Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!rhsu From: rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu (Robert Hsu) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Byte benchmark articles (Re: Mac C Compilers) Message-ID: <13964@topaz.rutgers.edu> Date: Thu, 13-Aug-87 18:04:22 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.13964 Posted: Thu Aug 13 18:04:22 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 10:25:42 EDT References: <3560@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <13885@topaz.rutgers.edu> <213@casemo.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 108 In reply to Mr. Cuthie's highly responsible, intelligent, and dispassionate retort of my previous posting, I offer the following petty attempt of self defense. As I find his criticism of my overusing expletives to be valid, I will try to avoid them, albeit with great regret (note 1). In article <213@casemo.UUCP> brian@casemo.UUCP (Brian Cuthie ) writes: >This is *highly* biased. To be absolutely honest, I am indeed biased. How can one not be biased on the highly emotional issue of "which processor is better"? Mr. Cuthie claims to be impartial on the subject; if so he is missing out on two of the strongest of human feelings: love and hate. But I strongly suspect that, in replying so harshly to an article lauding the 68000, he has revealed a secret affection for the 80x86. > > thinking > ^^^^^^^^ > You can't be sure ????? If my article appears to you to be the work of some mindless idiot who can't think, surely you will not have troubled yourself to honor it with such a dignified, critical, and rational reply. As far as I remember (I'm sure Mr. Cuthie seriously doubts the reliability of my memory), I was really thinking at the time I wrote the article. I base this on the fact that I was conscious of electro-chemical activity in my brain while writing. > > have to, it can't even handle graphics. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This is plainly irresponsible !!!!! Any processor can handle graphics. From what I've heard, the 386 does not have bit-manipulation instructions. Perhaps that's why Intel is developing a graphics coprocessor. > While you degrade the 80x86. Surely Mr. Cuthie will not deny me of such a great pleasure. I would not call it degrading, however. I would call it telling the truth and nothing but the truth. > Then why waste our (the net's) time with this meaningless dribble !! Call it what you will, but this meaningless dribble is to me the consummate expression of the highest level of human wisdom. As for wasting your time, I offer my sincerest apologies. > > don't one of you technical fellows out there who, unlike me, really > ^^^^^^^^^ > That would be just about anyone. I surely hope so. Being a person of extreme vanity, I would be devastated to learn otherwise. > Nice touch. Two signatures for the price of one... Thank you. As I have already noted, I have great self pride, and love to see my name as much as possible. > He obviosuly does not have any real understaning of the issues My God! Is it really that obvious? I tried my best to conceal this grave flaw, but apparently it cannot escape the acute and the observing. > > -Brian > Note 1: There is *absolutely* no reason for profanity in a well presented > argument. Mr. Hsu has obviously replace four letter words for reasoning. > This type of argument style is nothing more than offensive and has no > place on the net. Note 1: With all due respect to Mr. Cuthie and all God-fearing, clean-living people everywhere, I would like to propose that profanity is in the eye of the beholder (listener). What you call profanity are mere interjections to me, such as Wow! Great! etc. I used them to make my article livelier and more vivid. In fact I recommend their usage for dramatic impact. Apparently it worked, since Mr. Cuthie was able to note every one of them, except one. And besides, I didn't even use the F word! > > Brian Cuthie > -Rob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Hsu DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications RPO 6768 CN 5063 that appeared in the preceding article. New Brunswick, NJ 08903 {...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!rhsu} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Vidi, Vici, Veni" "Coito ergo sum" One more time: -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Hsu DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications RPO 6768 CN 5063 that appeared in the preceding article. New Brunswick, NJ 08903 {...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!rhsu} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Vidi, Vici, Veni" "Coito ergo sum"