Quote from: Lauda on January 01, 2016, 10:06:52 AM

Quote from: jbreher on December 31, 2015, 08:14:19 PM

Of course, if he has issued a further statement, I'd be happy to read it.

Incidentally: appeal to authority?

Your post is wrong. People in this discussion have become very deluded throwing fallacies around like they're candy. Naming the source of something means that I'm appealing to authority? Roll Eyes

Ex. 1: <> said x, y, and z about foo. The implications of x, y, and z include a, b, and c. As you can see from this, foo has problems.

Ex. 2 <> said foo has problems.

One of the above is an appeal to authority, the other is not. Your post was in this form of Ex. 2.

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on December 31, 2015, 08:14:19 PM

I see that you are trying to build in the mind the reader the impression that Gavin has declared that the BU codebase has resulted in a faulty executable program. Unless Gavin has issued further input to the BU review, you are mischaracterizing his statement. Nothing i have read in his comments would support that position.

You can easily see what Gavin wrote a few posts back in this thread.

Exactly. He said nothing about any flaws he might have or might have not detected in the executable program.