Rybka Coding Posts

[chrisw]

Trolling again, Christophe.

At the start of this process, I reported back to CCC that Vas had said he was happy to answer a list of concerns if your side was to produce one.

Your side, including Zach, if I remember correct, said, in effect that I was baised, they didn't trust me to send the questions or censor them or whatever, and they would do the sending themselves.

I paraphrase that as a 'ban' on me to be any more involved in trying to get your side (a) to formally formulate its position and (b) to 'send' the position from the CCC to Vas when it was prepared.

I call it 'ban' because it was actually quite rude of you, I thought. Obviously I was never going to do anything else than transmit accurately whatever concern list was prepared.

Go troll yourself. There's little point in discussion with you because (a) you should be preparing your attack evidence, not wasting your time here in content free threads and (b) you're reducing the interaction between me and you to bad-tempered, content free nonsense, which ultimately just demeans the process.

Correct. There's no point in further discussion until the anti-camp have come up with a formal statement.

by "formal statement"..you mean a formal list of questions?
in short..Vas is not going to reply to one question
so are the chief questioners preparing this statement or refusing to ..until Vas answers the first question?

just trying to zero in on where things are now..thats all
Steve

Well, Zach become very frustrated a few days ago with all the "where's your evidence questions" and retracted the ban of me from sending their questions to Vas. When I said ok, what do I send, he pointed at the first post in one of the threads and said send that. So I did.

Zach has never banned you from doing anything.

I notice more and more subtle mistakes in your posts and wonder if they are intentional or if they come from lack of sleep (or anything else).

Now if it is possible to ban you a little bit, just a little bit and as friendly as possible, can I take this opportunity to ban you from obstructing any reasonable examination of the evidence that has already been provided?



// Christophe

I think they (antis) then realised that that post was quite unsuitable as a statement list or a list of concerns or anything else. So they then stated (and before in fact) they were preparing further and better material. Hardly surprisingly, when Vas got to hear that a more formal and better presented version of their case was on the way, he decided to wait for that instead. It's clearly in his interest to get their entire case and refute it rather than deal with piecemeal attacks one after the other. The anti-side, of course, should have prepared this case in its entirity beforehand, but they didn't, preferring instead to rely on slurs and assumptions without evidential base.

The ball is very much in their court, and responsibility for this very sloppy and damaging process rests entirely with them and their failure to have prepared material beforehand. Now they do it in desperation to try to defend their accusations and themselves. Hardly a process designed for impartiality or truth seeking.

[Steve B]

Well, Zach become very frustrated a few days ago with all the "where's your evidence questions" and retracted the ban of me from sending their questions to Vas. When I said ok, what do I send, he pointed at the first post in one of the threads and said send that. So I did.

I think they (antis) then realised that that post was quite unsuitable as a statement list or a list of concerns or anything else. So they then stated (and before in fact) they were preparing further and better material. Hardly surprisingly, when Vas got to hear that a more formal and better presented version of their case was on the way, he decided to wait for that instead. It's clearly in his interest to get their entire case and refute it rather than deal with piecemeal attacks one after the other. The anti-side, of course, should have prepared this case in its entirity beforehand, but they didn't, preferring instead to rely on slurs and assumptions without evidential base.

The ball is very much in their court,

i appreciate the above summary of the current state of affairs Chris
sorry to make you repeat above but for those not able to follow each and every thread..hour by hour..its very informative to know exactly where were are right now
a final question and i will leave you to tend to the many threads dealing with this

how long has it been since the questioners have agreed to prepare their list of questions?

is this a matter of days now or only a matter of hours?

Final Question Regards
Steve

[tiger]

Trolling again, Christophe.

At the start of this process, I reported back to CCC that Vas had said he was happy to answer a list of concerns if your side was to produce one.

Your side, including Zach, if I remember correct, said, in effect that I was baised, they didn't trust me to send the questions or censor them or whatever, and they would do the sending themselves.

I paraphrase that as a 'ban' on me to be any more involved in trying to get your side (a) to formally formulate its position and (b) to 'send' the position from the CCC to Vas when it was prepared.

You are certainly a talented mind reader engineer artist if you call this a "ban".

I call it 'ban' because it was actually quite rude of you, I thought. Obviously I was never going to do anything else than transmit accurately whatever concern list was prepared.

Go troll yourself. There's little point in discussion with you because (a) you should be preparing your attack evidence, not wasting your time here in content free threads and (b) you're reducing the interaction between me and you to bad-tempered, content free nonsense, which ultimately just demeans the process.

What is the point in preparing anything if you brush it away with techniques such as calling disassembling "creative reverse engineering by an artist" and such?

Reverse engineering and trying to have the reconstructed source fit the source of the original work is perfectly valid. It is what the courts do when they use "semantical abstraction".

You are trying to picture this as a completely non-scientific process when it is the contrary.

Either you believe it is not scientific, and then you are a really poor expert, or you know it is valid and you try to deceive people with your allegations.

In any case, it is what the courts do. Sorry if you do not like the process.



