???Terry McCracken wrote:Nice Censorship...
What did I miss???
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
???Terry McCracken wrote:Nice Censorship...
Vincent made a claim that the assembler in Naum showed it was based on Rybka. He said three other programmers attested to this fact, including Vasik. Then Graham Banks protested along with Peter Skinner. Also, Graham said that your claims along with Christophe fell flat, that your allegations were baseless.bob wrote:???Terry McCracken wrote:Nice Censorship...
What did I miss???
Just because someone states this program is a clone or that program is a clone with no offered proof other than hearsay, doesn't make it real.Terry McCracken wrote:Vincent made a claim that the assembler in Naum showed it was based on Rybka. He said three other programmers attested to this fact, including Vasik. Then Graham Banks protested along with Peter Skinner. Also, Graham said that your claims along with Christophe fell flat, that your allegations were baseless.bob wrote:???Terry McCracken wrote:Nice Censorship...
What did I miss???
I summerized the facts about Rybka 1.0 Beta and Fruit.
All what Vincent wrote was deleted along with my post positing the facts about the Rybka-Fruit Incident.
The subject is taboo.
Here's my take on this. CCC was founded as a place to discuss computer chess issues. And "clones" are a legitimate issue since we have had so many of them over the past 15 years. This is the _perfect_ place to discuss such topics. If anyone wants to go join a tea party with little old ladies, feel free. Here we ought to be able to discuss clone issues freely and openly. Too many are all about censorship above everything else...Terry McCracken wrote:Vincent made a claim that the assembler in Naum showed it was based on Rybka. He said three other programmers attested to this fact, including Vasik. Then Graham Banks protested along with Peter Skinner. Also, Graham said that your claims along with Christophe fell flat, that your allegations were baseless.bob wrote:???Terry McCracken wrote:Nice Censorship...
What did I miss???
I summerized the facts about Rybka 1.0 Beta and Fruit.
All what Vincent wrote was deleted along with my post positing the facts about the Rybka-Fruit Incident.
The subject is taboo.
This logic is _badly_ flawed. You are basically saying that you can't take a case to court, until you have _already_ proven the verdict beforehand. And that is unreasonable. CCC is the ideal place to discuss these issues, as there is enough technical expertise here to look at them and reach a conclusion.Peter Skinner wrote:Just because someone states this program is a clone or that program is a clone with no offered proof other than hearsay, doesn't make it real.Terry McCracken wrote:Vincent made a claim that the assembler in Naum showed it was based on Rybka. He said three other programmers attested to this fact, including Vasik. Then Graham Banks protested along with Peter Skinner. Also, Graham said that your claims along with Christophe fell flat, that your allegations were baseless.bob wrote:???Terry McCracken wrote:Nice Censorship...
What did I miss???
I summerized the facts about Rybka 1.0 Beta and Fruit.
All what Vincent wrote was deleted along with my post positing the facts about the Rybka-Fruit Incident.
The subject is taboo.
There was a sticky at the top of this forum related to accusing programs of being clones. Unless proof is supplied it would be removed.
Vincent claims that three programmers verified the claim that Naum was a clone of Rybka 2.3.2. Either he can get these people to post here to that effect, or take that crap elsewhere.
He stated Vas had the same results, so let him post to that effect.
I only protested because it was going to turn into a flame war that wasn't needed.
Peter
Be aware that Terry took some liberties in reporting what had happened.bob wrote: Here's my take on this. CCC was founded as a place to discuss computer chess issues. And "clones" are a legitimate issue since we have had so many of them over the past 15 years. This is the _perfect_ place to discuss such topics. If anyone wants to go join a tea party with little old ladies, feel free. Here we ought to be able to discuss clone issues freely and openly. Too many are all about censorship above everything else...
Unfortunately, the very ones demanding censorship are the very ones that are not qualified to take part in the discussions at hand...
Taking liberties? Nonsense! You stated that the case against Rybka fell flat and the people behind those accusations have produced nothing! We all know who those people were and are!Graham Banks wrote:Be aware that Terry took some liberties in reporting what had happened.bob wrote: Here's my take on this. CCC was founded as a place to discuss computer chess issues. And "clones" are a legitimate issue since we have had so many of them over the past 15 years. This is the _perfect_ place to discuss such topics. If anyone wants to go join a tea party with little old ladies, feel free. Here we ought to be able to discuss clone issues freely and openly. Too many are all about censorship above everything else...
Unfortunately, the very ones demanding censorship are the very ones that are not qualified to take part in the discussions at hand...
I reported the post, but somebody else had already beaten me too it. Peter and myself weren't the only members who complained.
I also never mentioned you by name anywhere in my posts.
Besides, the charter prohibits posts of questionable legal status plus libellous attacks, does it not?
Regards, Graham.
It didn't. It was just removed without thought.M ANSARI wrote:I am trying to figure out what it was in MY post that warranted a deletion?