Re: XORShift PRNG as a diffusion structure

From: Mok-Kong Shen (mok-kong.shen_at_t-online.de)
Date: 03/26/04 

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:02:34 +0100

Paul Pires wrote:

> Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:

>>
>>Paul Pires wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The group welfare motivates me to improve the
>>>>current discussion atmosphere, which I consider
>>>>to be farily bad. And I act quite at lot in that
>>>>direction concretely. Aren't you aware of that?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why would you think that, when I have already
>>>said my view is that it is Bull***? You make claims
>>>about facts you could easily verify (with the group)
>>>but for some strange reason, don't.
>>
>>Why do you think that attempting to improve the
>>atmosphere of the group is bad endeavour? Could you
>>kindly tell?
>
> Oh, what an artless dodge. This was not my thought,
> it is your substitution.

Mmm, your clause 'it is Bull***' refers to the
quote (my writing) above, right? In that quote
I said that I attempt to improve the atmosphere.
Therefore I asked why do you have such a negative
opinion about that. Isn't that clear?

>
>
>>I don't understand your second sentence.
>>Which 'claims about facts' are you referring to? (Do
>>you mean I had made claims of certain things that are
>>trivially true, or what?)
>
>
> You understand it just fine.
> Trivally true is the label used by those who do not wish
> to examine their beliefs. You claim value to the group
> and site it as your motivation for your bad behavior.
> Twist and turn, you are a coward. Facts can be presented.
> You won't acknowledge that. You play at mis-understanding.
> Clearly said:
>
> Ask the group as a whole if your methods are justified
> by the value they deliver.

Now I must be really careful. It's even not clear what
'facts' you are referring to. You said 'claims about
facts'. I claimed for example that having variablity
in crypto algorithms is generally beneficial. I claimed
also that one should suppress arguing emotionally.
These claims are of different nature. Which kind
of claims (and specifically which instance) do you mean?
Or do you mean something entirely different? (Interpretaton
of your terms 'method' and 'value' would be dependent
on that, I suppose.)

Anyway, the last sentence is your suggestion. Could I
reserve my freedom to decide whether to follow your
suggestion or not??

> Ask the group if it is the consensus that you are
> cynically deceptive and hide a sick agenda
> behind a congenial and "scientific" facade.

Do I 'need' to follow what you suggest/demand above??

> If you ask and they do not endorse you,
> you are lying when you claim these lofty
> motivations for your actions because you
> would now have to acknowledge that your
> actions subvert your stated goal. This is
> known as being a hypoctrite.

Don't speculate on premises that are highly
unlikely to be fulfilled. See above.

> It is truely simple. Stop claiming your benevolence
> to the group where it is "trivially untrue" and can be
> proven through outside verification.

> See Greg Rose's offer.
>
> ASK.

No rational person (that is free) accepts nonsensical
offers or asks nonsensical questions. I hope that's clear.

M. K. Shen