Dann Corbit wrote:If it is found that the prosecutor has an axe to grind against the defendant and engages in any sort of prosecutorial misconduct, the case will be dismissed with prejudice and the defendant cannot be retried.
Why do you keep tossing out these irrelevancies?
First, the case _may_ be dismissed with prejudice. Feel free to point out _any_ prosecutorial misconduct in this investigation. We hid no exculpatory data from Vas. We fabricated no data. We didn't threaten/coerce witnesses.
So what, exactly, does this have to do with anything? Not to mention that this is not a court and has no such rules in the first place. An organization is free to run its events in any way it wants, so long as it doesn't violate certain federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and anti-discrimination laws. None of that applies here, for sure.
I suppose that this was my point:
"this is not a court and has no such rules in the first place."
And that point was known from the get-go, so the relevance would be???
I have said all along that my real objections were to the process.
And I don't get the objection. The ICGA was formed _by_ programmers. We wrote the rules we compete by. We accept them when we play. We understand the investigative process is not a legal one. We understand that if we disagree, we can make the process a legal one with a civil case. When we all agree to abide by rules and procedures, why would it matter if _you_ don't like the process? "we" (the programmers that are involved in participating) defined the process...
It doesn't matter if I don't like the process. It is only my opinion. However, I think that I am not the only person with an objection to the process. Perhaps the process can be reexamined to make it as fair as possible in the future.
I wonder if the PGA writes their own rules? The NCAA? NASCAR? NFL? NBA? Soccer leagues? ABA (Boxing)? This is pretty much normal practice. Outsiders rarely get to demand changes to things the participants have agreed to abide by. And that's as it should be.
The "others" don't object to the process. They object to the "result". Which is a different matter entirely. When someone with as much experience and background as Ken Thompson says "no doubt at all" that says a lot.
Dann Corbit wrote:If it is found that the prosecutor has an axe to grind against the defendant and engages in any sort of prosecutorial misconduct, the case will be dismissed with prejudice and the defendant cannot be retried.
Why do you keep tossing out these irrelevancies?
First, the case _may_ be dismissed with prejudice. Feel free to point out _any_ prosecutorial misconduct in this investigation. We hid no exculpatory data from Vas. We fabricated no data. We didn't threaten/coerce witnesses.
So what, exactly, does this have to do with anything? Not to mention that this is not a court and has no such rules in the first place. An organization is free to run its events in any way it wants, so long as it doesn't violate certain federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and anti-discrimination laws. None of that applies here, for sure.
I suppose that this was my point:
"this is not a court and has no such rules in the first place."
And that point was known from the get-go, so the relevance would be???
I have said all along that my real objections were to the process.
And I don't get the objection. The ICGA was formed _by_ programmers. We wrote the rules we compete by. We accept them when we play. We understand the investigative process is not a legal one. We understand that if we disagree, we can make the process a legal one with a civil case. When we all agree to abide by rules and procedures, why would it matter if _you_ don't like the process? "we" (the programmers that are involved in participating) defined the process...
It doesn't matter if I don't like the process. It is only my opinion. However, I think that I am not the only person with an objection to the process. Perhaps the process can be reexamined to make it as fair as possible in the future.
I wonder if the PGA writes their own rules? The NCAA? NASCAR? NFL? NBA? Soccer leagues? ABA (Boxing)? This is pretty much normal practice. Outsiders rarely get to demand changes to things the participants have agreed to abide by. And that's as it should be.
The "others" don't object to the process. They object to the "result". Which is a different matter entirely. When someone with as much experience and background as Ken Thompson says "no doubt at all" that says a lot.
And yet outsiders can look at the process and say, "That's a lousy process."
That's all that I have done.
Dann Corbit wrote:If it is found that the prosecutor has an axe to grind against the defendant and engages in any sort of prosecutorial misconduct, the case will be dismissed with prejudice and the defendant cannot be retried.
Why do you keep tossing out these irrelevancies?
First, the case _may_ be dismissed with prejudice. Feel free to point out _any_ prosecutorial misconduct in this investigation. We hid no exculpatory data from Vas. We fabricated no data. We didn't threaten/coerce witnesses.
So what, exactly, does this have to do with anything? Not to mention that this is not a court and has no such rules in the first place. An organization is free to run its events in any way it wants, so long as it doesn't violate certain federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and anti-discrimination laws. None of that applies here, for sure.
You didnt believe me when i told you this deal was far from over. I predict it will end up being the worst nightmare of your life.
Right. I've not heard that from you before. I suspect Vas is a lot smarter than you. there is no point in taking this to an open court, where there is no possible defence that can justify what happened. But you keep believing... or hoping... or imagining... or whatever it is you like to do.
It is absolutely over.
Over? When you are exposed for what you are- yea, then it will be over.
Dann Corbit wrote:If it is found that the prosecutor has an axe to grind against the defendant and engages in any sort of prosecutorial misconduct, the case will be dismissed with prejudice and the defendant cannot be retried.
Why do you keep tossing out these irrelevancies?
First, the case _may_ be dismissed with prejudice. Feel free to point out _any_ prosecutorial misconduct in this investigation. We hid no exculpatory data from Vas. We fabricated no data. We didn't threaten/coerce witnesses.
