Questions for Vas

[bnemias]

It's funny how Chris continues as Vas' personal communication conduit to this forum. (Good word, btw)

Because Chris was asked specifically by Zach to send the material to Vas. Doh!

Can you read?

I said it was funny. You were do it long before this thread, however. I can't help but see the exchange between Dr. Floyd and the HAL 9000 when HAL keeps saying things like: The answer is: ..., The response is: ...

Then I can't shake the image of Pat Robertson.

[kranium]

This page sent to Vas by email, 11:00 am UK time, Thursday 28th August 2008

He is free to either ignore it, respond by email for passing back here, replying here himself or replying in Rybka forum.

Frankly I find the questions not sufficiently worked up nor presented properly enough to warrant any form of answer.

I don't really understand why you sent this very page and only this one and only now. This is a relatively old page, not updated for several days. New material has been published in several threads since. Even side-by-side comparisons. Where are they?

Don't you understand? Oh dear. Well, read the threads.

chrisw wrote:
well, whenever so far I got told to go get a link somewhere, I apparently came back with the wrong one and got flamed, so, to avoid that, why don't you block copy your text question(s) into this thread and I'll block copy it to Vas by email?

Zach wrote:
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23249&start=0

That's all for now. All I ask is that these answers are answered in public, not through email.

Perhaps I sent it because I was asked to send it by the author, Zach?

Perhaps I didn't send anything before because I was banned by the author from communicating his stuff to Vas before now?

Irritating to have to spell it out for you.

Anything else you'ld like to know?

?
it is the link above which you yourself provided in the thread, to which you and both Gabor and I were referencing. I think you're aware of that.

in that document, there's no indication of such a request from Zach...
on the contrary, he clearly indicates his annoyance over your constant interference.

[chrisw]

This page sent to Vas by email, 11:00 am UK time, Thursday 28th August 2008

He is free to either ignore it, respond by email for passing back here, replying here himself or replying in Rybka forum.

Frankly I find the questions not sufficiently worked up nor presented properly enough to warrant any form of answer.

I don't really understand why you sent this very page and only this one and only now. This is a relatively old page, not updated for several days. New material has been published in several threads since. Even side-by-side comparisons. Where are they?

Don't you understand? Oh dear. Well, read the threads.

chrisw wrote:
well, whenever so far I got told to go get a link somewhere, I apparently came back with the wrong one and got flamed, so, to avoid that, why don't you block copy your text question(s) into this thread and I'll block copy it to Vas by email?

Zach wrote:
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23249&start=0

That's all for now. All I ask is that these answers are answered in public, not through email.

Perhaps I sent it because I was asked to send it by the author, Zach?

Perhaps I didn't send anything before because I was banned by the author from communicating his stuff to Vas before now?

Irritating to have to spell it out for you.

Anything else you'ld like to know?

?
it is the link above which you yourself provided in the thread, to which you and both Gabor and I were referencing. I think you're aware of that.

in that document, there's no indication of such a request from Zach...
on the contrary, he clearly indicates his annoyance over your constant interference.

It's written in the threads, the request for me to post the document, from Zach.

You just make it up whatever you feel like as you go along.

Sorry but I don't believe one word you write anymore. Shame it took me so long to realise, but I suppose it was obvious several weeks ago. Fernando got it right in his reply to you in your "public apology" thread.

[kranium]

This page sent to Vas by email, 11:00 am UK time, Thursday 28th August 2008

He is free to either ignore it, respond by email for passing back here, replying here himself or replying in Rybka forum.

Frankly I find the questions not sufficiently worked up nor presented properly enough to warrant any form of answer.

I don't really understand why you sent this very page and only this one and only now. This is a relatively old page, not updated for several days. New material has been published in several threads since. Even side-by-side comparisons. Where are they?

Don't you understand? Oh dear. Well, read the threads.

chrisw wrote:
well, whenever so far I got told to go get a link somewhere, I apparently came back with the wrong one and got flamed, so, to avoid that, why don't you block copy your text question(s) into this thread and I'll block copy it to Vas by email?

