Temp (Armand.Hirt@caramail.com) on 12/5/05 wrote:
---------------------------
>
>That is not quite the start: the quote misses the motivation of the questions,
>which also stays in the original post. I was transparent in explaining why I thought
>so. Again, I see no implication in there. I introduce my hypothesis and ask for information.

A hypothesis is formed when you have made enough observations to come to some 'conclusion', and then you test it. IOW, you had already come to some conclusion and were 'testing' it. This is why the entire focus of the questioning was on whether Intel had exerted some pressure.

>
>Shrugging only gets you so far, as you can see.

As does denying the obvious, as you can see.

Let me ask you this: You have been annoyed at me at least a half dozen times in the past when I have suggested that you are exhibiting some bias against Intel in your questions or 'neutral' comments. Why would you think that I would have that impression?

Nonetheless, I can see that for you maintaining the appearance of neutrality is of utmost importance, so the chances of you admitting that you really do have a suspicion, or even a strong belief, that Intel pressures and/or manipulates the media are pretty small.

This in itself is really of no consequence, since there are a lot of people who believe this, or suspect it. It is the ones who proclaim neutrality, yet whose posts contain vague suggestions of it that are annoying from my point of view. Hence the question I asked - which I said I had asked for a specific reason.

Now, if you want to convince me that you are truly a neutral observer who has no preconceived notions about what tactics Intel or AMD might use, you can make the effort of forming your questions differently. If you don't care whether I believe that or not, you can continue to form your questions the same way, and I will continue to ask why they are formed that way, or why they are of any relevance. That is true of others as well, and regardless of which company, or even person, they may be discussing.

Regards,
Dean

>
>- Armand