Graham Banks wrote:
I think that the accusers are wanting Vas to answer the questions they've asked to date, but Vas has said he'll wait until they've finished all their analysis before responding. That is if the expected apology from the accusers is not made instead.
Hah, funny stuff.
No matter how much evidence will be posted, people will endlessly defend Rybka, in the same way they endlessly defended Toga (D'oh!) , Strelka, and whichever other "derived" work emerges that is strong. No rules apply when it is strong.
Vas = God. And it's a bit like trying to have a logical philosophical debate with religious folk. Mind numbing, very unhealthy and completely pointless.
Keep up the good work Zach, Christophe, and others. Not so much for this Rybka thing (I don't care) but for smoking out the >insert ugly word< out of this place into the open where they can be seen. It has a certain entertainment value.
Stan
You're making the assumption that Vas has done something wrong. Let's just see what happens.
Regards, Graham.
I think he was saying that it is wrong to defend someone just because he is successful and that it is wrong to start ad hominem attacks instead of refuting the evidence provided.
chrisw wrote:
Correct. There's no point in further discussion until the anti-camp have come up with a formal statement.
by "formal statement"..you mean a formal list of questions?
in short..Vas is not going to reply to one question
so are the chief questioners preparing this statement or refusing to ..until Vas answers the first question?
just trying to zero in on where things are now..thats all
Steve
Graham Banks wrote:
I think that the accusers are wanting Vas to answer the questions they've asked to date, but Vas has said he'll wait until they've finished all their analysis before responding. That is if the expected apology from the accusers is not made instead.
Hah, funny stuff.
No matter how much evidence will be posted, people will endlessly defend Rybka, in the same way they endlessly defended Toga (D'oh!) , Strelka, and whichever other "derived" work emerges that is strong. No rules apply when it is strong.
Vas = God. And it's a bit like trying to have a logical philosophical debate with religious folk. Mind numbing, very unhealthy and completely pointless.
Keep up the good work Zach, Christophe, and others. Not so much for this Rybka thing (I don't care) but for smoking out the >insert ugly word< out of this place into the open where they can be seen. It has a certain entertainment value.
Stan
You're making the assumption that Vas has done something wrong. Let's just see what happens.
Regards, Graham.
I think he was saying that it is wrong to defend someone just because he is successful and that it is wrong to start ad hominem attacks instead of refuting the evidence provided.
// Christophe
Agreed, but the 'evidence' that was provided was not accepted as proof of anything by some other programmers.
I suspect that it's the manner of the accusations being presented that has caused the strong reactions.
You should have done all your homework first and presented your case in its entirety.
As things stand, people rightly or wrongly get the impression that it's just a witch hunt.
Some of Bob's comments when pressed about Rybka being banned from tournaments, etc have propagated that sort of view more in my opinion.
chrisw wrote:
Correct. There's no point in further discussion until the anti-camp have come up with a formal statement.
by "formal statement"..you mean a formal list of questions?
in short..Vas is not going to reply to one question
so are the chief questioners preparing this statement or refusing to ..until Vas answers the first question?
just trying to zero in on where things are now..thats all
Steve
Vas has stated that Rybka was 100% clean (I hope I'm quoting correctly here).
Which version is clean? We do not even know.
What does "clean" mean? We do not even know.
Now if ChrisW was kind enough to send this message to Vas... Thank you in advance.
Graham Banks wrote:
I think that the accusers are wanting Vas to answer the questions they've asked to date, but Vas has said he'll wait until they've finished all their analysis before responding. That is if the expected apology from the accusers is not made instead.
Hah, funny stuff.
No matter how much evidence will be posted, people will endlessly defend Rybka, in the same way they endlessly defended Toga (D'oh!) , Strelka, and whichever other "derived" work emerges that is strong. No rules apply when it is strong.
Vas = God. And it's a bit like trying to have a logical philosophical debate with religious folk. Mind numbing, very unhealthy and completely pointless.
Keep up the good work Zach, Christophe, and others. Not so much for this Rybka thing (I don't care) but for smoking out the >insert ugly word< out of this place into the open where they can be seen. It has a certain entertainment value.
Stan
You're making the assumption that Vas has done something wrong. Let's just see what happens.
Regards, Graham.
I think he was saying that it is wrong to defend someone just because he is successful and that it is wrong to start ad hominem attacks instead of refuting the evidence provided.
