tecate (tecate@devil.com) on 12/2/05 wrote:
---------------------------
>What Temp asked was out of line and the implication
>was sinister, that perhaps Intel had influenced
>his choice of tests. It was very clear. Todd just
>does his usual defending of anything anti Intel.
>
>So keep on passing.
>
>
>Ray (a@b.c) on 12/2/05 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Dean Kent (dkent@realworldtech.com) on 12/2/05 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>Bill Todd (billtodd@metrocast.net) on 12/1/05 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Whether it is innocent or not depends mostly upon whether the benchmark provided
>>>>by Intel was likely to produce results considered more desirable by Intel than other
>>>>benchmarks you might have chosen on your own likely would have.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Innocence has nothing to do with it, of course. This is, IMO, the crux of the matter:
>>>
>>>What if David had selected a benchmark on his own, and it was an unsuitable benchmark
>>>(whether it favors the manufacturer or not) - either knowingly or unknowingly?
>>>Would that make the quality/usefulness of the review any better? Of course not.
>>>
>>>What if the manufacturer had suggested - or even required - a benchmark, which
>>>David would otherwise not have used, and it was entirely suitable. Would that make
>>>the quality/usefulness of the review any worse? Of course not.
>>>
>>>So - in the end, the only *real* concern should be the suitability of the benchmark,
>>>and what process was used to identify that. Because *this* is something that can be independently validated.
>>
>>I don't buy your argument. You are using logic for support rather than enlightenment.
>>You are still imputing unmade statements to third parties.
>>
>>>But this isn't what Armand - nor you, at this moment - decided to focus on. Instead
>>>the focus is/was on whether Intel did or did not 'influence' the choice of benchmarks.
>>>If the benchmark isn't suitable, then the question of whether Intel influenced
>>>the choice or not isn't really relevant because you've already determined that the
>>>review isn't valid, and the reviewer isn't competent/knowledgable enough to consider
>>>a useful source of information - and that is all you need to know. The converse is also true, of course.
>>
>>Seems to me you are really trying hard to make a very weak case here. I can impute
>>anything I like into your statements, and claim you are implying something until
>>I am blue in the face, and it would make me no less the fool.
>>
>>>Now, in a situation where you can't directly ask the reviewer what process he/she
>>>followed and what makes him/her believe the benchmark is relevant/useful, you might
>>>feel it necessary to resort to innuendo and doubt by asking who 'influenced' the
>>>benchmark selection - however, when you can directly ask about the process and suitability,
>>>and are likely to get a direct answer - there doesn't seem to be any need for those games, does there?
>>
>>>And, BTW, you can be as rude, nasty and bullying as you want and it won't impress
>>>me or 'win the argument' (though you might feel satisfaction or some sense of power
>>>doing so).
>>
>>I have read this entire thread, and so far, I am very unimpressed with your posts.
>>You have lost this argument in my eyes, both with your tone and your attempts to
>>put words and meanings in other people's mouths. Furthermore, I found you to be
>>more unpleasant in this thread than Bill. I think it was something to do with him being much less defensive.
>>
>>I saw no vicious subliminally encoded slander in the original question posted,
>>and I still see none. I do, however, see you trying really hard to make a mountain
>>out of a molehill, and your first post on the matter was both hysterical and made
>>claims that were immediately falsifiable. When someone did so, you hared off on
>>a grand mission to give validity to what you said.
>>
>>Please, do now, what you should have done then: concede you said something stupid,
>>salvage the remaining non-stupid parts, and find a reasonable position to defend.
>>
>>> If you want to present a case where 'who suggested the benchmark' trumps
>>>'what was your process for selecting it, and what makes it suitable', I am all ears.
>>>Please feel free to have a go at it.
>>
>>Why should he bother? The original question asked was reasonable, and your attempts
>>to weasle out of your initial post should not include him having to do your work for you.
>>
>>So, again: you lose. I consider myself a random passer-by who otherwise doesn't care, and you lose in my eyes. Sorry.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Ray
>>
>