Re: Asimov helps users and battles piracy!

[toddpw@ugcs.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> writes:

>     You must admit that the above does not exactly respond to the
>quoted observation: i.e. that, whatever the history of the file, it may
>well, as claimed, have contained 4D elements.

Eh? If I can trace the history back to someone who claims no special
processing, that's good enough for me. Stuff like "ambisonic" elements
has to be put there -- it doesn't just occur by accident.

>     Regarding your addition: Do not be too offended if it is observed
>that many faked, bogus, etc. anti-Dr. Tom stories and "reports" -- some
>truly bizarre-- have been, personally, tracked down and exposed as lies.

Sure. Just as some of Dr. Tom's past claims -- some truly bizarre -- have
been, personally, tracked down and exposed as incorrect.

>     Just the fact that three or four persons have no better use for
>their time and web site resources than to devote them to attacking a
>single individual tells us a great deal about what to expect. Putting it
>kindly, these persons are not 'playing with a full deck'. It is
>impossible to accept any information from such persons as valid. It is,
>in fact, impossible to believe anything they say.

Just the fact that Dr. Tom at one time had no better use for his time and
web site resources than to devote them to attacking a single individual
(various individuals at various times, actually) also tells us a great
deal about what to expect. Putting it kindly, that person had not been
'playing with a full deck'. etc. I think you get the idea.

>     If, at any time, any of these persons or known associates were
>involved in obtaining, transferring, processing, evaluating, touching,
>or looking at any of your samples, you can save youself a lot of bother
>and trash them.

Once again, the same could be turned around and used by one who was once
flamed by Dr. Tom, or more appropriate to this discussion, flamed by you
-- e.g. Nathan.

Both you and Nathan consistently make the mistake of summarily dismissing
evidence presented by the other, claiming that the "other guy" has an
agenda and is irrational, etc. It's getting tiresome.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ ugcs.caltech.edu