Motorola Wins Injunction Against Apple's iCloud in Germany

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]watcha: What claims? You made this one among many others:"Any proper engineer would know that nobody can ever be 100% sure their PC doesn't have viruses, as I said, even the top level engineers who work for anti-virus companies wouldn't make such a claim."Are you an engineer? Industry expert? Anti-virus expert? If not, provide full evidence of Antivirus experts claiming you can never be 100% sure. .[/citation]

Lets be honest, computer engineers are low level monkeys. I've employed several and they tend to be the reclusive loners who couldn't make it as a more successful programmer or entrepreneur. Hence the qualification, 'proper' engineer, or anti-virus expert. In dealing with the infrastructure at a company I worked with (a large car manufacturer) we dealt with numerous anti-virus programs when establishing our corporate policy and all of them were very clear that no anti-virus will ever be 100% secure. We went with Kaspersky, in the end, for your information. And you should know, by definition, that is isn't possible to 'prove' that something is 'never' said - it can only be disproved. You find a well regarded expert who claims that 100% security on a normal pc is possible and I'll concede that minor, and non critical point in my multi-pronged argument. And it still wont address the fact that you are making a claim that several PC's have no viruses with no evidence whatsoever. Something which you would have to do with or without the opinion of a PC expert.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]I will also want to see a full list of credentials for said engineer. He must have worked at an antivirus company for at least 20 years (to have the most experience), and speak for the entire company. It can't be his personal opinion, or else it doesn't count because it's just 1 person.You must provide this evidence anyway or else I will argue that you haven't provided ANY evidence at all and thus everything you say is null and void![/citation]

My point is that none of them would claim it. So how can I provide you the details of the expert who said it? LOL. Note, the key phrase in my original sentence...

'even the top level engineers who work for anti-virus companies wouldn't make such a claim'

.. key word 'wouldn't' otherwise known as 'WOULD NOT'.

Are you learning yet?


[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
After you're done finding said evidence (which probably doesn't exist) I won't accept it. I will deny your article has any relevance or credibility. Especially since you said "nobody can be 100% sure" which means everybody and an article showing just 1 engineer isn't everybody.You're so predictable.[/citation]

If it was possible for me to prove my point with evidence, I would. Since it is not possible to prove the ABSENCE of something, you can clearly infer that it's my opinion. Do you disagree? Do you think that reputable software engineers believe it is possible to prove that a PC is 100% virus free? As I've already explained to you, all you have to do to disprove my statement is find 1 example of a high level engineer - matching all of the criteria you so lovingly requested I do. And then, you should take a step back, and ask yourself, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much will you have proven by showing that someone else believes that it's possible to be 100% secure, and that is't possible to prove that you are?

1 - You still wont have proven that the claim you made is true (that the 5 pc's you own are virus free)
2 - You still haven't shown that the video in question is an advert.
3 - You still haven't proven that the video in question is factually incorrect (all you've proven is that YOU interpret it that way)

The three pronged approach which you have failed to deliver any response to, still.

 

[watcha]

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/opinion/security/3270576/eugene-kaspersky-no-such-thing-as-100-secure-software/

'Eugene Kaspersky: 'no such thing as 100% secure software'
By Matt Egan | PC Advisor | 22 September 08

Despite being the co-founder of one the decade's most successful security software vendors, Eugene Kaspersky doesn't think software alone can ever be a silver bullet for cybercrime'



http://www.computerandvideogames.com/301938/sony-ceo-unsure-if-anyone-is-100-secure/
http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Can-the-Internet-ever-be-100-per-cent-secure
http://www.myinfosecjob.com/2011/08/6-reasons-why-you-should-not-work-with-information-security/

 

[watcha]

... an example of an advert being banned because it was seen as being 'misleading':

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/12/microsoft-xbox-video-marketplace-ad-banned-for-being-misleading/

Note that this article proves:

a) It was an advert

and

b) It was misleading

and therefore

c) It got banned.