// Christophe
Agreed, but the 'evidence' that was provided was not accepted as proof of anything by some other programmers.
I suspect that it's the manner of the accusations being presented that has caused the strong reactions.
You should have done all your homework first and presented your case in its entirety.
As things stand, people rightly or wrongly get the impression that it's just a witch hunt.
Some of Bob's comments when pressed about Rybka being banned from tournaments, etc have propagated that sort of view more in my opinion.
Regards, Graham.
The evidence has not been accepted by Chris Whittington, who is anyway constantly doing obstruction.
By his standard, no program can be a derivative work of another as soon as you change variable names.
If you count the number of programmers who have found the evidence good enough to raise a serious doubt in their mind, the big picture will change.
chrisw wrote:
Correct. There's no point in further discussion until the anti-camp have come up with a formal statement.
by "formal statement"..you mean a formal list of questions?
in short..Vas is not going to reply to one question
so are the chief questioners preparing this statement or refusing to ..until Vas answers the first question?
just trying to zero in on where things are now..thats all
Steve
Well, Zach become very frustrated a few days ago with all the "where's your evidence questions" and retracted the ban of me from sending their questions to Vas. When I said ok, what do I send, he pointed at the first post in one of the threads and said send that. So I did.
I think they (antis) then realised that that post was quite unsuitable as a statement list or a list of concerns or anything else. So they then stated (and before in fact) they were preparing further and better material. Hardly surprisingly, when Vas got to hear that a more formal and better presented version of their case was on the way, he decided to wait for that instead. It's clearly in his interest to get their entire case and refute it rather than deal with piecemeal attacks one after the other. The anti-side, of course, should have prepared this case in its entirity beforehand, but they didn't, preferring instead to rely on slurs and assumptions without evidential base.
The ball is very much in their court, and responsibility for this very sloppy and damaging process rests entirely with them and their failure to have prepared material beforehand. Now they do it in desperation to try to defend their accusations and themselves. Hardly a process designed for impartiality or truth seeking.
chrisw wrote:
Correct. There's no point in further discussion until the anti-camp have come up with a formal statement.
by "formal statement"..you mean a formal list of questions?
in short..Vas is not going to reply to one question
so are the chief questioners preparing this statement or refusing to ..until Vas answers the first question?
just trying to zero in on where things are now..thats all
Steve
Well, Zach become very frustrated a few days ago with all the "where's your evidence questions" and retracted the ban of me from sending their questions to Vas. When I said ok, what do I send, he pointed at the first post in one of the threads and said send that. So I did.
Zach has never banned you from doing anything.
I notice more and more subtle mistakes in your posts and wonder if they are intentional or if they come from lack of sleep (or anything else).
Now if it is possible to ban you a little bit, just a little bit and as friendly as possible, can I take this opportunity to ban you from obstructing any reasonable examination of the evidence that has already been provided?
// Christophe
I think they (antis) then realised that that post was quite unsuitable as a statement list or a list of concerns or anything else. So they then stated (and before in fact) they were preparing further and better material. Hardly surprisingly, when Vas got to hear that a more formal and better presented version of their case was on the way, he decided to wait for that instead. It's clearly in his interest to get their entire case and refute it rather than deal with piecemeal attacks one after the other. The anti-side, of course, should have prepared this case in its entirity beforehand, but they didn't, preferring instead to rely on slurs and assumptions without evidential base.
The ball is very much in their court, and responsibility for this very sloppy and damaging process rests entirely with them and their failure to have prepared material beforehand. Now they do it in desperation to try to defend their accusations and themselves. Hardly a process designed for impartiality or truth seeking.
tiger wrote:
The evidence has not been accepted by Chris Whittington, who is anyway constantly doing obstruction.
By his standard, no program can be a derivative work of another as soon as you change variable names.
If you count the number of programmers who have found the evidence good enough to raise a serious doubt in their mind, the big picture will change.
// Christophe
If you think your case is so strong, then why not take it straight to the FSF instead of conducting a kangaroo court here?
I was sucked into this discution when I expressed my opinion and ad hominem attacks started immediately against me.
The FSF is not going to do anything for this, right?
The people who have attacked me personally for the opinion I had are here. I think it's right to show them the evidence.
// Christophe
If the FSF aren't prepared to do anything, then there's absolutely no point going any further, is there?
After all, they own the rights to the code.
Aren't they supposed to be the judge and jury when all is said and done?
