Re: okay already

On 23 March 2010 21:24, Dean Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Chris Pugh wrote:
>
>> On 23 March 2010 15:19, Dean Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Michael Loftis wrote:
>>
>> >> What you're totally missing, and have been totally misssing, and has been
>> >> tried to explain to you, is that, unpatched, it's MANY orders of magnitude
>> >> *easier* to get false data into the cache and propagated to users.
>> >
>> > The math does not hold for your claim.  It holds for mine, though.
>>
>> At the risk of reopening a can of worms, how about a pointer to the
>> various versions of this
>>  so called 'math'?
>
> My analysis has been reposted several times. There has been no credible
> dispute of the math I have posted and none by Loftis.  Loftis' last
> frivolous dispute was over Kaminsky's discredited "roulette logic"
> claims. Loftis was "confused" about who wrote them. Or perhaps Loftis
> was just dissembling and lying to create confusion.

Sigh...  A straight link to the actual 'math' as calculated by the
various protagonists in this dispute, along with it's actual context,
would have done!

>> >> Quit talking crap about things you don't understand, or worse,
>> >> don't know anything about, it makes you appear really stupid.
>> >
>> > Yes, it does make someone appear stupid. But they are actually just
>> > dishonest Vixie hucksters trying to mislead people by lying.
>>
>> Good grief!
>
> Please recall that Michael Loftis was discredited as the one of several
> Vixie people trolling this list.

Actually, I was being somewhat,

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

in respect of,

  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/handbags_at_dawn

( No apologies for the Brit'ism ). ;o)