Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w
From: gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: A very brief history of optimal sorting methods
Message-ID: <1990Nov16.142700.29668@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 16 Nov 90 14:27:00 GMT
References: <5293:Nov1518:36:0490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <6067@lanl.gov> <12926:Nov1604:11:1490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 32

Maybe this should be moved to alt.pissing.contest?

Tony Warnock writes:
#He[Dan] has stated that "a few bits" are all that are necessary to represent
#value that grows combinatorily.

Dan Bernstein writes:
#No, I have not. You are a liar or a fool. I challenge you to show where
#I have stated that a few bits suffice to represent an exponential
#quantity. If you fail the challenge you are a liar. You will not
#succeed, as I have made no such statement.

Perhaps Dan is engaging in one of his retorical tricks by changing the
word combinatorily to exponential, and then calling Tony a liar.

Perhaps Dand did not expect people to nitice.

#No, I have not. You are a liar or a fool. I have said that Fortran does
#not have separate compilation *as in C*; compilation follows an entirely
#different philosophy in each language. 

Then you should have said the Fortran does not have the same way that
C does. Your revisionism does not hold here. By standard use of the
english language (you do speak english, don't you Dan), your statement
was the fortran does not have seperate compilation. If you want to say
that it has it, but it is different in philosophy, then do so.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w