Linus Torvalds (torvalds.delete@this.linux-foundation.org) on November 16, 2014 5:17 pm wrote:
> someone (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com) on November 16, 2014 4:31 pm wrote:
> >
> > Either precisely point out a specific Itanium paper from HP or Intel that attempted to
> > obfuscate issue/speculative throughput or IPC as executed/committed throughput
> > or IPC
>
> Where did I say "paper from Intel or HP"?
>
> Just google for Itanium and IPC, and see how there's a lot of some kind of orgasmic "high IPC" mention.
> Really. For extra points, add a "site:realworldtech.com", just to bring it closer to home.

You specifically said "VLIW people", "the people who count IPC for speculative work", and "The Itanium
people". I call you out on your posting of wholesale unsubstantiated personal belief/prejudice as fact
and challenge you to show where the "Itanium people" (who the fuck would that be other than Intel and
HP folks Linus?) promulgated the falsehoods you ascribed to them and the best you can come up with
is a reference to an article on RWT? WTF?

You regularly denigrate and belittle folks here who pass off opinions as fact and challenge them to
show objective proof. Are you really so full of yourself that you think you are above being held to
the same standard?

So once again I challenge you to reference a single paper written by Intel and/or HP Itanium technical
staff which includes misleading statements/representations of the type that you claim or withdraw your
claim and apologize to all the folks whose reputation you impugned through your churlish careless
neglect of the facts. Come on, step up and be a man instead of a cheap troll.