~BD~ formulated on Monday :
> On 15/12/2014 11:13, p-0''0-h the cat (ES) wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:57:14 -0500, FromTheRafters
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> After serious thinking p-0''0-h the cat (ES) wrote :
>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:36:58 -0500, FromTheRafters
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't care why you posted the scoring info, and even less about how
>>>>> Jax *still* thinks something was wrong with exevalid after all of the
>>>>> explanations we have provided. Jax and Crybaby don't seem to be at all
>>>>> concerned about providing truthful posts.
>>>>
>>>> That really is funny. Exevalid had a major mathematical flaw in the
>>>> 'coding'. It's a heap of ####. No amount of 'explanations' will ever
>>>> change that.
>>>
>>> I stand corrected. Jax, Crybaby, and Pooh.
>>
>> Pooh doesn't need to lie.
>
> It appears that Rafters has a sense of humour failure this morning. :-(
>
> Perhaps he got out of the wrong side of the bed; for him, it is VERY early to

> be posting! He'll be "good to go" after another mug of coffee!

Still no coffee, but my comment was about the fact that exevalid had no 
flaw in the way it performed on the set of data for which it was 
designed. The comment by Ant was not to be taken as "I appreciate (am 
glad about) the fact that you didn't attempt to use it on modern PE 
executables" it was more of an "I appreciate (understand) that it 
wasn't designed for modern executables". Not a negative comment at all, 
as some people like to make it seem.

I have no idea at this point whether Dustin misunderstood the 
capabilities of the program when working on modern PEs (the header 
filesize information being bogus) or not, and I don't care, it still 
stands that the program was not flawed. It does indeed *appear* to be 
incongruous to take the absolute value of a natural number, but in this 
case it was correct.

My humor is fine, you just have to be sharp enough to 'get' it.


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2