A Very Novel Idea Concerning Vas- BE FAIR

[PauloSoare]

And bother me too. Two people that are being very badly treated here: Vas and Graham.

Poor Graham. Someone who calls others liar, idiot or even wishes someones death shouldn't complain when others strike back.

There is a limit to everything. If this limit is reached it is obvious that the
person loses his temper and write absurd things, all based on emotion and not reason.
Graham is not a liar.

[bob]

the experts became aware

But we agree that experts are no judges in court trials or did I miss a new lynching variation? So, for the sake of decency Vas is innocent. And no Fabien nor Keith could change this. Period.

This is pretty funny. And also just a "tad" hypocritical. For the longest, you stated "Fabien doesn't have a problem with this so it is ok." Now it appears that he _does_ have a problem with it, and now his opinion doesn't matter?

Look up "hypocrite" and think about it.

[bob]

But we agree that experts are no judges in court trials or did I miss a new lynching variation?

The post from which the quote below was taken was sandwiched between 2 of your posts and was a reply to Graham. However, you may have "missed" it. I was under the impression that you were more interested in justice than legality.

It is pretty obvious that you confuse justice with legality. Although, on the occasions on which they bring about the same outcome they may appear to be the same thing, they are not; one is what you seek and the other is what you get. Given the difference between the two, it is unwise to assume that somebody who seeks “finality” will get it from a legal system.

Thanks for the question, Keith. The answer is in short.
We have finality already, Keith.
The actual stand is, Vas is innocent in Law and in Justice.

Of course that could be changed, but only with court trials and following verdicts, NOT by proclamations and mass demonstrations. So, we must not _do_ anything, because Vas is factually and legally innocent.

Factually??? What facts do you have to support this? The only facts I have seen support the opposite. "legally innocent"? How can you prove that? You might go thru a court and get a verdict of "legally not guilty" but that is not the same thing at all.

None of your above statement makes any sense at all...

To change this, it is necessary to come from libel to decent court trial accusations with the following verdicts. Only this could change the status of Vas from innocent to guilty.

It is indecent and illegal do decide that there wont be a court case but we continue the public defamations. This is truly unethical, not what Vas should have done.

[K I Hyams]

Now let's move on to whether Rybka is in some way a derivative of Fruit.

Mr. Rajlich claimed that Strelka was a clone of Rybka.

It was determined that Strelka is very closely based upon Fruit.

If those two statements are true, then that version of Rybka must be very closely based on Fruit as well. I suppose that it's possible in 1 out of 1000 instances that this might not be true, but that's well beyond the realm of "reaosnable doubt".

Therefore at least one version of commercial Rybka is closely based on Fruit.

That's a violation of the GPL.

That makes Mr. Rajlich dishonest.

Now that this is established, let's examine the Strelka situation further. Mr. Rajlich loudly condemned Strelka for being a clone, direct copy, or whatever of Rybka (to quote the forum: "It is a direct Reverse Engineer of Rybka"). Mr. Rajlich did the same essential thing with Rybka, regarding Fruit.

That makes Mr. Rajlich a hypocrite (pot calling kettle black, etc.).

Mr. Rajlich has categorically denied that Rybka is based on Fruit.

That makes Mr. Rajlich a liar.

In fact, the evidence for the association between Fruit and Rybka 1 is stronger than you think. The experts compared Rybka 1 to Fruit, they did not compare Strelka to Fruit.

The relevance of Strelka was that, as a consequence of Rajlich's comments about Strelka, the experts became aware of a possible link between Rybka 1 and Fruit.

The problem with all this is obvious. Barrister wasnt here 2 years ago when we were hashing out this same crap- so he doesnt understand what was going on. He makes all these claims, yet then says he knows nothing about programming. So how does he know this. Easy. He doesnt. He has been listening to other people he believes who have studies the codes or whatever thy had available to them. The problem is the same it was 2 years ago when i left. For very programmer who says they found evidence, i can match them up with one just as well thought of who will claim they found nothing to lead to anything concerning Rybka. And you, having been here- know that. Someone repeating what they heard doesnt make it true. I was basing my comments for that reason on the idea that if you cant prove it by yourself, it's hearsay and therefore worthless. Only excellent programmers should be making observations. I did not say it isnt true- I said give Vas a fair shake. Im not a programmer, so i know actually no more than Barrister. Difference is im not running around saying theins that i can't prove- like many are. Jujst pretend for a moment you are in court concerning this. The judge asks Barrister what he knows without a doubt to be true, and explain how he reached that decision. He cant. All he can say is he heard it from other people. What do you think the judge will do with that testimony. So lets leave this to the experts. My personal opinion, and you or anyone has the right to disagree, is that if we are not programmers who have studied bits and pieces of code- we should stay out of the argument. I didnt say it was one way or the other- just that hearsay should be left out.

