microcode, compilers, and supercomputer architecture

From: Eric Smith <eric_at_brouhaha.com>
Date: Mon Apr 5 18:13:02 1999

> The quote was passed down several layers of reply. I expect one to
> remember one's own words. Your failure to do so does not provide any
> obligation on my part.

No, go back and look at it. You were quoting my quote of *your* words.
My only mention of "assembly" had been several message earlier, and you
were not quoting that message. You may have been trying to implicitly
refer to my earlier message. You can implicitly refer to anything that you
want, but that doesn't serve to make it clear to me, or the other people that
may read this thread, as to what the heck you're talking about.

> It is relevant to the notion that humans must use methods not algorithmic.

It *may* be relevant. Then again, it may not. You'll have to do better
than simply stating that "it is relevant"; without a better basis than that,
it can only be construed as a statement of opinion on your part.

> I am not applying GIT to the operation of compilers. Instead, I am applying
> it to the operation of human intelligence. Whether you concede the point
> makes no difference to me. My purpose is to refute your claims of the
> superiority of software versus human intelligence, and that is all.

Yes, and you insist on deliberately ignoring my actual claim, and refuting
a different claim which I have not ever made.

I've got real work to do, so if you can't be bothered to

1) stay on topic (i.e., argue with my actual claim rather than your more
    general claim), and

2) provide logical arguments rather than vague assertions that GIT is
    relevant, and

3) not ignore me when I concede your point, but instead keep arguing for
    it,

there is no point to continuing this discussion.
Received on Mon Apr 05 1999 - 18:13:02 BST