Zach Wegner wrote:geots wrote:Zach, you see what i am telling you about jumping the gun. No matter what is proved or disproved in this one particular thread, it makes Vas guilty of nothing.
I completely agree. But it was you who said that we are not interested in truth. You have from the beginning assumed Vas to be innocent, and when Dann posts something that might show I am wrong, it takes you less than 10 minutes to post "And they have taken this poor innocent kid, pumped him up, and sit back and shamelessly let his name be drug thru the mud". But for each piece of evidence I have posted, nothing.
You immediately assumed that Dann was right because it supported your argument. Yet when it is quickly shown to be false, complete silence. Now who exactly is interested in the truth?? I know of at least two times that I have been wrong in this discussion, and I was quick to admit my fault. The ball is in your court now George. If you want your words to hold any weight, now is the time to speak up.
Zach, one part of this discussion speaks _volumes_. What part?
Here's an exercise: Count the number of posts in each thread spawned by this discussion. Guess which ones are the shortest, and quickly drop to the bottom due to no recent posts? You got it - posts where you or others have posted actual data, which is not what most want to see.
Which threads have the most activity? The ones where everybody is either "attaboy'ing Dann or someone else". That is, the threads with no useful content about the main point that has been raised.
Some say "show me the data." Someone tells them "it is here" and they can't/won't find it. Someone posts a link. Dead silence or "oh, _THAT_ thread". Some want to declare the debate over before it is even started, no doubt hoping that will kill it before it can produce enough evidence to settle the issue. I've never seen anything quite like it.
What is particularly of interest is that 90% of the posts are from people that have no clue (a) what is being technically discussed; (b) how to interpret the technical aspects that are being discussed; (c) understand anything about developing large software systems.
It would be funny, if it were not so sad. I get a ton of grief when I say "blocks of identical code are not commonly produced, even when the application is as well-defined as computer chess." You get grief about the presence or absence of strtok() when it is not even clear the detractors know what the devil it actually does. Pick any two of Rybka, strelka and fruit and discuss them, and someone is always going to say "but that has nothing to do with xxx (which was the one omitted in that particular post)".
There is a trend. They say some have "made up their mind already." I have said I have not, but I have also said that the evidence is mounting, and that things IMHO look somewhat suspicious. But I have made up my mind, according to "them". Of course, the fact that they had their mind made up before seeing the first piece of data is unimportant. Because apparently "we" have made ours up.
But just watch the technical discussions/presentations drop like a brick to the bottom of the threads, because they are not going to respond to _those_ and actually try to help figure out what exactly has happened, if anything. They hope they can drown the discussion out in the old "if you can't dazzle me with brilliance, baffle me with bullshit" approach to debate. And so it goes.
But eventually the truth will come out, whatever it is. And contrary to some, whatever the result, there is no "shame" in raising the issue in light of the things that have already been shown. They'd prefer everyone think otherwise. They want to threaten. Insinuate legal problems. Let 'em go for it for real and see how that goes...