One link, 3 things proven, and all you can do when trying to prove the same thing is say 'you work at McDonalds'.

'What's tha difference 'tween you and me, you and me'

;-)

 

[watcha]

Another link from the link I just provided, showing why misleading adverts end up banned, this time Apple:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/27/uks-advertising-standards-authority-yanks-iphone-ad-for-being-m/

or a Motorola one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/23/motorola-smartphone-ad-banned-samsung

 

[beayn]

Hahaha you obviously have no idea what a computer engineer actually is.

Kaspersky is terrible by the way, our company never recommends using it. Its management interface is bad, compatibility even worse and there are times it blocks the mouse (among other things). I guess that's one way to be 100% secure.. not allow mouse input! haha

Which brings us to: the kaspersky guy is saying there's no such thing as 100% secure software. He is NOT saying anything about your computer not being infected. Being vulnerable does NOT mean you ARE infected. I realize for someone as technically inept as you, there may not be a difference, but there is.

You've proven nothing again and completely failed at the simple task I assigned you - show me your industry experts that wouldn't claim a computer is 100% VIRUS FREE (not 100% secure, big difference).

An ad pulled in one country does not mean it was banned everywhere. It can STILL BE AN AD if it is banned in the UK. The UK is not the only country in the world and it not even the home country of Apple. Why couldn't you find the ad I linked? You took the time to run off and find banned ads, why not find the ad I linked?

Instead of proving your claims about industry experts, you changed it to "100% secure". Typical of watcha to change his argument when losing....

I also see the fact that I was talking stupid the way you do went completely over your head. No surprise I guess. Still it was amusing to watch you run off and try to actually find the impossible proof. That's a good boy. hahah

I wonder what other tricks I can teach you.

 

[back_by_demand]

OMG!!!
Watcha, do you realise you have posted 48 separate comments on this thread?
...
I know you think you are a crafty wordsmith, but please look up the meaning of the word "summarise", even if one of your comments was worth reading (which it isn't) it is so diluted by the other dross that people have just switched off and are no longer reading
...
Oh, and if you have time to post 48 times in a single thread I seriously doubt you are in a position where you employ people, back to flipping burgers you troll

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]OMG!!!Watcha, do you realise you have posted 48 separate comments on this thread?...I know you think you are a crafty wordsmith, but please look up the meaning of the word "summarise", even if one of your comments was worth reading (which it isn't) it is so diluted by the other dross that people have just switched off and are no longer reading...Oh, and if you have time to post 48 times in a single thread I seriously doubt you are in a position where you employ people, back to flipping burgers you troll[/citation]

Actually I have that time precisely BECAUSE I employ people. Monkeys work. Businessmen don't.

And, please, after your ridiculously illogical attempt to discredit me because you've made so many more posts than me? Note the irony / hypocrisy.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]Hahaha you obviously have no idea what a computer engineer actually is. Kaspersky is terrible by the way, our company never recommends using it. Its management interface is bad, compatibility even worse and there are times it blocks the mouse (among other things). I guess that's one way to be 100% secure.. not allow mouse input! hahaWhich brings us to: the kaspersky guy is saying there's no such thing as 100% secure software. He is NOT saying anything about your computer not being infected. Being vulnerable does NOT mean you ARE infected. I realize for someone as technically inept as you, there may not be a difference, but there is.You've proven nothing again and completely failed at the simple task I assigned you - show me your industry experts that wouldn't claim a computer is 100% VIRUS FREE (not 100% secure, big difference). An ad pulled in one country does not mean it was banned everywhere. It can STILL BE AN AD if it is banned in the UK. The UK is not the only country in the world and it not even the home country of Apple. Why couldn't you find the ad I linked? You took the time to run off and find banned ads, why not find the ad I linked? Instead of proving your claims about industry experts, you changed it to "100% secure". Typical of watcha to change his argument when losing....I also see the fact that I was talking stupid the way you do went completely over your head. No surprise I guess. Still it was amusing to watch you run off and try to actually find the impossible proof. That's a good boy. hahahI wonder what other tricks I can teach you.[/citation]

As I said, I employ several. And I know they are amongst the lowest qualified and lowest paid on our payroll.

