You smeared 1/4 of the CCT entrants for no other reason than your gut. That is not a lie. By the way, nothing came out of that empty statement.
Confirmed.
Please "name the CCT entrants that were smeared". SPECIFICALLY. Program names or author names will do equally well.
waiting...
For what purpose? It is YOUR statement (click the link above), so if YOU need the names for some purpose you might ask YOURSELF that question. Did or did you not write
bob wrote:
I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.
Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...
My POINT is that I did NOT claim any specific program was a clone, now did I? Because I don't believe a "gut feeling" is proof. You have joined right in with Ed and Chris, using distortion, hyperbole, and dishonesty to further your agenda(s). There is a HUGE difference between a "suspicion" (which is why I did NOT "name names") and proof. You know that. Yet you continue this line of discussion, which is completely dishonest. I don't "name" until I am sure. As in the Rybka case, for one example...
You smeared 1/4 of the CCT entrants for no other reason than your gut. That is not a lie. By the way, nothing came out of that empty statement.
Confirmed.
Please "name the CCT entrants that were smeared". SPECIFICALLY. Program names or author names will do equally well.
waiting...
For what purpose? It is YOUR statement (click the link above), so if YOU need the names for some purpose you might ask YOURSELF that question. Did or did you not write
bob wrote:
I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.
Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...
My POINT is that I did NOT claim any specific program was a clone, now did I? Because I don't believe a "gut feeling" is proof. You have joined right in with Ed and Chris, using distortion, hyperbole, and dishonesty to further your agenda(s). There is a HUGE difference between a "suspicion" (which is why I did NOT "name names") and proof. You know that. Yet you continue this line of discussion, which is completely dishonest. I don't "name" until I am sure. As in the Rybka case, for one example...
Disagree with Bob and you are called dishonest.
Boring.
Try something new.
If anyone is boring it is you, Ed, Vas is banned for life and the only thing that might change that is a direct appeal from him.
You smeared 1/4 of the CCT entrants for no other reason than your gut. That is not a lie. By the way, nothing came out of that empty statement.
Confirmed.
Please "name the CCT entrants that were smeared". SPECIFICALLY. Program names or author names will do equally well.
waiting...
For what purpose? It is YOUR statement (click the link above), so if YOU need the names for some purpose you might ask YOURSELF that question. Did or did you not write
bob wrote:
I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.
Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...
My POINT is that I did NOT claim any specific program was a clone, now did I? Because I don't believe a "gut feeling" is proof. You have joined right in with Ed and Chris, using distortion, hyperbole, and dishonesty to further your agenda(s). There is a HUGE difference between a "suspicion" (which is why I did NOT "name names") and proof. You know that. Yet you continue this line of discussion, which is completely dishonest. I don't "name" until I am sure. As in the Rybka case, for one example...
Totally irrelevant. You said that "guts are rarely wrong in these cases" (fact), and you accused me of lying twice because I said you said "guts are good to detect clones". "good" == "rarely wrong". I believe that a person who think this way and declares it publicly is not fit for leading an investigation of this kind. And it was not just a phrase written carelessly with a bit of exaggeration. You stood by it and that is clear from the rest of the thread I linked.
Now you are trying to derail the whole thing discussing side issues and accusing who disagree with you of dishonesty.
You smeared 1/4 of the CCT entrants for no other reason than your gut. That is not a lie. By the way, nothing came out of that empty statement.
Confirmed.
Please "name the CCT entrants that were smeared". SPECIFICALLY. Program names or author names will do equally well.
waiting...
For what purpose? It is YOUR statement (click the link above), so if YOU need the names for some purpose you might ask YOURSELF that question. Did or did you not write
bob wrote:
I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.
Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...
My POINT is that I did NOT claim any specific program was a clone, now did I? Because I don't believe a "gut feeling" is proof. You have joined right in with Ed and Chris, using distortion, hyperbole, and dishonesty to further your agenda(s). There is a HUGE difference between a "suspicion" (which is why I did NOT "name names") and proof. You know that. Yet you continue this line of discussion, which is completely dishonest. I don't "name" until I am sure. As in the Rybka case, for one example...
Disagree with Bob and you are called dishonest.
Boring.
Try something new.
If anyone is boring it is you, Ed, Vas is banned for life and the only thing that might change that is a direct appeal from him.
Harvey Williamson wrote:At the moment? Who decides? You?
I decided Ed is boring so now the thread is about that. feel free to change it again.
No, I do not decide anything, I just read what the last post were about. It was just to let you know that you answered to Ed about something unrelated.
Harvey Williamson wrote:At the moment? Who decides? You?
I decided Ed is boring so now the thread is about that. feel free to change it again.
No, I do not decide anything, I just read what the last post were about. It was just to let you know that you answered to Ed about something unrelated.
Terry McCracken wrote: Rolf you pontificating hypocrite, Xuck Off!
Trying to close or move a thread Terry ?
Happened before.
Yes Ed, that's the plan just like before.... You people are so subjective you only see what you want to see. Maybe Peter will chime in lamenting over not banning me for life? You people really are pathetic.
Harvey Williamson wrote:At the moment? Who decides? You?
I decided Ed is boring so now the thread is about that. feel free to change it again.
No, I do not decide anything, I just read what the last post were about. It was just to let you know that you answered to Ed about something unrelated.
You people are so subjective you only see what you want to see. Maybe Peter will chime in lamenting over not banning me for life? You people really are pathetic.