Best to You

Well, I started a detailed reply to your post but I abandoned it when it was about two thirds complete because I was overtaken by an overwhelming sense of futility.

I will simply say that, in the period during which you have been absent, evidence of which you may not be aware to support the idea that Rybka is Fruity has been produced. You will have noticed that the attitude towards Rajlich on CCC is now more hostile than it was when you left. That fact is a consequence of that evidence.

You will also have noticed that the attitude towards Graham Banks is less tolerant now than it was at the time that you left. That fact is because he refuses to deal with that evidence or the implications of it and produces nothing new of his own with which to support his case.

If you have additional evidence, of which Graham Banks is not aware, please produce it here.

[geots]

Now let's move on to whether Rybka is in some way a derivative of Fruit.

Mr. Rajlich claimed that Strelka was a clone of Rybka.

It was determined that Strelka is very closely based upon Fruit.

If those two statements are true, then that version of Rybka must be very closely based on Fruit as well. I suppose that it's possible in 1 out of 1000 instances that this might not be true, but that's well beyond the realm of "reaosnable doubt".

Therefore at least one version of commercial Rybka is closely based on Fruit.

That's a violation of the GPL.

That makes Mr. Rajlich dishonest.

Now that this is established, let's examine the Strelka situation further. Mr. Rajlich loudly condemned Strelka for being a clone, direct copy, or whatever of Rybka (to quote the forum: "It is a direct Reverse Engineer of Rybka"). Mr. Rajlich did the same essential thing with Rybka, regarding Fruit.

That makes Mr. Rajlich a hypocrite (pot calling kettle black, etc.).

Mr. Rajlich has categorically denied that Rybka is based on Fruit.

That makes Mr. Rajlich a liar.

In fact, the evidence for the association between Fruit and Rybka 1 is stronger than you think. The experts compared Rybka 1 to Fruit, they did not compare Strelka to Fruit.

The relevance of Strelka was that, as a consequence of Rajlich's comments about Strelka, the experts became aware of a possible link between Rybka 1 and Fruit.

The problem with all this is obvious. Barrister wasnt here 2 years ago when we were hashing out this same crap- so he doesnt understand what was going on. He makes all these claims, yet then says he knows nothing about programming. So how does he know this. Easy. He doesnt. He has been listening to other people he believes who have studies the codes or whatever thy had available to them. The problem is the same it was 2 years ago when i left. For very programmer who says they found evidence, i can match them up with one just as well thought of who will claim they found nothing to lead to anything concerning Rybka. And you, having been here- know that. Someone repeating what they heard doesnt make it true. I was basing my comments for that reason on the idea that if you cant prove it by yourself, it's hearsay and therefore worthless. Only excellent programmers should be making observations. I did not say it isnt true- I said give Vas a fair shake. Im not a programmer, so i know actually no more than Barrister. Difference is im not running around saying theins that i can't prove- like many are. Jujst pretend for a moment you are in court concerning this. The judge asks Barrister what he knows without a doubt to be true, and explain how he reached that decision. He cant. All he can say is he heard it from other people. What do you think the judge will do with that testimony. So lets leave this to the experts. My personal opinion, and you or anyone has the right to disagree, is that if we are not programmers who have studied bits and pieces of code- we should stay out of the argument. I didnt say it was one way or the other- just that hearsay should be left out.

Best to You

Well, I started a detailed reply to your post but I abandoned it when it was about two thirds complete because I was overtaken by an overwhelming sense of futility.

I will simply say that, in the period during which you have been absent, evidence of which you may not be aware to support the idea that Rybka is Fruity has been produced. You will have noticed that the attitude towards Rajlich on CCC is now more hostile than it was when you left. That fact is a consequence of that evidence.

You will also have noticed that the attitude towards Graham Banks is less tolerant now than it was at the time that you left. That fact is because he refuses to deal with that evidence or the implications of it and produces nothing new of his own with which to support his case.