Kaspersky being 'terrible' 'by the way' is a silly point to make, to talk about compatibility without knowing the target machines, claiming it blocks the mouse (when it doesn't for our users), and the interface was found, by my previous company, to be superior to the competition. But that could not be more irrelevant, both mine and your opinions on it.

I can't believe you don't recognise the link between software never being 100% secure and you never being able to prove that it is secure. That alone is reason why this conversation is doomed to fail. If NO software can know that you have a virus (potentially), how do YOU know, that you don't? The answer is: to know that your pc was secure (virus free) - you could only know that through SOFTWARE. If the SOFTWARE can guarantee that you are 100% virus free, it could also prevent viruses. Hence the obvious, painfully obvious link. Starting to see why you're a computer engineer....

You say being vulnerable does NOT mean you ARE infected - which is absolutely true, but absolutely irrelevant. The question is not whether you ARE infected or not, the question is can you ever prove, or even KNOW that you aren't. Again, the whole reason for this lengthy, back and forth which annoys Back_By_Demand so much, is your absolute failure to read, or to understand the points being made.

You are correct in that an Ad pulled in one place does not mean that it was banned everywhere. But if it is banned in the UK, it DOES mean that it's no longer an advert in the UK. Since I'm only exposed to adverts in the UK, and since you're disputing MY assertion that adverts I see are true, UK is entirely and absolutely relevant. Does the USA not hold adverts to any standards? Do they not have a similar agency which is intended to do the same thing? If that's true, the joke is on the USA, and the blame lies solely with the country, not the adverts. Every established country that I have lived in has a similar process by which misleading adverts get banned.

Why not find the ad you linked? ...... LOL WHAT A HILARIOUS QUESTION!!! lololol.

My whole point all along is that you HAVEN'T proven that it was banned at all!!! In fact, you haven't even proved it ever aired anywhere. And the fall-back to that argument, in case it actually DID get banned, is that that proves me right too, since that would mean it's no longer being used as an advert. Simple, easy.

'Instead of proving your claims about industry experts, you changed it to "100% secure'

Please find primary school logic in my first paragraph educating you to the relationship between finding security flaws and proving that non exist (ie they are the same thing). Also please journey back to, just about every post, which argues not that there are no PC's without viruses, but that it can't be proven.

'.I also see the fact that I was talking stupid the way you do went completely over your head'

Didn't notice any change, sorry.

'Still it was amusing to watch you run off and try to actually find the impossible proof. That's a good boy'

Did I say it was proof? I simply showed you the type of evidence that WOULD exist if the advert was ACTUALLY misleading, and was actually an advert. The fact that I found 3 within 2 minutes just shows you how lame it is that you have yet to produce any evidence whatsoever.

Furthermore, the Kaspersky quote proves that a respected guy in the industry who speaks for more than himself and whos career speaks for itself, agrees with me that no proper engineer would ever claim something is 100% secure. That is down to opinion, clearly, which I told you in the last post. In the last post, I also explained to you why you can't prove an 'absence' of something, I think maybe that word was too long for you, my bad.

I also explained to you that even if there was a respected security analyst who agrees with you that a normal domestic pc (the target of the audience) can be 100% virus free and can be proved to be, that it wouldn't matter, since you have still not addressed any of the 3 main arguments. Since you failed, again, to address any of them, here they are:

1 - We still have no evidence this video was ever used as an advert.
2 - You still have not proved that it is misleading.
3 - You still haven't got proof of any domestic pc being 100% virus free (for which you would require software which was capable of detecting 100% of viruses - get it yet?)

Bless.

 

[watcha]

Just to add a little food for thought which you would describe as 'circular' and I would describe as 'why you're dumb'...

The only way to settle this, is by you finding the advert, and then proving that it got banned by an ad standards agency (which would prove it was misleading - the only way you can prove that). But when you do that, you prove that it's no longer being used as advertising and you prove me right.

