View Single Post
Old 24th November 2015, 03:50 PM   #85
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
"Forced"? You imply guilt where none is shown.
I implied error - the erratum statements show error. The clue is in the name.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I known. It's only asked because you seem to focus on only one aspect/area where the NIST did not.
The column 79 connection is exactly where NIST focused. Moreso in the tech briefing than the report, granted.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Plus other factors according to the NIST. Obviously you also consider these factors (see my stupid question)
Which one?

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
There you go again taking one element in isolation. Stop.
And there you go again telling people to stop.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
It has not be "invalidated". That's your claim and it has never been supported and has nothing to do with the fact you have not been able to produce a better hypothesis.
So you reckon NIST modeled the connection correctly. You're entitled to that opinion, but it remains just that - your barely asserted opinion.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top