Vasik Rajlich Speaks!

[Harvey Williamson]

It seems to me that he has completely clarified what he means by, 'original at the source code level'

Whereabouts? I am only interested in factual impartial reporting of information, that's all.

I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".

Is what he said. I am sure you will say that does not count for whatever reason but he said it. I am sure you and Ed will say that is not a quote and then start a website to prove it is not a quote. If anyone else made a statement and then came back hours later and said in fact by hand = manual input they would be laughed at. But I guess he is allowed as many goes as he likes till he utters the version you want and then you will make yourself believe he never said the other versions.

Harvey - I have not offered an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the Rybka ruling, only my concerns about how the process was conducted.
I do care though that those on both sides don't try putting words in each others mouths and putting a twist on what is posted.

I made a direct quote, so what is your problem?

[Graham Banks]

It seems to me that he has completely clarified what he means by, 'original at the source code level'

Whereabouts? I am only interested in factual impartial reporting of information, that's all.

I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".

Is what he said. I am sure you will say that does not count for whatever reason but he said it. I am sure you and Ed will say that is not a quote and then start a website to prove it is not a quote. If anyone else made a statement and then came back hours later and said in fact by hand = manual input they would be laughed at. But I guess he is allowed as many goes as he likes till he utters the version you want and then you will make yourself believe he never said the other versions.

Harvey - I have not offered an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the Rybka ruling, only my concerns about how the process was conducted.
I do care though that those on both sides don't try putting words in each others mouths and putting a twist on what is posted.

I made a direct quote, so what is your problem?

It was quoted out of context from what I can see. Vas's answer to Jeremy basically seems to be "of course not".

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=23957

[Steve B]

The problem is the Rybka forums method of displaying posts
really awkward and unclear if you are not used to it
hard to tell who is replying to who exactly
the large number of unrelated posts in the thread doesn't help matters either.. not to mention they make the noise to signal ratio in the thread very large in favor of the noise

Squinting Regards
Steve

[Graham Banks]

The problem is the Rybka forums method of displaying posts
really awkward and unclear if you are not used to it
hard to tell who is replying to who exactly
the large number of unrelated posts in the thread doesn't help matters either.. not to mention they make the noise to signal ratio in the thread very large

Squinting Regards
Steve

Agreed. Very confusing and messy.

[Harvey Williamson]

It seems to me that he has completely clarified what he means by, 'original at the source code level'

Whereabouts? I am only interested in factual impartial reporting of information, that's all.

I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".

Is what he said. I am sure you will say that does not count for whatever reason but he said it. I am sure you and Ed will say that is not a quote and then start a website to prove it is not a quote. If anyone else made a statement and then came back hours later and said in fact by hand = manual input they would be laughed at. But I guess he is allowed as many goes as he likes till he utters the version you want and then you will make yourself believe he never said the other versions.

Harvey - I have not offered an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the Rybka ruling, only my concerns about how the process was conducted.
I do care though that those on both sides don't try putting words in each others mouths and putting a twist on what is posted.

I made a direct quote, so what is your problem?

It was quoted out of context from what I can see. Vas's answer to Jeremy basically seems to be "of course not".

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=23957

I have got it, my direct quote is wrong but your interpritation of what he said to jeremy is correct.

And you are not taking sides but only ever post on 1 side of the issue.

To me the reply you refer to to Jeremy says absolutely nothing.

[Harvey Williamson]

The problem is the Rybka forums method of displaying posts
really awkward and unclear if you are not used to it
hard to tell who is replying to who exactly
the large number of unrelated posts in the thread doesn't help matters either.. not to mention they make the noise to signal ratio in the thread very large

Squinting Regards
Steve

Agreed. Very confusing and messy.

It is really easy once you get used to the little up and down arrows on each post. Click on them and it shows you who the reply is to.

[Graham Banks]

It seems to me that he has completely clarified what he means by, 'original at the source code level'

Whereabouts? I am only interested in factual impartial reporting of information, that's all.

I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".

Is what he said. I am sure you will say that does not count for whatever reason but he said it. I am sure you and Ed will say that is not a quote and then start a website to prove it is not a quote. If anyone else made a statement and then came back hours later and said in fact by hand = manual input they would be laughed at. But I guess he is allowed as many goes as he likes till he utters the version you want and then you will make yourself believe he never said the other versions.

Harvey - I have not offered an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the Rybka ruling, only my concerns about how the process was conducted.
I do care though that those on both sides don't try putting words in each others mouths and putting a twist on what is posted.

I made a direct quote, so what is your problem?

It was quoted out of context from what I can see. Vas's answer to Jeremy basically seems to be "of course not".

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=23957

I have got it my direct quote is wrong but your interpritation of what he said to jeremy is correct.

And you are not taking sides but only ever post on 1 side of the issue.

To me the reply you refer to to Jeremy says absolutely nothing.

Correct in that I have not offered an opinion because it's up to the programmers to sort out. Problem is that they can't agree (and there are proficient programmers on both sides of the argument).

Correct in that Vas certainly needs to be more forthcoming about many things.

[Laskos]

The problem is the Rybka forums method of displaying posts
really awkward and unclear if you are not used to it
hard to tell who is replying to who exactly
the large number of unrelated posts in the thread doesn't help matters either.. not to mention they make the noise to signal ratio in the thread very large in favor of the noise

Squinting Regards
Steve

Vas was pretty clear in or out of context, I don't know what's unclear in what I posted. Ok, if some have semantic problems with his enormities, better ask him to shut up, for his safety.

Kai

[Harvey Williamson]

It seems to me that he has completely clarified what he means by, 'original at the source code level'

Whereabouts? I am only interested in factual impartial reporting of information, that's all.

I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".

Is what he said. I am sure you will say that does not count for whatever reason but he said it. I am sure you and Ed will say that is not a quote and then start a website to prove it is not a quote. If anyone else made a statement and then came back hours later and said in fact by hand = manual input they would be laughed at. But I guess he is allowed as many goes as he likes till he utters the version you want and then you will make yourself believe he never said the other versions.

Harvey - I have not offered an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the Rybka ruling, only my concerns about how the process was conducted.
I do care though that those on both sides don't try putting words in each others mouths and putting a twist on what is posted.

I made a direct quote, so what is your problem?

It was quoted out of context from what I can see. Vas's answer to Jeremy basically seems to be "of course not".

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=23957

I have got it my direct quote is wrong but your interpritation of what he said to jeremy is correct.

And you are not taking sides but only ever post on 1 side of the issue.

To me the reply you refer to to Jeremy says absolutely nothing.

Correct in that I have not offered an opinion because it's up to the programmers to sort out. Problem is that they can't agree (and there are proficient programmers on both sides of the argument).

Correct in that Vas certainly needs to be more forthcoming about many things.

Do you need to be a programmer to know that if you type it all in yourself it can/can not be copying?

I think any honest independent, non chess, programmer reading the information will come to only 1 conclusion. There were several on the panel. Have any studied the case and said Vas is innocent?

[Harvey Williamson]

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... 706#p15706 and another 'gaff'