Zach wrote:
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23249&start=0

That's all for now. All I ask is that these answers are answered in public, not through email.

Perhaps I sent it because I was asked to send it by the author, Zach?

Perhaps I didn't send anything before because I was banned by the author from communicating his stuff to Vas before now?

Irritating to have to spell it out for you.

Anything else you'ld like to know?

?
it is the link above which you yourself provided in the thread, to which you and both Gabor and I were referencing. I think you're aware of that.

in that document, there's no indication of such a request from Zach...
on the contrary, he clearly indicates his annoyance over your constant interference.

It's written in the threads, the request for me to post the document, from Zach.

You just make it up whatever you feel like as you go along.

Sorry but I don't believe one word you write anymore. Shame it took me so long to realise, but I suppose it was obvious several weeks ago. Fernando got it right in his reply to you in your "public apology" thread.

load of tosh!
i'm entitled to my opinion...
and to counter it, you now begin to dredge up the past, make it personal, and resort to low-level character assasanation ... pitiful.

as far as not believing what i write...well, we're even, because i don't trust a word of what you're saying.

but unlike you, i will not start quoting (or naming) other people that have also expressed similar concerns over your heavy handed and manipulative approach.

[chrisw]

This page sent to Vas by email, 11:00 am UK time, Thursday 28th August 2008

He is free to either ignore it, respond by email for passing back here, replying here himself or replying in Rybka forum.

Frankly I find the questions not sufficiently worked up nor presented properly enough to warrant any form of answer.

I don't really understand why you sent this very page and only this one and only now. This is a relatively old page, not updated for several days. New material has been published in several threads since. Even side-by-side comparisons. Where are they?

Don't you understand? Oh dear. Well, read the threads.

chrisw wrote:
well, whenever so far I got told to go get a link somewhere, I apparently came back with the wrong one and got flamed, so, to avoid that, why don't you block copy your text question(s) into this thread and I'll block copy it to Vas by email?

Zach wrote:
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23249&start=0

That's all for now. All I ask is that these answers are answered in public, not through email.

Perhaps I sent it because I was asked to send it by the author, Zach?

Perhaps I didn't send anything before because I was banned by the author from communicating his stuff to Vas before now?

Irritating to have to spell it out for you.

Anything else you'ld like to know?

?
it is the link above which you yourself provided in the thread, to which you and both Gabor and I were referencing. I think you're aware of that.

in that document, there's no indication of such a request from Zach...
on the contrary, he clearly indicates his annoyance over your constant interference.

It's written in the threads, the request for me to post the document, from Zach.

You just make it up whatever you feel like as you go along.

Sorry but I don't believe one word you write anymore. Shame it took me so long to realise, but I suppose it was obvious several weeks ago. Fernando got it right in his reply to you in your "public apology" thread.

load of tosh!
i'm entitled to my opinion...
and to counter it, you now begin to dredge up the past, make it personal, and resort to low-level character assasanation ... pitiful.

as far as not believing what i write...well, we're even, because i don't trust a word of what you're saying.

but unlike you, i will not start quoting (or naming) other people that have also expressed similar concerns over your heavy handed and manipulative approach.

The fact that your case has crumbled into dust is not the responsibility of those who argued against you, advised you to find the evidence first, but is your own responsibility.

The fact that you are unable seemingly to bow out gracefully but instead attack those who showed you had no clothes will probably end up as the third character self-assassination in the space of a month. Quite an achievement.

My advice, unwanted, and no doubt to be castigated as manipulative or whatever, is this. Stop now, take a holiday.

[kranium]

This page sent to Vas by email, 11:00 am UK time, Thursday 28th August 2008

He is free to either ignore it, respond by email for passing back here, replying here himself or replying in Rybka forum.

Frankly I find the questions not sufficiently worked up nor presented properly enough to warrant any form of answer.

I don't really understand why you sent this very page and only this one and only now. This is a relatively old page, not updated for several days. New material has been published in several threads since. Even side-by-side comparisons. Where are they?