In other words, you can never win, that's where your failed logic gets you.

 

[back_by_demand]

51 posts and counting, will the rant never end?
...
What's your title then, Managing Director? Operations Manager? Janitor? How about your company, what's it called, I reckon I could pick you out of a room in 5 seconds as the fat balding prick that no-one invites to drinks out

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]51 posts and counting, will the rant never end?...What's your title then, Managing Director? Operations Manager? Janitor? How about your company, what's it called, I reckon I could pick you out of a room in 5 seconds as the fat balding prick that no-one invites to drinks out[/citation]

Anger management required, methinks.

Remember, if I post too much I may reach the 'dizzying heights' of your 4x posts in same time? Laff.

 

[g-thor]

My dogs bigger than your dog, my dog's bigger than yours...

It was interesting until they all fell off the wagon and started the pi$$ing contest. The earlier parts with links to articles and posted opinions was great, showing varying perspectives, which is what the lawyers do in court - argue their side. Too bad the commenters got lost along the way.

 

[beayn]

watcha watcha watcha... again, an "industry expert" saying you can never be 100% secure, is absolutely NOT the same as him saying "you can never be 100% sure your computer is not infected." Quit changing your arguments. It's an tactic that everyone can see right through. Make up all the shit you want, you couldn't find anyone saying what you claimed.

I pitty the people who have to work for you. You're one of those guys who got so annoying in a department that they promoted you to a different department so they wouldn't have to deal with you anymore.

Just because your computers don't have the Kaspersky issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your narrow mindedness shines again. The company I work for has deployed many enterprise IT solutions and seen this problem on dozens of systems across dozens of clients. Nobody has more experience than ol' watcha though.

I don't need to prove that Apple ad ever aired. The fact that you couldn't prove it was banned even though you searched for banned ads is all the proof I need that it aired. Not to mention you only found a couple of ads banned in UK, which have nothing to do with the world.

The fact that you won't accept the ad I listed is just more proof of your sad denial and inability to formulate a credible defense for Apple. You know it aired, you know it is false advertising, so rather than accepting it and moving on, you just say "IT DONT COUNT"

One day you may come to realize that Apple is not the god-like entity you think it is. It's just another company and they do the same shit to make money that every other company does. False advertising included. Deny the ad ever aired all you want, this fact remains.

 

[Guest]

watcha 02/06/2012 4:47 PM

By watcha:
The only way to settle this, is by you finding the advert, and then proving that it got banned by an ad standards agency (which would prove it was misleading - the only way you can prove that). But when you do that, you prove that it's no longer being used as advertising and you prove me right.

Hi Watcha,

it's a very interesting statement, well, I can see that you are the kind of guy that follow strict rule/definition without question, however, try to give the following question a thought -

1. UK ad standard agency is never wrong, no way a multi billion dollor company can infuence them
2. UK law and rule are always fair and square, there's no gray area where multi billion dollor company's lawyer can find loop hole and take advantage of
3. everyone in UK are definition aware like you , so they'll read/listen and apply perfect logic on every ad they see, no ambiguilty what so ever
4. every ad pass the UK ad standard agency is by definition - not misleading, thus there's 0 chance of misleading any viewer
5. if you say yes to all above, may i ask what are you smoking? i want some

 

[beayn]

Oh I totally missed this part earlier.

I said:
"You keep repeating yourself saying that I won't address the issues, yet you insist that I do, while claiming that I'm the one trying to argue the old issues. Circular reasoning at its best, Again"

You said:"
Step 1 - You brought up a 2 year old topic, due to tears
Step 2 - I provide you with the same education that I did 2 years ago.
Step 3 - You realise again why you were wrong so resort to insults like working at McDonalds.
Step 4 - I tell you that that's what you're doing.

