Static methods not always bad for testability

Some time ago I’ve posted a few links about What is testable code?
Reading the links someone can feel that any static methods are bad for testability. However it is a wrong impression- static methods without external dependencies are good for testing.

 http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/5757/is-static-universally-evil-for-unit-testing-and-if-so-why-does-resharper-recom

There is nothing wrong with static methods and they are easy to test (so long as they don’t change any static data). For instance, think of a Maths library, which is good candidate for a static class with static methods 

 
Static methods which hold no state and cause no side effects should be easily unit testable. In fact, I consider such methods a “poor-man’s” form of functional programming; you hand the method an object or value, and it returns an object or value. Nothing more. I don’t see how such methods would negatively affect unit testing at all.
Alternatively you can mock anything – implemented by MS Fakes, TypeMock, JustMock and Moles.  They rely on .NET’sProfiling API. It can intercept any of your CIL instructions.
 
See related links