Yet nowhere in his post does Tamas explain how Limbaugh is wrong, technically un-informed or illogical. And he actually concedes two points, apparently unaware that he's doing so, that would support the idea that Limbaugh could have been targeted. "[I]t's a tricky hack to mess with someone's phone in that way... but far from impossible," Tomas writes, without giving the slightest technical explanation of just how it could be done. And secondly, "With the Old-Testament-Level of ill-will Rush has created for himself among many minorities (and among women, who are not exactly what you'd call a "minority"), it's not hard to imagine someone might make it their little OCD project to mess with Rush's iPhone," Tamas writes.

"Despite how tempting it would be to enter into a long-winded diatribe about Rush's politics, we are still just a tech blog and that discussion falls outside the parameters of what we want to be known for," he concludes, still without ever engaging in any technical analysis of Limbaugh's account. "I'm not a political analyst, but I am a writer with a decade and a half of professional tenure behind me... and I can say that rants are both the easiest to write and are the most popular among readers, but are almost always the hallmark of a writer with poor analytical skills."

Apparently calling someone "clueless," and prone to "saying things which take a gigantic, steaming dump on logic," and the creator of an "Old-Testament-Level of ill-will" doesn't qualify as ranting or as an indicator of "poor analytical skills."

Tamas' final non-technical conclusion: "Perhaps the biggest criticism that can be leveled [sic] against Limbaugh for his epic iPhone story is one he rarely hears: It was pretty boring."