Nothing circular there at all, just a whole series of your failures.
"

I say: haha, you always convince yourself of the funniest shit. Like I already said, I just had to mention that you believe everything that's advertised and you started crying again. You couldn't stand the fact you lost the argument and had to try to argue it all over again. You can stop any time, but I know you'll never let it go. That's why you keep demanding proof of this and that. You repeatedly say that I won't address the issues - because you're the one trying to argue old issues here, and you can't even admit that!

I'm just watching the watcha fumble about for entertainment, see what BS you come up with next.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]watcha watcha watcha... again, an "industry expert" saying you can never be 100% secure, is absolutely NOT the same as him saying "you can never be 100% sure your computer is not infected." Quit changing your arguments. It's an tactic that everyone can see right through. Make up all the shit you want, you couldn't find anyone saying what you claimed. [/citation]

1 - How do you prove a computer is secure, if you can't detect all viruses?
2 - I haven't changed my argument, I just proved that a respected guy in the industry believes you can't ever be 100% secure. If you can't be 100% secure, how can you prove you have been in the past? (or prove you have no viruses). One requires the other.
3 - Remember, YOU are the one who claimed that you CAN be 100% virus free AND HAVE TO PROVE IT. You still haven't.

The industry expert explaining to you that you can't be 100% secure is simply evidence that not all threats are known and thus no software can ever prove that none are found.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
I pitty the people who have to work for you. You're one of those guys who got so annoying in a department that they promoted you to a different department so they wouldn't have to deal with you anymore. Just because your computers don't have the Kaspersky issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your narrow mindedness shines again. [/citation]

The fact that the Kaspersky 'issue' you claim doesn't affect us DOES mean that for us, the issue doesn't exist. As I said. I also told you that our subjective opinions on Kaspersky are irrelevant. Interesting how you would prefer to discuss a complete tangent than the actual discussion.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
The company I work for has deployed many enterprise IT solutions and seen this problem on dozens of systems across dozens of clients. Nobody has more experience than ol' watcha though. [/citation]

Does this mean that the issue occurred for us? Answer: no. What did I claim? Oh yes, that the issue didn't occur for us. Logic 101.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
I don't need to prove that Apple ad ever aired.
[/citation]

Yes you do. It's not an advert if it didn't.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
The fact that you couldn't prove it was banned even though you searched for banned ads is all the proof I need that it aired.[/citation]

wow, this is bizarro logic. I was showing you how easy it would be for you to find evidence that it was banned, if it actually had been. I don't believe you will find evidence that the advert you claim is misleading was banned, because it probably never was banned. Because it isn't misleading. How can you be so stupid to think that there being no evidence of it ever being banned or even being an advert at all proves your original claim that it was a misleading advert? LOL.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
Not to mention you only found a couple of ads banned in UK, which have nothing to do with the world. [/citation]

A ban in any country, of the advert which you claim is misleading, or any reputable authority declaring the advert as factually incorrect, is what your whole point depends on. It doesn't even have to be the UK - any country will do. That is the only way you can ever claim that it was misleading. All you're doing right now is saying YOU believe it's misleading. I can do that, or not do that, with any advert ever, so it's meaningless. You have not provided any evidence that any reputable agency for advert standards EVER agreed with you. You have to.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
The fact that you won't accept the ad I listed is just more proof of your sad denial and inability to formulate a credible defense for Apple. You know it aired, you know it is false advertising, so rather than accepting it and moving on, you just say "IT DONT COUNT" [/citation]

You linked a Youtube video. Youtube video does not necessarily equal advert. Simple, obvious.

I have also catered for the situation where it DID air (I have not claimed it never aired, simply that you haven't proven it did), by explaining to you that no reputable authority has ever declared it as misleading or factually incorrect, and also explaining to you that the issue is with you misinterpreting it, nothing else. Finally, you have still not proven at all, in any way, shape or form, that a computer can be proven to be virus free. The three pronged logic which is still every bit avoided by you now as when I first made them, 2 years ago ;-)

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
One day you may come to realize that Apple is not the god-like entity you think it is. It's just another company and they do the same shit to make money that every other company does. False advertising included. Deny the ad ever aired all you want, this fact remains.[/citation]

I posted adverts from Microsoft, Motorola and Advert which have been banned. I don't claim that no banned advert has ever aired. That's your own illogical inference. What I do claim is that when adverts are misleading or factually incorrect in the eyes of the agency who gets to make that call, they get banned.

