|
|
|
|
|
by dragontamer
2685 days ago
|
|
> ive limited my commentary to the technical details Prove it. > apparently filled with unhinged personal attacks, > you were spreading lies > lying and misleading Too late. You already failed at this within your very own post. The above words are not technical in any means, and I predicted that this would happen. Let me repeat myself one last time: > I do not wish to discuss this matter with you any further Perhaps I was not clear? But let me say it one more time. I DO NOT WISH TO DISCUSS THIS MATER WITH YOU ANY FUTHER. Am I clear this time? EDIT: That does not mean I'm unwilling to discuss things with you in the future. As I stated earlier, it seems like you're an avid assembly programmer, and there aren't many of those in the world. So maybe next time, I'll feel confident to have a discussion with you. But in this thread, at this time? I do not wish to hold any technical discussion with you today. |
|
if you can't handle being called out for providing false technical information... don't hand out false technical information? seems easy. it's not, as you so desperately want, a personal attack to identify areas where you're misrepresenting the technology.
im curious, how did you want this to go? DT, incorrectly:"fences are required" jv6:"ah, well, hm, er, here's section 8.1.3 which doesn't mention fences at all and specifies two methods (neither of which is a fence) that ARE required to ensure correct operation" like can i even tell people the truth? or must your egregious misrepresentation stand without question for you to find the "tone" acceptable?