Path: cactus.org!milano!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!psuvax1!hsdndev! + cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: email@example.com (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Braided streams Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 24 Jun 91 17:35:17 GMT References:
+ <1991Jun24.033238.6456@elevia.UUCP> <16080.Jun2407.36. + email@example.com> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 12 In article <16080.Jun2407.firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Dan Bernstein) writes: >no repect for formality or rigor. If and when you start presenting your >``algorithms'' in any sane style, and if and when you start making some >effort to present logical (or at least convincing!) justifications ... Hey, Dan, chill out, dude! He seems to have been making an honest effort to respond to technical criticisms. Sure, perhaps he should anticipate these and put more effort into making his initial articles into scholarly publications; however, by Usenet standards he isn't doing too badly. You should be able to suggest that he tone down his sales pitches and beef up his analysis without being insulting. Maybe not everybody is capable of presenting argumentation that meets your exacting standards..