I have also explained to you that the advert you specifically linked is not at all misleading in my opinion, and you still have yet to prove any of the 3 pronged argument

Nothing to do with Apple in particular.

So, for the... how many times in a row now? You have YET to prove:

a) The 'advert' ever aired'
b) That it is misleading
c) That you can have a 100% virus free pc and prove that is the case.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]tonyypy[/nom]watcha 02/06/2012 4:47 PM By watcha:The only way to settle this, is by you finding the advert, and then proving that it got banned by an ad standards agency (which would prove it was misleading - the only way you can prove that). But when you do that, you prove that it's no longer being used as advertising and you prove me right.Hi Watcha, it's a very interesting statement, well, I can see that you are the kind of guy that follow strict rule/definition without question, however, try to give the following question a thought -

1. UK ad standard agency is never wrong, no way a multi billion dollor company can infuence them[/citation]

The question is not about right or wrong, since there is no right or wrong - who has the authority to claim that the ad standard agency is wrong? They are the only authority in the UK who have the right to decide if an advert is misleading or not. A random guy who dislikes apple (beayn) is not an objective body. The UK ad standard agency was set up to be just that. They would strongly claim that no multi billion dollar company can influence them, but if you have any evidence that they have been bribed too, that's a far, far bigger claim which would need evidence. This kind of evidence, if it existed, would immediately be raised by all the competitors who fell foul of the bribes. I put it to you that any large national advertising standards agency, with or without the remote possibility of bribes, is more reputable and more reliable as a source than Beayn. Do you contest that?

[citation][nom]tonyypy[/nom]
2. UK law and rule are always fair and square, there's no gray area where multi billion dollor company's lawyer can find loop hole and take advantage of[/citation]

This isn't a legal matter, and the rules laid out (principles) by the advertising standards agency are very vague. Such as, no advert can be misleading. They are deliberately stated like that so that there are very few loop holes. If, however, you believe that this advert in question (assuming it ever aired) was accused of being misleading but found a 'legal loop hole', please explain which loop hole? The bottom line is they are there to protect the consumer and would not have to be victim to any 'loop hole' - they could simply change their principles to ensure that the loop hole didn't exist and that the customer is protected.

[citation][nom]tonyypy[/nom]
3. everyone in UK are definition aware like you , so they'll read/listen and apply perfect logic on every ad they see, no ambiguilty what so ever[/citation]

The test applied by the advertising standards authority does not assume this. They look at a 'typical consumer' who has some normal level of common sense - in other words, they use a 'reasonable' test. For example, if an advert claimed that your TV would send you to the moon, they may conclude that no reasonable person would ever believe that a TV would send you to the moon, and therefore allow it. My standard of logic has nothing to do with their test. In this particular advert, (if it ever aired), any reasonable person doesn't read into it that every single pc in the world has loads of viruses. Arguably because no reasonable person would believe this, and arguably because it isn't even claimed. In cases of ambiguity, so long as the customer isn't being misled, the advert is allowed. Since users of Mac do experience fewer viruses and do experience better reliability than PC's in general, they would regard it as not misleading - it's a genuine selling point.

[citation][nom]tonyypy[/nom]
4. every ad pass the UK ad standard agency is by definition - not misleading, thus there's 0 chance of misleading any viewer[/citation]

This, was never claimed. Clearly, some extra 'special' viewers can be misled even by objectively not-misleading claims. Take Beayn, for example, in this very post. You can never cater for the mentally retarded, or people who start out from a position of bias, and it would be unreasonable to expect the manufacturers to do so. I have never used any Apple operating system for my computers, I use Windows and Linux - but I don't take that and transfer it as insecurity by being so bitter about adverts which expose the fact that more viruses are written for them and thus any normal Windows user will have to deal with the issue of viruses and virus security.

