Date: Dec 21, 2007 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Random numbers
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:17:54 -0800 (PST), Marshall
>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 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.
What a sneak!