you should try this some time...

Let's dissect this one bit at a time (mostly because it's fun ^_^):

> If I make the assumption that you either own or intend to own an iPhone

A wrong assumption, on both counts.

> then your argument is "ad hominem"

Incorrect, even if my argument where ad hominem (which it is not, but more on that later) you would not have to make that assumption to make it true.

> at least from a circumstansual perspective,

Ad hominem attacks are, by definition, never circumstansual.

> this is doubly true if you take into account your assertion "their profit margin is not my problem as a consumer",

The assertion you refernce is in no way shape or form ad hominem

> but of course it is, and that was my point, whilst you may not care that the producer of a product may fail because of a fragile bottom line,

This is intrinsically contradictory, either it is my problem or it's not. It cannot be both.

> I find your blindness when it comes to the fact that they attempt to protect their product

It is not their product once I have paid for it.

> (therefore their bottom line) very short sighted.

If they will not sell for more then it costs to produce, it's not me being short-sighted.

Now, it's quite clear, from the above passage, that you do not understand the concept of 'argumentum ad hominem' so I will quote the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's handout on logical fallacies (http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html) '... the ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually "You shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.' To make completely clear, any time you choose to insult someone it is an ad hominem attack.

> To answer your title, It is unfair of me to indicate that you are a numpty

I'm glad you noticed, there may be hope yet!

> just becuase you have displayed a numpty attitude, however everything I have read, written by you implies you are, in fact a numpty,

See? Here we go again. You are not focusing on the arguement at hand, but at me as an individual. That is the logical fallacy we talked about before.

> I'll summarise, I believe that it is in a consumers best interest not to undermine producers of good products,

To use an object outside it's intended use does not undermine the producer of it.

> I have inferred (from that which you have written) that not only do you think that this is irrelevant,

It's not undermining, it's mearly useing something which has been paid for how I see fit, and because it's mine, it is my choice.

> you think it's a consumers duty!

I make no such assertion, and do not think anything of the sort. There is equally nothing wrong with those who do and do not jailbreak their iPhones (or whatever consumer electronics you wish to fill in here)

> perhaps if your thinking was a little less INTP

Interesting you should use a Jung/Myer-Briggs personality type here. If I didn't know better I would think you somehow where trying to imply something is wrong with people who have an INTP personallity type, but to quote the Myer-Briggs Foundation's web site "The goal of knowing about personality type is to understand and appreciate differences between people. As all types are equal, there is no best type." (http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/)

> you'd be able consider that the world is not just you.

I don't see how this relates to the INTP personallity type. The description, for reference, is "[INTPs] Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical." (http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/the-16-mbti-types.asp#INTP) This does not indicate that one is inconsiderate, but that one values ideas over socal interaction, quite to the contrary of what you imply a well thought-out differing idea is quite valuble, as it permits one to better understand their own argument, and, by proxy, the world at large.

For the record, I do acknowladge that I do happen to be an INTP, but I really do think that there might be a bit of transference going on here with respect to consideration of others.

Re: I will not reduce my self to argumentum ad hominem

If I make the assumption that you either own or intend to own an iPhone then your argument is "ad hominem" at least from a circumstansual perspective, this is doubly true if you take into account your assertion "their profit margin is not my problem as a consumer", but of course it is, and that was my point, whilst you may not care that the producer of a product may fail because of a fragile bottom line, I find your blindness when it comes to the fact that they attempt to protect their product (therefore their bottom line) very short sighted.

To answer your title, It is unfair of me to indicate that you are a numpty just becuase you have displayed a numpty attitude, however everything I have read, written by you implies you are, in fact a numpty, I'll summarise, I believe that it is in a consumers best interest not to undermine producers of good products, I have inferred (from that which you have written) that not only do you think that this is irrelevant, you think it's a consumers duty! perhaps if your thinking was a little less INTP you'd be able consider that the world is not just you.

I will not reduce my self to argumentum ad hominem.

If Apple has a busness model that doesn't permit them to make a profit from their product we should see that in their bottom line. As has been pointed out on a number of articles, Apple is quite profitable. Additionally Apple is not *entitled* to make a profit on a bad bussness plan anyway, their profit margin is not my problem as a consumer.

When I buy a phone the only "agreement" I enter into is the one with the phone company, which includes a termination clause. When I fullfill my end of that bargin (if that be by the termination clause or by paying over the life of the contract), I have fullfilled ALL of my obligations. If I barrow a car with the agreement "I'll fill the tank or give you a £50" they cannot really complain if I leave the £50. For the record, you should be able to modify your PSP to play "games you download," provided said games are made availble for download by the copyright holders. Sony's busness model is not my problem (neither is Nintendo's nor Microsoft's)

For the sake of arguemnt, let's assume that I DO have an obligation to fullfill everyone one of the needs of Apple when I buy the phone they produce (even ones that I am not bound to by any law or contract) if Apple's bussness model requires me to buy from there software store, how much am I obligated to buy? Does buying one app fullfill my obligation or do I need to buy 50? Does the price of the app(s) matter? What if I don't want to buy any of the apps, does that make me anti-apple too?