Robert Myers (rbmyersusa.delete@this.gmail.com) on October 17, 2012 5:45 pm wrote:
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on October 17, 2012 5:24 pm wrote:
> > Robert
> Myers (rbmyersusa.delete@this.gmail.com) on October 17, 2012 2:38 pm
> >
> wrote:
> > > anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on October 17, 2012 5:12 am
>
> > wrote:
> > > > Robert
> > > Myers
> (rbmyersusa.delete@this.gmail.com) on
> > October 17, 2012 4:34 am
> >
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > anon
> >
> (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on October 17, 2012 1:17 am
> > >
> > >
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > Exactly.
> > > This is why
>
> > > > > > low
> > > > bandwidth,
> > high latency
> memory and
> > > >
> > > > communications is not the
> >
> problem, but
> > > >
> > > > > > the
> > >
> *solution*. Together
> > with
> > > > > caches and changed
> software
> > > >
> > >
> > assumptions, of
> > > >
> > > course.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > Not to
> > > > >
> > > > mention
> changed
> > physics.
> > > >
> > > > There are
> > >
> physical problems which do not
> > require
> > > > it.
> > >
> >
> > > No matter how hard I
> > > try, I
> > cannot manage a
> response that doesn't drip with sarcasm. I'm sorry.
> > >
> > I've
> been over this ground too many times, and being patient with smugness has
> >
>
> > > worn me out. If there is anything you think you don't already know,
> you
> > have my
> > > email address.
> >
> > Sarcasm or ridicule is
> fine. If you really do
> > know far more than anyone else in the field, my
> puny statements would not stand
> > up to a second's thought. But if the
> response was just full of the usual
> > handwaving and mischaracterization of
> my position in order to make your
> > argument
> >
> > " Since you seem
> to think that caches and changed software
> > assumptions can address all
> problems of importance,"
> >
> > Then you rightly should
> > not
> bother.
>
> It's not a matter of not bothering. I have written out entire
> responses and deleted them. I don't think David Kanter would appreciate my
> knack for vicious prose. Whoever you are, you fail to impress. Others who
> actually have something to offer have always been willing to take up cudgels,
> whether publicly or privately.

If you had substance, you shouldn't need to fill out whole paragraphs with personal attacks. A smattering of them, when warranted, is accepted.