On Dec 21, 6:52 am, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote: > On 21 Dec 2007 16:41:26 +0200, Phil Carmody > > >> >> Forget gaps -- your method is biased! > > >> >Already responded to that irrelevancy elsewhere in the thread. > > >> Already responded to your weak coverup ploy. > > >So I saw. And laughed. > > I think you're in the wrong field.
Phil is doing the whole thing deliberately. The guy asked the question badly, so Phil intentionally responded badly; i.e., with a biased solution. On purpose. He meant to do that. Note the uncharacteristically enthusiastic "HTH!" at the end of his first post, ha ha, along with a further broad swath of hints along the way, along with overt and explicit documentation of his intent in RFC-822 compliant form. (See sec. 4.1)
So when you start telling him that his solution is biased, he's over there saying whatever the British equivalent of "duh" is. Some kind of metric "duh" I imagine. Or maybe they're standardizing on a Euroduh. Although I suppose if they did that the U.K. wouldn't adopt it, at least not right away.