Dan, I admit that your response was very mature, considering how heated I got in my last post. Your arguments are reasonable, and although I don't agree with all of them, I think they are fairly presented for discussion on a forum such as this. I know it's tempting to throw me in what you like to call the Elmer/Yousef/Engle chorus, but I am my own person. I don't agree with everything they say, either. The reason why I don't take up arms against them probably says something for my own biases, but then again, I invest far more heavily in Intel than I do in AMD. ;-)
You and I do have something in common, though, and that is a thirst for more data to prove each of our own points. I appreciate the data that you lend, too, since it gives a more complete piece of the puzzle. However, that doesn't mean I won't disagree with you if I think you are being misleading and only giving half-facts. And I expect no less from you. I deserve to be caught on the same mistakes.
As for Watsonyouth, I'd appreciate his process expertise far more if he'd tell me I was incorrect, and then offered an alternative explanation. But his tone was rude, he danced around the topic so long that it became dragged out and frustrating, and his goal seemed to be to wipe my face so full of dirt that he could look back and admire his work. If he's reading this, I hope he knows that I admire the experts, and I'm willing to forget the whole incident. He was right to catch me on a mistake, but hopefully in the future he can be more tactful in pointing it out.
wanna_bmw |
