🚀 go-pugleaf

In reply to Mr. Cuthie's highly responsible, intelligent, and
dispassionate retort of my previous posting, I offer the following
petty attempt of self defense.  As I find his criticism of my
overusing expletives to be valid, I will try to avoid them, albeit
with great regret (note 1).

In article <213@casemo.UUCP> brian@casemo.UUCP (Brian Cuthie ) writes:

>This is *highly* biased.

To be absolutely honest, I am indeed biased.  How can one not be
biased on the highly emotional issue of "which processor is
better"?  Mr. Cuthie claims to be impartial on the subject; if
so he is missing out on two of the strongest of human feelings:
love and hate.  But I strongly suspect that, in replying so harshly
to an article lauding the 68000, he has revealed a secret
affection for the 80x86.

> > thinking
>   ^^^^^^^^
>   You can't be sure ?????

If my article appears to you to be the work of some mindless
idiot who can't think, surely you will not have troubled yourself
to honor it with such a dignified, critical, and rational reply.
As far as I remember (I'm sure Mr. Cuthie seriously doubts the
reliability of my memory), I was really thinking at the time
I wrote the article.  I base this on the fact that I was
conscious of electro-chemical activity in my brain while writing.

> > have to, it can't even handle graphics.
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is plainly irresponsible !!!!!  Any processor can handle graphics. 

From what I've heard, the 386 does not have bit-manipulation
instructions. Perhaps that's why Intel is developing a graphics
coprocessor.

> While you degrade the 80x86.

Surely Mr. Cuthie will not deny me of such a great pleasure.
I would not call it degrading, however. I would call it telling
the truth and nothing but the truth.

> Then why waste our (the net's) time with this meaningless dribble !!

Call it what you will, but this meaningless dribble is to me the
consummate expression of the highest level of human wisdom. As for
wasting your time, I offer my sincerest apologies.

> > don't one of you technical fellows out there who, unlike me, really
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^
> That would be just about anyone.

I surely hope so.  Being a person of extreme vanity, I would be
devastated to learn otherwise.

> Nice touch. Two signatures for the price of one...

Thank you.  As I have already noted, I have great self pride,
and love to see my name as much as possible.
 
> He obviosuly does not have any real understaning of the issues

My God! Is it really that obvious?  I tried my best to conceal
this grave flaw, but apparently it cannot escape the acute and 
the observing.

> 
> -Brian

> Note 1: There is *absolutely* no reason for profanity in a well presented
> argument.  Mr. Hsu has obviously replace four letter words for reasoning.
> This type of argument style is nothing more than offensive and has no
> place on the net.

Note 1: With all due respect to Mr. Cuthie and all God-fearing,
clean-living people everywhere, I would like to propose that 
profanity is in the eye of the beholder (listener).  What you
call profanity are mere interjections to me, such as Wow! Great! etc.
I used them to make my article livelier and more vivid. In fact I
recommend their usage for dramatic impact. Apparently it worked, 
since Mr. Cuthie was able to note every one of them, except one.

And besides, I didn't even use the F word!

> 
> Brian Cuthie
>

-Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hsu		  DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for 
rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu 	  inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications
RPO 6768  CN 5063	  that appeared in the preceding article.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903   {...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!rhsu}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Vidi, Vici, Veni"					"Coito ergo sum"

One more time:
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hsu		  DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for 
rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu 	  inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications
RPO 6768  CN 5063	  that appeared in the preceding article.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903   {...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!rhsu}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Vidi, Vici, Veni"					"Coito ergo sum"