nospam
In article <m04vm501nuf@news6.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter@verizon.net> wrote:

PeterN
On 9/24/2014 2:34 PM, nospam wrote:

nospam
In article <lvu11p02s5m@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter@verizon.net> wrote:

PeterN
I noticed and was hoping nosense would have conducted his own exeriments. I went back and forth and saw no change in output. Proof of a concept includes statement of the methodology, together with a display of the results, in such manner that anyone can reproduce the results. When the claiment resorts to name calling, there can be little realistic hope of proof.

I forgot to mention the age of the article,

nospam
no you didn't.

PeterN
Show me where

nospam
one cannot prove a negative.

PeterN
and that several versions of PS have come and gove.

nospam
that does not matter because the math hasn't changed.

you're weaseling.

PeterN
you arw the expert at that.

nospam
a distant second to you, who was paid to be a weasel.

PeterN
That article is no proof of anything current.

nospam
in other words, you admit that you're full of shit.

PeterN
ou made the statement, failed to provide any rational proof. Your use of the perjorative is prof that you are nothing but a troll.

nospam
projection.

PeterN
Based on historic precedent.

nospam
in other words, no facts. why am i not surprised.

*you* are the one who made the first pejorative remark and proof was provided all along anyway.

you're so full of shit.

PeterN
Atleast I'm not alike you. A real POS.

nospam
correct, you are not like me. you're a pos and i am not. you did get that one right.