quasi <email@example.com> writes: > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:17:54 -0800 (PST), Marshall > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > >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. > > > >quasi, > > > >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 posts a deliberately flawed solution _after_ I had already posted a > correct one (about 20 minutes after), and then baits me when I > challenge his claimed solution.
As the good doctor has pointed out, the original problem was so badly posed that either no solution is possible, and therefore no solution is correct (Bob's stance), or that practically anything is a correct solution (my stance).
And as I said right at the start, the problem smacked of being homework which the OP wasn't willing to put any effort into, and therefore entirely deserving of my approach. So I just dived in.
Anyone else apart from the OP getting confused by my maelstrom is mere collateral damage.
> What a sneak!
That I'll never deny.
Phil -- Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all. -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration