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

>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'.

I admit I would have preferred if you had stayed at the level of vague double entendre and disparaging allegations as you did until now, as those can be safely ignored.
Since you are finally questioning my motives in a very specific manner and in particular naming me, I feel compelled to reply.

Regarding your hypothesis that I was "implying something sinister", I have trouble understanding how I could have been more direct and transparent (as opposed to implying something): "And finally, was the availability of the system explicitely tied to the release of those benchmark figures? Or were you free to choose any benchmark?" which in turn gave ample room to David to explain what was going on and dispel the notion, completing the information given in the article, all in an open way. I don't think I implied something beyond what I wrote, which was hardly nebulous, and I firmly believe that being direct about such topics can be a good way towards understanding the truth of the matter.

I remark that this tendency of trying to decipher hidden agendas or biases behind contributions is becoming an habit of yours. In my opinion, and judging by the quality of the subthreads which followed such interventions, the discussions that ensue are not only almost devoid of technical content or interest, but problematically, are also exactly the thing that you used to warn some posters against: you focus on some aspects of the tone of the message rather than its actual content. In other words, you hurt the signal/noise ratio. In this respect, drawing an AMD vs Intel comparison in your first reply was quite singular, and would actually warrant a close inspection of your own motives. I let that to you, of course.

>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.

Heh. Judging from the above, I suppose I am really lucky you did not intend to disparage me. Had it been your intention, you could easily have coined me smarmy after weaseling for several posts around the issue when I think I have been, in fact, very frank and open. Lucky me :-)

- Armand