Dean Kent (dkent@realworldtech.com) on 12/1/05 wrote:
---------------------------
>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'. :-)

Now, Dean, listen up: what you just said above is an 'implication' - and you'd do well to learn the difference between that and what you yourself may elect to read into more neutral statements (that's called 'inference').

>
>>
>>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?

The answer to that question can be found in your own words:

"However, further questions were asked that implied something more 'sinister'."

Unless, of course, you were suggesting that Armand ask why *you* thought his own words 'implied something sinister'. That, however, would seem superfluous: what you felt is whatever your felt, and it seems unlikely, given your other responses, that you'll admit that the feeling was internally inspired rather than objective.

That's a common characteristic of the self-deluded (to borrow your own construction from the start of your post).

>
>>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.

Horseshit. You *inferred* this, but it was not implied. At worst, the implication existed that it was not inconceivable that Intel *might* have put restrictions on David and/or that he *might* have been malleable enough to be pressured - but it is impossible to phrase *any* question without at least mildly implying the possibility of such a range of answers (if there were not such a range of conceivable answers, asking the question would be unnecessary).

> Hence my question about why this isn't asked about AMD.

A knee-jerk response which seems to have been addressed adequately elsewhere.

...

>To be specific: You could have simply asked "Why did you chose the benchmarks
>you ran, and how did you obtain them?"

And, indeed, that is precisely what he *did* ask:

"What motivated you in this choice of applications?"

This would have been more objective, more
>direct, would not carry any implications - and yet would achieve exactly the same result.

Again, horseshit: such general questions usually receive general answers. Since Armand was additionally interested in what influence Intel might have had (and had a specific reason for being so interested: "From reading the article, I get the impression that the system came together with Intel-recommended benchmarks, that you installed and ran"), asking specifically about that aspect was in no way inappropriate (or 'sinister').

>
>
>>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.

Had David elected to write a response comparable in length to the original article, perhaps. But as I just noted, such general questions tend to receive fairly general (and brief) answers.

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?

Well, simply providing a set of recommended benchmarks itself constitutes mild influence, Dean - unless David had elected not to use any of them. Given that he apparently *did* use some of them, it remains only to determine the *degree* of influence exerted, whether any more direct pressure accompanied it, and how, if at all, any such influence or pressure affected the resulting article.

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?

That's a rhetorical question, right? A rather in-denial Bushian rhetorical question, it would seem, since the very first question Armand asked was, of course, "What motivated you in this choice of applications?"

If you don't feel that this question requests the information that you just suggested above was not asked for, please explain specifically why.

> Because you weren't interested in that information

Let's see:

1. You suggest that a question was not asked, when in fact it was.

2. You then infer from the (incorrect, as it turns out) 'fact' that this question was not asked that the person had no interest in the matter, rather than that (had the answer to your rhetorical question actually been the one you seem to have expected) he simply did not elect to pursue that interest in this particular post.

This reflects incompetence of a magnitude which I have not been accustomed to seeing from you in the past but which I have thought I noted increasingly more recently. I've commented upon it more than once already in other contexts, so I'll simply suggest that it might be in your own best interest to seriously consider the possibility that something is going on with you internally that might be worth investigating.

- you were interested
>in what *Intel* might have done, and whether David bowed under the pressure.

That he was *also* interested in that aspect is reasonable to infer (since he *also* asked about it).

>
>This was insulting to both Intel and David, whether they want to believe it, or
>you want to admit it.

Sorry: David opened the door to an entirely reasonable question by divulging (as well he should have) that Intel provided some of the benchmarks he had used. Determining the degree to which this might or might not have influenced the article's conclusions was not insulting - in fact, it was something which a truly experienced author would have addressed explicitly (eliminating the need for the question) because it's so important.

> The 'truth' is one thing, the 'matter' is another.

The 'truth' (in fact, merely additional specifics) is all Armand asked for. The 'matter' seems to be that you've got a hair across your ass about asking for it.

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

An observation with which I heartily concur.

>
>As is your tendency to howl in objection and claim being a victim,

Well, when someone not only presumes to devine the internal intent of someone else but utters that inference publicly as fact, there's *some* degree of 'victimization' involved. Though to his credit Armand has addressed it calmly and reasonably.

particularly
>when you have made the choice of words - which you admit were made deliberately.

And well. You simply skimmed them, extracted what you seem to have already assumed was there, and ignored the rest.

>Can you not admit that your intent was to find out if Intel had influenced David,

Since he specifically asked that question, it seems unlikely that he would fail to 'admit' to doing so.

>rather than to find out what process David had followed to identify his choices?

Since he asked that more general question as well, it seems unlikely that he will admit not to have done so: even if his interest was *primarily* about Intel's influence (a matter of rather subtle inference, since he asked both questions and led with the more general one), he *did* begin by asking generally - and most of David's response to his post was in the general vein as well.

>
>I thought not...

You're talking to yourself again, Dean - ask those psychiatrists you've been associating with whether that's a good sign. The rest of your post descended below a threshold worth responding to, and I hope we won't see more like it in the future.

- bill