Ooh, you locked the thread! That will stop me replying!

You truly are sad and pathetic, in that you have to lock threads to have the final word, and that you cannot be criticised and ridiculed in my response!  

And by constantly removing this topic, you remove the power of free speech from forum users, showing your willingness to dictate your way on the forum.  Sad.

Quote:

Oh I think we are.  The one where you claim to have spoken to your imaginary friends at 3dfx, not being able to provide a shred of evidence that the cards do not exist.

Quote:

Well, you wouldn't be poorly attempting to prove me wrong that they exist would you?
You'd only be proving me correct yet again!

Quote:

Sarcasm isn't your strong point is it Gary, but then again what is?
Me talking to Scott Sellers is as realistic as you talking to your "friends" at 3dfx to confirm the card doesn't exist.

Quote:

Since when have we been talking about prototypes!? !? You clearly aren't on the ball (or the topic) are you?  We're talking about the actual retail versions of the Velocity 200.
As I said, if you actually had one of the cards, you'd only be proving me correct yet again!

Janskaer, I've asked you to stay calm and put on those matters, but you didn't.

As I said to you earlier, go hunt that phantom and be sure to present it when you find it.

But until that day, this Retail card does not exist until proven otherwise.

If you can't let go from arguing without proof (it's your call to prove us wrong), I might have to reconsider what I personally wrote you in the last EMails because you're exactly giving the type of attitude that ticks people off, so quit it.

Technically, I actually begin to seriously doubt you know
a) what you're talking about and
b) whom you are talking to

Personally, I don't have a habit of locking or even deleting Threads, I'll give everyone a fair chance to make his point.

Yet, if it is nothing but vague speculation and it becomes clear that you don't even know the "who is who" around the top ex-3dfx people (and even claim them as "imaginary friends of someone")...
I'd say that's not convincing, rather the opposite and reflects extremely poor on your standing here.

Yes, we can safely agree to disagree here

Evidence without proof (according to my standards) remains a "doesn't exist" until proven otherwise (by finding a single specimen).

That's how it works in Science and basically any other field as well, since it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, it only works in the opposite way.

I just find it odd that you don't believe Gary (or others) are in contact with ex-3dfx people.
While I never had any reason to contact them myself, they're still alive, have EMail and many still have a vivid memory of their time at 3dfx.

Could you believe I once was in contact with Mark Rein (vice president of Epic Megagames) concerning UT2003 and 3dfx support during the development phase ?

As a software test engineer, the main rule of thumb comes from EW Dykstra in relation to software bugs:

"Testing can prove the presence of bugs, but not their absence."   - EW Dysktra

However, we can all agree that this doesn't mean there are no bugs in software.  The same rule can be applied here.  It is a negating fact. 

The small amount of evidence collected (even if it was just 1 bug, or document in our case) to suggest the Velocity 200's do exist, outweighs the task that is impossible to prove they don't exist.

Hope it doesn't confuse.  It's negating law.

Regardless of whether code is 10 lines long or 10 million.  There can still be bugs.

We are drifitng now because we must determine what is a bug?

If a bug is defined as a technical or human error, then this is true, but there are other possiblities.

There will always be bugs and errors that we will not see until for example, circumstances change.

e.g.:

Developing a piece of software, may not have any technical or human errors, but ones that are non conformant with two different people.  A developer and a customer.

1.  Are we developing the product right?
2. Are we developing the right product?

It's not about tangible evidence such as mistakes in code, it's also what is done with it that counts.

In regards, "I have something that I call evidence and therefor believe it must exist" can be classed as a belief instead of evidence, I can agree.

However, in light of this discussion and the Velocity topic, it can be proved that no evidence has been provided then for either case.

WE simply have beliefs that something exists, and something doesn't.

Again, it all comes down to two sides of the story, where each side has its own beliefs.  No evidence then, as you put it. 

Agreed, it's pointless.

I agree also FalconFly, it is indeed pointless  to waiste our minds on some piece of PCB, there are worse things to worry about.

Okay Gary has the Prototype boards, on which is very cool, and Janskjaer has seen the boxed ones, wel he believes that, okay if you believe that be happy about it , why go nagg'n around, it's not sensable, everyone has thier own beliefs, keep them for your selves no need to mumble around like wombats.

let's lock this topic and move on, anyway that would be my decision, just forget about it.

And you can blame me if you want, I was the fool of a took that started to even talk about it in the first place:
http://www.falconfly-central.de/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=general;action=displa...

oh man what have I done, why did I even start that topic so long ago