On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:45:30 -0500, wrote in
:


It's secondary and arguable as to why it does what it does. All one
really has to know is what it does.


But we only have your word on that, which seems to differ from the
word of everyone else in this group.

What's my word based on? A test.


A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no
independent verification.


What's your word based on?
Consensus?


Common sense and the laws of physics.


But according to you, "we should
never trust the claim of others. You and me included."

No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't
have to believe me.


Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?


So dig right
into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?

I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
as to why it didn't perform.


But I want -your- hypothesis, tnom.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----