William Campbell (wcampbell@realworldtech.com) on 11/29/05 wrote:
---------------------------
>
>"Read what I said. If you think I implied something, read what I said again. The inference could be in your reading."
>

I think you need to take that advice to heart. My original post was not in response to you, but to Armand. My response to you simply answered your question about why I didn't answer your question and what my intentions were. FWIW, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask which benchmarks each manufacturer recommends, though I haven't seen a review NDA for some time so I don't know if there are now any restrictions on revealing that information (though I suspect not).

Note that I said 'the way the question is asked'. For example, if Armand left his question as "What motivated you in this choice of applications, and who provided them?", that would have been sufficient for David to answer. However, further questions were asked that implied something more 'sinister'. "Did it come with Intel supplied benchmarks, which you ran?... was the availability of the system tied to the release of those benchmark figures?", etc.

If Intel actually was trying to 'force' people to make the platform look good, and put conditions on the review process - do you think they would allow the reviewer to actually reveal that information without any restriction? Don't you think that would result in *someone* at least anonymously tipping the media (such as The Inquirer) of such practices?

That line of questioning is intended to be leading, whether conciously or not. It forces the answer to be given in a particular way - focusing on what "Intel did" vs. what the reviewer did. It is as much an insult to the reviewer as it is to Intel, IMO. As I said, I am sensitive to this line of questioning for various reasons, and have seen the effects of it on people directly. Not intended to disparage Armand, but I really dislike this sort of innocuous method of pointing fingers at people/companies - it is dishonest and smarmy from my point of view.

Regards,
Dean