Any chance you can provide something to back that statement up, or is it just another random personal attack? I've been 100% consistent in my comments about Vas. Fruit/Rybka is a done deal with enough evidence to convince anyone except those that simply won't be convinced. The Rybka/Ippo* case seems to be going in the opposite direction from what most want. There appears to be more and more evidence that this "clone" idea is not actually true.Rolf wrote:How do you know? Ok if you take sides for Bob and want to be against Vas then ok, but wouldnt your own statement be speaking for Vas too?? The main attack vs Bob is IMO that he worked with a split and inconsitant ethical basement.lmader wrote: I've followed the clone discussion madness pretty carefully, including Dr. Hyatt's contributions to the conversations. From what I have read of his posts, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of his positions. It looks to me like you are taking a relatively isolated statement out of context to try to create the implication that he condones stealing other people's work. That just isn't the case. I think you know that.
The only inconsistency I have shown is that we originally took Vas' word that Ippo* was a clone and we disallowed links, but allowed discussion. After 3+ months with no supporting evidence, we allowed the links as well as more discussion. The only thing I regret is that we originally stopped allowing links, when it looks more and more like we were wrong even in that step...
This gets uglier as the days march on.
And if it turns out these "villains" (correct spelling) were misjudged, as the evidence mounts??? My "position" is anything but unsound, because I choose to stand on actual facts, not personal likes or dislikes. And the more facts that come out, the more doubt there is about the cloning claim directed toward IP*.That was the biggest deception I ever saw in him. It's a psychological problem. Or is this also unallowed to use here in the debate? So, what did you mean that you knew and Al should know too that Bob isnt supporting what?
I asked him the crucial question: if the talks about these invisible vilains who are vilains because they are invisible, would serve to a good purpose then Bob would be right, but if not then Bob's position is unsound. For what Bob is standing for in our scene.