"p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"  wrote in
news:a6qt8a9u1jgr1pdtc0lcscgcakalj8sjsp@4ax.com: 

> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:12:40 -0500, FromTheRafters
>  wrote:
> 
>>~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. 
> 
> Twaddle. You don't code that kind of flaw in as a correct
> solution. Doing it correctly was trivial. Dustin just didn't know
> what he was doing and he didn't check or if he did check he
> checked wrong which is even more damning. Sorry you got your arse
> kicked. I gave you every chance to win. Even that wasn't enough to
> help you sad arrogant bastards.

Pooh Cat have you noticed how, all of a sudden, code efficiency is 
no longer an issue when discussing Dustin's score file entries but 
it was a major discussion point when talking to you about Eexvalid. 
Just saying!

-- 
Jax        
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2