In Reply to: Nope. posted by Jon Risch on August 23, 2006 at 21:13:52:
jr: ""
It would help tremendously if you actually knew what you are talking about in this instance. But you don't.""This coming from one who had this "phi stuff" rejected for publication, rejected by the test community at large?
I speak of ATE methods which have been used for the last 40 years, and your "method" which nobody in the real community uses, is, better??
If you had the ability to discuss this topic, you would have.. Since you haven't, well, a good man knows his own limitations...
Your a good man.
Your test method was correctly rejected by the AES. It is a noisy, anarchistic approach to a real problem, and it points out nothing, solves nothing. But it has lotsa buzz words.
I laugh at your responses, you avoid technical discussion at all cost.
Your type of "embellishment" is best served at a forum you can control. It is shunned by the engineering community at large, and with good reason.
Tis a shame, as I believe your ability to actually listen and observe is a good one. You raise good questions which need to be asked.
It's too bad the engineering community has only your words to judge you by, as they cannot get past their laughter to see where you do indeed excel..
If you wish to discuss test methodology, do so...stop dissin.Cheers, John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- silly response. but, consistent.. - jneutron 07:46:49 08/24/06 (6)
- Sad - Jon Risch 21:26:52 08/24/06 (2)
- Again, you with your "look it's halleys comet" routine. - jneutron 08:35:12 09/05/06 (0)
- Re: Sad - jneutron 06:19:38 09/05/06 (0)
- Re: silly response. but, consistent.. - john curl 13:16:17 08/24/06 (2)
- Re: silly response. but, consistent.. - jneutron 13:37:01 08/24/06 (1)
- Re: silly response. but, consistent.. - john curl 14:50:32 08/24/06 (0)