in a
> rational discussion.
>


Which you are apparently incapable of doing. I believe the
biological disorder is between your ears.


--
..



"A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy

In article <hf619n$tpf$1@posting2.glorb.com>,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are you willing to bet everything you have on the idea that it is
> impossible or almost impossible for malware to run on an iPhone? Very
> simple, yes or no. Now show us all the magnitude of your intelligence.

Yes. Now dazzle us with your intelligence and tell us why you don't.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

WindsorFox<[SS]> wrote:
> George Kerby wrote:
>
>>>>>> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken
>>>>>> phones and
>>>>>> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
>>>>> that?
>>>> A cite, please, to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>> BTW:Whatever that is - is more than you have...
>>>>
>>>
>>> A cite for what? You want me to cite you proof for my question?
>>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>>>
>> <straw snipped>
>>
>> I thought that English was your problem. Now I see that it is of an
>> organic
>> nature.
>>
>> Carry on. You ARE special...
>>
>
>
> It is quite obvious to me that it is you who has the defect, but I
> believe it more emotional in nature. You can not possibly provide any
> tangible answers so you run amok in your reply, or you are incapable of
> following the threaded view provided by your Microsoft reader and are
> attributing words to me that I did not type. You who are running around
> referring to people as morons and idiots can not even muster a simple
> yes or no. Care to try again?
>
> Are you willing to bet everything you have on the idea that it is
> impossible or almost impossible for malware to run on an iPhone? Very
> simple, yes or no. Now show us all the magnitude of your intelligence.
>
>

Take it to E-mail!!! The rest of us are not interested in or amused by
whatever it is that you think you are doing!