Dean Kent (dkent@realworldtech.com) on 12/2/05 wrote:
---------------------------
>Bill Todd (billtodd@metrocast.net) on 12/2/05 wrote:
>---------------------------
>Or are you so completely committed to your prejudices that
>>you feel that real analysis would be superfluous?
>
>Imply: To indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated.

Well, you seem to be able to read (or at least copy the words) - but still don't seem to be able to understand what you've read.

>
>"From reading the article, I get the impression that the system came together with
>Intel-recommended benchmarks, that you installed and ran.

A clear statement there indicating what Armand *thought* was the situation (as contrasted with your apparently preferred approach of suggesting that you already *know* what's going on).

> Is that what happened?

Another contrast with your own style: actually asking a question rather than presuming that you already know the answer. Yet another contrast, of course, is that unlike yourself Armand in fact *did* understand the situation he was asking about (as David subsequently confirmed), though he was sufficiently unassuming not to presume that.

>Was SPECjbb2005 also part of the "package"?

Pretty innocuous there, I'd say.

And finally, was the availability of
>the system explicitely tied to the release of those benchmark figures?"

That, Dean, is a *question*, not an implication. As I've already noted (but you seem incapable of appreciating), a question does not in and of itself imply its own answer - at most, it implies a possible range of answers (though often implicitly admitting that an answer outside that implicit range might exist as well).

Unless, of course, it's phrased as some of your 'questions' are - e.g., "But that wasn't actually asked, was it?" (wrong in that instance, of course: the question in question *was* asked), or "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?" (another near-assertion - far beyond mere 'implication' - that was superficially attempting to masquerade as a question).

Smarmy is as smarmy does, Dean. If you can't appreciate the gulf between your 'questions' and Armand's, then there's no hope (or respect, at least on my part) for you.

By the way, your failure above to quote Armand's continuation above ("Or were you free to choose any benchmark?") which *explicitly provided for* the possibility that the answer was that *no* Intel pressure had occurred verges upon outright intellectual dishonesty: while no such continuation was *required* for a simple yes/no question, the fact that Armand went out of his way to make the question balanced says a lot about him, and your attempt to ignore it says a lot about you (whether in the area of incompetence or of deliberate misdirection being the only part which remains unclear).

>
>The way the questions were asked was not from a 'neutral' position, but one that
>suggests that David's benchmark selections may have been made primarily because
>of Intel's influence *WITHOUT EXPLICITLY STATING IT*

Trying to weasel out in small stages, eh? Your first statement (which, while incompetent, was not made with sufficient vigor to elicit a response on my part) was "My only objection is in the way questions are asked, which imply some kind of 'pressure' from Intel." Note the direct assertion that the question implied the *existence* of pressure from Intel, as contrasted with the phrasing "*may* have been made" in your last statement above which (correctly, though far too belatedly) recognizes that any implication was merely that the *possibility* of such pressure might exist.

Your second statement (which also failed to reach the level of hysteria required to elicit a response from me) was "However, further questions were asked that implied something more 'sinister'." Again, note the assertion that something 'sinister' *was* implied rather than that *the possibility of something 'sinister'* was implied (in the form of a straight-forward question asked to determine whether it in fact existed).

Your third statement (specifically responding to Armand) *was* sufficiently outrageous to get me to respond, though: it was "You were implying that Intel had put restrictions on David, and/or that David was malleable enough to be pressured by Intel." Note, a third time, that you asserted clearly that the implication was made that Intel *had* put restrictions on David and/or that David *was* malleable enough to be pressured - again, not that these were just some of a range of possibilities running from that extreme to its opposite.

I've explained this before to no apparent avail. But the fact that such linguistic incompetence appears to be more wide-spread here than one might hope suggests that the point bears repeating.

>Or are you so completely committed to your prejudices that you feel that *real* analysis would be superfluous?
>
>(rolls eyes).

You'd be better off opening them.

- bill