Dean Kent (dkent@realworldtech.com) on 11/30/05 wrote:
---------------------------
>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.

I must have not made myself clear then. I do take that advice seriously. You have (it seems to me) attributed some inference to Armand's post. It's almost certain you know more about him than I do, so you are most likely correct. However, your broad brush statement about people (I presume AMD fanboys) _not_ posing the same question when AMD systems are reviewed, _seems_ (to me) to fall into a similar category. I may be wrong. The implication is that _all_ AMD fanboys fail to pose the question, therefore their motives are suspect and should be dismissed en mass. A little harsh don't you think?

The point I am trying to make is that with online forums, intent is extremely hard to judge--things could come out looking bad due to language/culture/education level barriers, or as you say, nefarious intent. To repeat myself, you probably do know Armands stance better than I, but for someone such as myself who only has a passing knowledge of people's posting form-guide on this forum, even your statement can _look_ "bad".

NOTE: I am not saying that your post was, or is "bad". Or that Armands was or is--I don't know enough to know. It just seemed harsh on first and subsequent readings. But that is why I kept posting--to find out. Not to anger you, others or cause offence.

As a general aside, this forum has (it seems to me) generated a lot of heated argument over AMD/Intel/SUN/IBM of late--for no good purpose. But perhaps it's me.

Cést la vie


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