If you have additional evidence, of which Graham Banks is not aware, please produce it here.

Look, why jump to Graham. He knows no more code than I do. But, like
me, he is not going to condemn without solid solid evidence. And again, i say 4 programmers who have studied it will never reach a unified decision. I've talked to too many programmers-off the record and dont want to get involved in what they call this- a snake pit. They call it a witch hunt. Are they right? I don't know, and you dont either. I think everyone should be careful about throwing around the word "evidence". Let's put you in front of a judge. How much of the bits and pieces of this "evidence" have you studied. Like me, none. You heard it from a 3rd party. We are getting dangerously close to what i call "Follow the crowd simpletons". Look, 2 years from now i would make a wild guess and say you will still be pissed and Vas will still be rolling in money. And the world will roll right on.

[Alexander Schmidt]

Graham is not a liar.

Did I say that? He is no liar. He is obsessed by his ideas and he don't accept other opinions. He is the one who usually starts the insults. I never insulted him. He called me thief, liar, idiot and much more. So seriously he is not the poor guy traced by others, he knows very well what he does, and he can't complain about the way some talk to him.

[geots]

Graham is not a liar.

Did I say that? He is no liar. He is obsessed by his ideas and he don't accept other opinions. He is the one who usually starts the insults. I never insulted him. He called me thief, liar, idiot and much more. So seriously he is not the poor guy traced by others, he knows very well what he does, and he can't complain about the way some talk to him.

Did Graham call you all those things. I think 1 hour is enough time for you to post a link or links to each thread where i can read Graham's exact words. That's a kick in the butt, isn't it.

[Ant_Gugdin]

Graham is not a liar.

Did I say that? He is no liar. He is obsessed by his ideas and he don't accept other opinions. He is the one who usually starts the insults. I never insulted him. He called me thief, liar, idiot and much more. So seriously he is not the poor guy traced by others, he knows very well what he does, and he can't complain about the way some talk to him.

I don't agree with Graham's approach. I don't see any basis for giving Rybka preferential treatment over Houdini. Either test both or neither. I would test both and asterisk them both, setting out the issues with both engines.

However, I haven't seen him any insults from him and he certainly isn't anywhere near as insulting as some of Vas' critics.

[Rolf]

This is pretty funny. And also just a "tad" hypocritical. For the longest, you stated "Fabien doesn't have a problem with this so it is ok." Now it appears that he _does_ have a problem with it, and now his opinion doesn't matter?

Look up "hypocrite" and think about it.

Please try to differ. What I said about Fabien when there was no public concern, I took the easiest argument against the Vas critics and said Fabien didnt say something qhixch was true after I had read Dann Corbit. Now Fabien is concerned and I argue that nothing has been decided legally against Vas. Would you deny that?

As we know at least in Germany, if someone sees a direct and urgent need to get legal assistance then this is possible to get usually after advice by a lawyer. All that is still not done or not publicly announced. So why attacking me, Bob? I did not say or mean that I have nothing seen from critics like you that accused Vas. That would be a lie because you have made your public statement. But again, this isnt yet a legal verdict.

I think it would almost make us really decent, if we could differentiate. Although we know all the critics, we still treat Vas as innocent and with politeness until he would be sentenced to any real punishment either financial or else. My term innocent means in a legal sense just that Vas never was convicted by a court and this is what is essential. So, he's no liar nothing. And especially Graham therefore should also be treated with respect.

And we should behave this way NOT only for any thinkable advantage of Vas but for the best of our little community.

Also to Keith. Hostility doesnt lead anywhere. Yes, many here see him under suspicions, but then it's our legal system that must tear the conclusions but not we in a sort of social branding. Let's show some style. If we could wait for 5 years now let''s wait what Fabien could achieve during his attempts now. But calling Vas guilty just because Fabien appeared on the scene now this is neither fair nor well designed for our community.

[Rolf]

Factually??? What facts do you have to support this? The only facts I have seen support the opposite. "legally innocent"? How can you prove that? You might go thru a court and get a verdict of "legally not guilty" but that is not the same thing at all.

None of your above statement makes any sense at all...

The proof is that there is no verdict yet against Vas. That is meant by innocent until a court called him guilty. And that is a fact. That this didnt happen. So I called it a factually existing still innocence without any court verdict. This our legal system.