Apparently a bad copy and paste job...I was tied up with being unable to edit other things and didn't touble check. It should have been to here. Maybe I can actually go and put those edits in now, and fix the link too?
In that post, my response to your concern is simply that a response to a lie shouldn't be another lie, it should be calling it a lie (now, to get benchmarking back on track from where nVidia has worked so hard to steer it) and restricting the ability of further lies to take place and be perceived as truthful (ongoing policy to prevent things from going off track again).
It seems to me Futuremark should be in the business of providing, focusing on, and defending simple veracity. Using/spending recognition (and trust, if it can be established) as a platform to politically and economically conduct battles with IHVs who are lying is something else entirely, especially if they themselves are using lies (as you proposed) as a weapon.
In that post, my response to your concern is simply that a response to a lie shouldn't be another lie, it should be calling it a lie (now, to get benchmarking back on track from where nVidia has worked so hard to steer it) and restricting the ability of further lies to take place and be perceived as truthful (ongoing policy to prevent things from going off track again).
It seems to me Futuremark should be in the business of providing, focusing on, and defending simple veracity. Using/spending recognition (and trust, if it can be established) as a platform to politically and economically conduct battles with IHVs who are lying is something else entirely, especially if they themselves are using lies (as you proposed) as a weapon.