So what, exactly, does this have to do with anything? Not to mention that this is not a court and has no such rules in the first place. An organization is free to run its events in any way it wants, so long as it doesn't violate certain federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and anti-discrimination laws. None of that applies here, for sure.
You didnt believe me when i told you this deal was far from over. I predict it will end up being the worst nightmare of your life.
Right. I've not heard that from you before. I suspect Vas is a lot smarter than you. there is no point in taking this to an open court, where there is no possible defence that can justify what happened. But you keep believing... or hoping... or imagining... or whatever it is you like to do.
It is absolutely over.
Over? When you are exposed for what you are- yea, then it will be over.
I am what I am. Nothing new to be exposed, sorry. And yes, this case is _over_. Whether you like it or not...
Dann Corbit wrote:If it is found that the prosecutor has an axe to grind against the defendant and engages in any sort of prosecutorial misconduct, the case will be dismissed with prejudice and the defendant cannot be retried.
Why do you keep tossing out these irrelevancies?
First, the case _may_ be dismissed with prejudice. Feel free to point out _any_ prosecutorial misconduct in this investigation. We hid no exculpatory data from Vas. We fabricated no data. We didn't threaten/coerce witnesses.
So what, exactly, does this have to do with anything? Not to mention that this is not a court and has no such rules in the first place. An organization is free to run its events in any way it wants, so long as it doesn't violate certain federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and anti-discrimination laws. None of that applies here, for sure.
I suppose that this was my point:
"this is not a court and has no such rules in the first place."
And that point was known from the get-go, so the relevance would be???
I have said all along that my real objections were to the process.
And I don't get the objection. The ICGA was formed _by_ programmers. We wrote the rules we compete by. We accept them when we play. We understand the investigative process is not a legal one. We understand that if we disagree, we can make the process a legal one with a civil case. When we all agree to abide by rules and procedures, why would it matter if _you_ don't like the process? "we" (the programmers that are involved in participating) defined the process...
It doesn't matter if I don't like the process. It is only my opinion. However, I think that I am not the only person with an objection to the process. Perhaps the process can be reexamined to make it as fair as possible in the future.
I wonder if the PGA writes their own rules? The NCAA? NASCAR? NFL? NBA? Soccer leagues? ABA (Boxing)? This is pretty much normal practice. Outsiders rarely get to demand changes to things the participants have agreed to abide by. And that's as it should be.
The "others" don't object to the process. They object to the "result". Which is a different matter entirely. When someone with as much experience and background as Ken Thompson says "no doubt at all" that says a lot.
And yet outsiders can look at the process and say, "That's a lousy process."
That's all that I have done.
And that, plus $2.00 will buy you a cup of coffee...
"lousy process" is relative. It is what we have agreed to for years, and it has worked pretty well.
Dann Corbit wrote:If it is found that the prosecutor has an axe to grind against the defendant and engages in any sort of prosecutorial misconduct, the case will be dismissed with prejudice and the defendant cannot be retried.
Prejudices had been done on Rybka forum much earlier.
Do not you remember what a prosecution and 'hunting for witchess' was done on Rybka forum to persons who have differrent opinions concerning clonning issue?
Dann Corbit wrote:If it is found that the prosecutor has an axe to grind against the defendant and engages in any sort of prosecutorial misconduct, the case will be dismissed with prejudice and the defendant cannot be retried.
Why do you keep tossing out these irrelevancies?
First, the case _may_ be dismissed with prejudice. Feel free to point out _any_ prosecutorial misconduct in this investigation. We hid no exculpatory data from Vas. We fabricated no data. We didn't threaten/coerce witnesses.
So what, exactly, does this have to do with anything? Not to mention that this is not a court and has no such rules in the first place. An organization is free to run its events in any way it wants, so long as it doesn't violate certain federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and anti-discrimination laws. None of that applies here, for sure.
I suppose that this was my point:
"this is not a court and has no such rules in the first place."
And that point was known from the get-go, so the relevance would be???
I have said all along that my real objections were to the process.
Who are you to object to the ICGA process? If you don't like their rules, then don't play in their events. All this noise you guys make, Vas can speak for himself. He decided not to. Did any of you guys present evidence to support Vas at the ICGA? I'm not talking about your theories either. The answer is no, and Vas did not either.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
bob wrote:The ICGA was formed _by_ programmers. We wrote the rules we compete by. [...] "we" (the programmers that are involved in participating) defined the process...
Who exactly formed the ICGA? Who exactly wrote the rules?
bob wrote:The ICGA was formed _by_ programmers. We wrote the rules we compete by. [...] "we" (the programmers that are involved in participating) defined the process...
Who exactly formed the ICGA? Who exactly wrote the rules?
The ICGA was formerly the ICCA (nternational Computer Chess Association) and the ICCA was founded in 1977, thirty-four years ago. Prior to publishing the ICCA Journal, they distributed the ICCA Newsletter. (Somewhere I have all the back issues.) The late Ben Mittman was the first ICCA president.
All of the ICCA founders were chess program authors and/or academicians with an interest in promoting exchange of research and international competitions. The ICCA was always non-commercial, although there have been commercial entrants in ICCA events.
The reach of the ICCA was limited in its early years; I hadn't heard of it until 1987 when I joined. Such was the state of affairs prior to the web.