[citation][nom]tonyypy[/nom]
5. if you say yes to all above, may i ask what are you smoking? i want some[/citation]

All has been explained to you.

For what it's worth, ANY advertising standards agency agreeing with Beayn that this 'advert' (if it ever aired) is 'misleading' is all that is required to prove that it's misleading. It's not a massive ask, as I proved by demonstrating how easy it is to find evidence when an advert actually is misleading.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]Oh I totally missed this part earlier. I said:"You keep repeating yourself saying that I won't address the issues, yet you insist that I do, while claiming that I'm the one trying to argue the old issues. Circular reasoning at its best, Again"You said:"Step 1 - You brought up a 2 year old topic, due to tearsStep 2 - I provide you with the same education that I did 2 years ago.Step 3 - You realise again why you were wrong so resort to insults like working at McDonalds.Step 4 - I tell you that that's what you're doing.Nothing circular there at all, just a whole series of your failures."[/citation]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
I say: haha, you always convince yourself of the funniest shit. Like I already said, I just had to mention that you believe everything that's advertised[/citation]

= Step 1.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]and you started crying again.[/citation]

Educating* again, = Step 2.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]You couldn't stand the fact you lost the argument and had to try to argue it all over again. You can stop any time, but I know you'll never let it go. That's why you keep demanding proof of this and that. [/citation]

= Step 3, you completely avoiding the argument content once you actually remember why you failed the first time, and resorting to insults / irrelevant claims.

And step 4 ^^^^^, me explaining to you that that's what you're doing.


[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
You repeatedly say that I won't address the issues - because you're the one trying to argue old issues here, and you can't even admit that!I'm just watching the watcha fumble about for entertainment, see what BS you come up with next.[/citation]

Did you address any of the issues in this post? No.

Did you attempt to in your previous post? Yes.

Are you seriously trying to claim you're not arguing about the old issues? After all you've posted? Actually - it's not that far from reality, all your posts which masquerade as being relevant points relating to our two year old argument are actually just fluff which have still failed to address any of the 3 points which made you wrong in the first place, and still do now.

And LOL @ you saying that I can't just 'stop' when YOU are the one who brought up the old advert argument, even linking the advert on Youtube (clearly not arguing, by the way). My logic will remain the same, always, and if you bring up an old issue, I will always continue to correct you on it, but don't mistake that with anything other than you still crying about the old debate you lost, and desperately bringing it up again.

Or, to put it in words you can understand 'you started it' ... so don't cry when I finish it, all over again.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]g-thor[/nom]My dogs bigger than your dog, my dog's bigger than yours...It was interesting until they all fell off the wagon and started the pi$$ing contest. The earlier parts with links to articles and posted opinions was great, showing varying perspectives, which is what the lawyers do in court - argue their side. Too bad the commenters got lost along the way.[/citation]

Note the point at which the 'commenters got lost' :

[ENTER: beayn & back_by_demand]

 

[beayn]

haha another wall of text from watcha. Keep crying about the old issues man. Just admit you lost the argument.

1) My PC is 100% positively not infected. It is not 100% secure. Those are two completely different things. You still haven't found me an "industry expert" saying "you can never be sure your PC is not infected" like you claimed.

2) All advertising is NOT true, even Apple ads can be false or misleading.

3) Linking an Apple ad from Youtube is a viable means of listing an Apple ad. Saying "IT DONT COUNT" over and over is just so typical of you and totally laughable.

4) Demanding evidence while claiming any evidence is not valid, then getting upset because said evidence is not provided = freaking hilarious (for both the fact my PC is NOT infected and the Apple ad being false)

5) Claiming I'm the one arguing after repeatedly getting upset that I won't argue the issues with you = freaking hilarious! Your walls of text are massive here. You read every line and try to attack everything said by anyone in total desperation. I skim your crap and post a few lines to keep you going.

6) Keep those veins popping in your forehead.