Don't you understand? Oh dear. Well, read the threads.

chrisw wrote:
well, whenever so far I got told to go get a link somewhere, I apparently came back with the wrong one and got flamed, so, to avoid that, why don't you block copy your text question(s) into this thread and I'll block copy it to Vas by email?

Zach wrote:
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23249&start=0

That's all for now. All I ask is that these answers are answered in public, not through email.

Perhaps I sent it because I was asked to send it by the author, Zach?

Perhaps I didn't send anything before because I was banned by the author from communicating his stuff to Vas before now?

Irritating to have to spell it out for you.

Anything else you'ld like to know?

?
it is the link above which you yourself provided in the thread, to which you and both Gabor and I were referencing. I think you're aware of that.

in that document, there's no indication of such a request from Zach...
on the contrary, he clearly indicates his annoyance over your constant interference.

It's written in the threads, the request for me to post the document, from Zach.

You just make it up whatever you feel like as you go along.

Sorry but I don't believe one word you write anymore. Shame it took me so long to realise, but I suppose it was obvious several weeks ago. Fernando got it right in his reply to you in your "public apology" thread.

load of tosh!
i'm entitled to my opinion...
and to counter it, you now begin to dredge up the past, make it personal, and resort to low-level character assasanation ... pitiful.

as far as not believing what i write...well, we're even, because i don't trust a word of what you're saying.

but unlike you, i will not start quoting (or naming) other people that have also expressed similar concerns over your heavy handed and manipulative approach.

The fact that your case has crumbled into dust is not the responsibility of those who argued against you, advised you to find the evidence first, but is your own responsibility.

The fact that you are unable seemingly to bow out gracefully but instead attack those who showed you had no clothes will probably end up as the third character self-assassination in the space of a month. Quite an achievement.

My advice, unwanted, and no doubt to be castigated as manipulative or whatever, is this. Stop now, take a holiday.

i don't need or want your advice...i'll make my own decisions thank-you.
i won't allow myself to be manipulated by you...

[Zach Wegner]

He is free to either ignore it, respond by email for passing back here, replying here himself or replying in Rybka forum.

I made clear that my only request is that he responds publicly. But whatever, anything he says at all is good enough by now...

Frankly I find the questions not sufficiently worked up nor presented properly enough to warrant any form of answer. The promised web page does not exist, mentions of Strelka are irrelevent, there's no side by side listings of anything, there are references to external stuff not actually shown how to find it, it states this is not a complete list and there are other (unpublished) issues in contravention to what was asked for, namely a complete list of concerns. However, as requested, I sent it.

This is where you are acting like a judge.

And for the record, I have more questions/concerns, but I'd like these to be addressed first.

[chrisw]

He is free to either ignore it, respond by email for passing back here, replying here himself or replying in Rybka forum.

I made clear that my only request is that he responds publicly. But whatever, anything he says at all is good enough by now...

Frankly I find the questions not sufficiently worked up nor presented properly enough to warrant any form of answer. The promised web page does not exist, mentions of Strelka are irrelevent, there's no side by side listings of anything, there are references to external stuff not actually shown how to find it, it states this is not a complete list and there are other (unpublished) issues in contravention to what was asked for, namely a complete list of concerns. However, as requested, I sent it.

This is where you are acting like a judge.

And for the record, I have more questions/concerns, but I'd like these to be addressed first.

Well, the idea, and what was asked for was a list of concerns, not a partial list to be worked up some more later. However.

If you said one of the barristers for the defence you might be more accurate in your analogy. Where is my power in this? Power of words only isn't it?

what does it matter what I think? You need the collective will of computer chess as represented by CCC forum to come down on one side or the other, don't you?

It's no good blaming someone who argued against your case, Zach. Either your case is good or it isn't. If it's good, no words from anyone are going to prevail against it. Take responsibility yourself for the power, or otherwise of your own case, your own arguments, your own evidence and your own presentation.