Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!aero!coffee From: coffee@aero.ARPA (Peter C. Coffee) Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Clock speed on those darn 80?87 chips ... Message-ID: <17844@aero.ARPA> Date: Mon, 28-Sep-87 11:49:25 EDT Article-I.D.: aero.17844 Posted: Mon Sep 28 11:49:25 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 29-Sep-87 06:57:21 EDT References: <454@hubcap.UUCP> <17263@aero.ARPA> <7385@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <17428@aero.ARPA> <7427@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> Reply-To: coffee@aero.aero.org (Peter C. Coffee) Distribution: na Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Lines: 23 Keywords: 8087, 80287, et al those math processors .... Summary: Facts vs. Anecdotes, Abuse: You Decide... Xref: mnetor comp.sys.intel:362 comp.sys.ibm.pc:8398 In article <7427@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: : > >Not only was this "quote" taken out of context, but it was also *edited* >to insure giving the incorrect information. : I don't know about your postnews program, but mine specifically asks me to "trim the quoted article down as much as possible." I'm sorry that you feel the result presented your comments out of context, but I vigorously object to the assertion that this was deliberate. Why should I reconstruct your message into a form that makes my stomach churn merely for the dubious pleasure of replying to the result? A sense of proportion, please. So far, I have provided a short answer to a short question; I have been told, without substantiation, that I was wrong; I have provided an extensive sup- porting excerpt from the relevant Intel document; and now I am being accused of the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty. No wonder it's so hard to get a question answered anymore. My use of sarcasm may have been inappropriate, but it's a long way from there to the sort of ad hominem attack in your reply. How about a presumption of good faith and a mutual interest in getting the *right* answer all around?