Matthew Dillon wrote:
Well, if you think they're so provably wrong you are welcome to
put forth an actual technical argument to disprove them, rather then
throw out derogatory comments which contain no data value whatsoever.
I've done my best to explain the technical issues to you, but frankly
you have not answered with a single technical argument or explanation
of your own. If you are expecting acolades, you are aren't going to
get them from any of us.
My friends,
I can't help but noticing that Danial's argumentation style (you know,
the 50 column look, always starting with a little insult, like, "I see
you haven't done much empirical testing...", etc.) bears a striking
resemblance to our old friend em1897.
So before you jump into the discussion think again if you don't have
more important stuff to do.
Just my 2¢...
Sascha
