My post is not a personal attack, just pointing out the truth for all to see.Milos wrote:Let's see:Graham Banks wrote:I see some interesting posts from you in rgcc. Did you join here specifically to add to the voice of the cloners/hackers by promoting "Robber" and putting down Vas? Actually a search of your posts here answers that.How does your question not include personal? Or this is only valid for old member like Rolf, but not for new ones?Computer-Chess Club Charter:
Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:
3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
Thoughts...
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 41463
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Science &Law should be impartial = neutral without b
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:14 pm
- Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton
Re: Science &Law should be impartial = neutral without b
I think that marks the basic difference between Vas and his enemies here. He ignores this all. While you insist. So it makes no sense for Vas side to do anything, we must not even argue. It is done because we have a friendly relation with the majority. But dont think for a second that "we" (sorry Deeb) quiver because we fear something evil if you continue with full artillery. No, not at all. But we are thinking about the damages. All the broken dreams.Milos wrote:Your perspective is wrong. Let me illustrate it with the hypothetical court example, so it'll be easier to understand.Graham Banks wrote:It would be the right thing for the accusers to talk to Ryan. They seem reluctant to do so.
There are prosecutors (some people on this forum, I dare also to say clear majority), and there is the accused (Vas). Ryan is according to you the witness for the defendant. And Rolf and you, and maybe few more ppl are his "lawyers". So, it is completely illogical for the prosecutor to call the witness of the defendant to testify. That should be your job.
For me the case is quite clear, shall I say more?
There must be a hidden key information that will explain why Bob doesnt rush to a court nor a GPL institution.
BTW I dont buy that there are fair tests where this ROBBO got 70 Elo more than Rybka 3. At least for the SWISS test I could show that I got by chance the same result that was given for the thing.
For me it's possible that the robbed thing is Rybka 3. Without all the features Rybka allows and as UCI. I see nothing that could convince me to invest time to use a clone if the original still has it all.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
-
- Posts: 4190
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:47 am
Re: Science &Law should be impartial = neutral without b
I presume the reasons for joining the CCC are not personal and they should be explained in detail be the new member? I didn't see a similar article in the charter.Graham Banks wrote:My post is not a personal attack, just pointing out the truth for all to see.
Or you take on yourself the role of the one who knows the general truth and you are here be the will of the almighty to show this (yours and in the same time universal) truth to everyone?
-
- Posts: 41463
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Science &Law should be impartial = neutral without b
The truth has yet to be established in my opinion (and my opinion is no more or less valuable than anybody elses, no matter what you wish to infer).Milos wrote:I presume the reasons for joining the CCC are not personal and they should be explained in detail be the new member? I didn't see a similar article in the charter.Graham Banks wrote:My post is not a personal attack, just pointing out the truth for all to see.
Or you take on yourself the role of the one who knows the general truth and you are here be the will of the almighty to show this (yours and in the same time universal) truth to everyone?
Cheers,
Graham.
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 3584
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:21 pm
Re: Science &Law should be impartial = neutral without b
He has access to Strelka code Gabor. However Professor Hyatt has already given one perfectly adequate reason why he sees no need to contact Mr Benitez and there may be others as well.SzG wrote:I miss the point of contacting Ryan. He has not Rybka sources at his disposal, nor has he reverse engineered it.Graham Banks wrote:It would be the right thing for the accusers to talk to Ryan in detail. They seem reluctant to do so.
-
- Posts: 4190
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:47 am
Re: Science &Law should be impartial = neutral without b
Fortunately, in your case there is no hidden information. It is quite clear why you are trying full-time to defend Vas so ridiculously.Rolf wrote:There must be a hidden key information that will explain why Bob doesnt rush to a court nor a GPL institution.
Vas in not stupid at all. Even though that can not be said for all of his followers. The negative climate that you are making here is mostly hurting Vas because having a jester defending his interests can be nothing but counter productive.
-
- Posts: 3584
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:21 pm
Re: Science &Law should be impartial = neutral without b
Your opinion is a lot less valuable than that of Professor Hyatt and Zach Wegner for obvious reasons and in those circumstances it is disrespectful to claim otherwise.Graham Banks wrote:The truth has yet to be established in my opinion (and my opinion is no more or less valuable than anybody elses, no matter what you wish to infer).Milos wrote:I presume the reasons for joining the CCC are not personal and they should be explained in detail be the new member? I didn't see a similar article in the charter.Graham Banks wrote:My post is not a personal attack, just pointing out the truth for all to see.
Or you take on yourself the role of the one who knows the general truth and you are here be the will of the almighty to show this (yours and in the same time universal) truth to everyone?
Cheers,
Graham.
Last edited by K I Hyams on Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 41463
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Science &Law should be impartial = neutral without b
While I respect Bob's expertise, I would still suggest contacting Ryan in private to discuss the issue as being useful.K I Hyams wrote:Professor Hyatt has already given one perfectly adequate reason why he sees no need to contact Mr Benitez and there may be others as well.
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 41463
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Science &Law should be impartial = neutral without b
On programming issues, you're obviously correct. I wasn't meaning to be disrespectful to either of them.K I Hyams wrote: Your opinion is a lot less valuable than that of Professor Hyatt and Zach Wegner for obvious reasons and in those circumstances it is disrespectful to claim otherwise.
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:14 pm
- Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton
Re: Science &Law should be impartial = neutral without b
What can I do against illmeaning people who want to hit me because they cant reach Vas? Why should I step out? For me you with your unknown name are more responsible for a climate here. Because you run no risks with what you spread. Like these anonymous jerks. You poison the climate not me with my innocent opinions.Milos wrote:Fortunately, in your case there is no hidden information. It is quite clear why you are trying full-time to defend Vas so ridiculously.Rolf wrote:There must be a hidden key information that will explain why Bob doesnt rush to a court nor a GPL institution.
Vas in not stupid at all. Even though that can not be said for all of his followers. The negative climate that you are making here is mostly hurting Vas because having a jester defending his interests can be nothing but counter productive.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz