Re: [EM] CVD wants Alt.V to be fairer but it isn't: misleading website

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (3 Oct 2000):
> I advocated Smith//PC because of Smith and the criteria that go
> with Smith, in addition to SFC & WDSC. GSFC & Full SDSC compliance
> weren't among my reasons for advocating Smith//PC, because
> Smith//PC doesn't offer that. Smith//PC, as I said, and as I
> thought that you knew, doesn't meet GSFC and doesn't strictly meet
> SDSC. I've repeatedly said that I prefer Tideman(wv) & SSD because
> they comply with GSFC & SDSC.

Could you please demonstrate that Smith//PC fails GSFC and SDSC?

Markus Schulze
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]