Temp (Armand.Hirt@caramail.com) on 12/1/05 wrote:
---------------------------
>
>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.

Yes, that usually happens when someone is in fear of being 'outed'. :-)

>
>Regarding your hypothesis that I was "implying something sinister",

Perhaps you should ask the question you asked me: Why do you think that this is the case?

>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?"

You were implying that Intel had put restrictions on David, and/or that David was malleable enough to be pressured by Intel. Hence my question about why this isn't asked about AMD.

Here is what I understand - David has spend a great deal of time talking with various experts, some of whom lurk or post here, some of whom post on comp.arch, and some that he has met at various conferences. I am not privvy to all of the efforts he has made, but I consider them to be 'beyond the call of duty' when compared with what I have seen other reviewers doing. He has, to the best of my knowledge, asked for possible benchmarks, run those suggestions by the experts to find out how applicable they might be on various platforms, and spent time trying to understand what is being measured and what the numbers might mean. He has probably made other efforst I am not aware of.

To be specific: You could have simply asked "Why did you chose the benchmarks you ran, and how did you obtain them?" This would have been more objective, more direct, would not carry any implications - and yet would achieve exactly the same result.


>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.

The truth of 'the matter'. Which matter - whether Intel had influenced or pressured David? Seems to me that the 'matter' that is more interesting and useful is the process David used to identify the benchmarks. But that wasn't actually asked, was it? Because you weren't interested in that information - you were interested in what *Intel* might have done, and whether David bowed under the pressure.

This was insulting to both Intel and David, whether they want to believe it, or you want to admit it. The 'truth' is one thing, the 'matter' is another.

>
>I remark that this tendency of trying to decipher hidden agendas or biases behind
>contributions is becoming an habit of yours.

As is your tendency to howl in objection and claim being a victim, particularly when you have made the choice of words - which you admit were made deliberately. Can you not admit that your intent was to find out if Intel had influenced David, rather than to find out what process David had followed to identify his choices?

I thought not...

>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.

Let me explain a bit further, since you seem to be protesting so much you are unable to recognize what I am objecting to. The focus should be on David's methods and his conclusions. Your focus was on whether Intel influenced him, which is only a small part of his efforts involved in this. You could have even asked it this way, if you were actually interested: "Did Intel suggest and/or provide the benchmarks? If not, what prompted you select the ones you used? If there were any that Intel suggested that you didn't use, can you explain why you didn't use them?"

This manner of questioning will gather much more information that is useful for determining the 'validity' of the benchmarks, and the review itself. Instead, you focused on a very narrow aspect of 'the matter' that related *only* to what pressure Intel may have brought to bear, hence my question and objection.

>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.

No you didn't. You just did exactly what you are objecting to me about. But in a very smarmy manner. Nice try.


>
>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 :-)

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but since you have now given a much more detailed and informative response, I feel compelled to reply. Yes, the word smarmy definitely applies in your case.

Thanks for playing...

Regards,
Dean

>
>- Armand