// Christophe

Correct. There's no point in further discussion until the anti-camp have come up with a formal statement.

by "formal statement"..you mean a formal list of questions?
in short..Vas is not going to reply to one question
so are the chief questioners preparing this statement or refusing to ..until Vas answers the first question?

just trying to zero in on where things are now..thats all
Steve

Well, Zach become very frustrated a few days ago with all the "where's your evidence questions" and retracted the ban of me from sending their questions to Vas. When I said ok, what do I send, he pointed at the first post in one of the threads and said send that. So I did.

Zach has never banned you from doing anything.

I notice more and more subtle mistakes in your posts and wonder if they are intentional or if they come from lack of sleep (or anything else).

Now if it is possible to ban you a little bit, just a little bit and as friendly as possible, can I take this opportunity to ban you from obstructing any reasonable examination of the evidence that has already been provided?



// Christophe

I think they (antis) then realised that that post was quite unsuitable as a statement list or a list of concerns or anything else. So they then stated (and before in fact) they were preparing further and better material. Hardly surprisingly, when Vas got to hear that a more formal and better presented version of their case was on the way, he decided to wait for that instead. It's clearly in his interest to get their entire case and refute it rather than deal with piecemeal attacks one after the other. The anti-side, of course, should have prepared this case in its entirity beforehand, but they didn't, preferring instead to rely on slurs and assumptions without evidential base.

The ball is very much in their court, and responsibility for this very sloppy and damaging process rests entirely with them and their failure to have prepared material beforehand. Now they do it in desperation to try to defend their accusations and themselves. Hardly a process designed for impartiality or truth seeking.

[Graham Banks]

how long has it been since the questioners have agreed to prepare their list of questions?

is this a matter of days now or only a matter of hours?

Final Question Regards
Steve

Days, but I'm not sure how many.
Chris will confirm.

Getting tired regards,
Graham.

[Steve B]

how long has it been since the questioners have agreed to prepare their list of questions?

is this a matter of days now or only a matter of hours?

Final Question Regards
Steve

Days, but I'm not sure how many.
Chris will confirm.

Getting tired regards,
Graham.

Days..
OK
thanks again Graham

Best Regards
Steve

[chrisw]

how long has it been since the questioners have agreed to prepare their list of questions?

is this a matter of days now or only a matter of hours?

Final Question Regards
Steve

Days, but I'm not sure how many.
Chris will confirm.

Getting tired regards,
Graham.

It's a few days ago that they promised.

However, Christophe's antics in trying to get a discussion going again on the discredited UCI material rather than quietly beavering away producing some proper case indicates to me, at least, that the preparation of further and better material has hit the buffers. I suppose the proof will be in the pudding.

Perhaps one of the antis would like to provide readers with an indication of when their material will be complete and released?

This year, next year, sometime, never?

[tiger]

Well, Zach become very frustrated a few days ago with all the "where's your evidence questions" and retracted the ban of me from sending their questions to Vas. When I said ok, what do I send, he pointed at the first post in one of the threads and said send that. So I did.

I think they (antis) then realised that that post was quite unsuitable as a statement list or a list of concerns or anything else. So they then stated (and before in fact) they were preparing further and better material. Hardly surprisingly, when Vas got to hear that a more formal and better presented version of their case was on the way, he decided to wait for that instead. It's clearly in his interest to get their entire case and refute it rather than deal with piecemeal attacks one after the other. The anti-side, of course, should have prepared this case in its entirity beforehand, but they didn't, preferring instead to rely on slurs and assumptions without evidential base.

The ball is very much in their court,

i appreciate the above summary of the current state of affairs Chris
sorry to make you repeat above but for those not able to follow each and every thread..hour by hour..its very informative to know exactly where were are right now
a final question and i will leave you to tend to the many threads dealing with this

how long has it been since the questioners have agreed to prepare their list of questions?

is this a matter of days now or only a matter of hours?

Final Question Regards
Steve

Unfortunately I'm not sure it is a good idea to rely of Mr Whittington's view to get an accurate picture of what is happening.

I would say that evidence has been provided, but it has been brushed away in such an absurd way that the source code of a program would never be recognized as such even if you are given the corresponding executable. So if you cannot tell that this executable comes from this source, don't even dream about finding about the similarity between this other source and this executable.

For example the process of finding the variables names in the binary code (which has no variable names because they have been replaced by numeric addresses) and trying to make them fit with the original source code we are comparing to is described by Mr Whittington as the work of a "creative artist", which is a way to discredit competely the process. He says that disassembling is making things up.

So we stand at a point where no evidence would ever convince Mr Whittington and we say that someone is trying to obstruct the debate.



// Christophe

[gerold]

Well, Zach become very frustrated a few days ago with all the "where's your evidence questions" and retracted the ban of me from sending their questions to Vas. When I said ok, what do I send, he pointed at the first post in one of the threads and said send that. So I did.

I think they (antis) then realised that that post was quite unsuitable as a statement list or a list of concerns or anything else. So they then stated (and before in fact) they were preparing further and better material. Hardly surprisingly, when Vas got to hear that a more formal and better presented version of their case was on the way, he decided to wait for that instead. It's clearly in his interest to get their entire case and refute it rather than deal with piecemeal attacks one after the other. The anti-side, of course, should have prepared this case in its entirity beforehand, but they didn't, preferring instead to rely on slurs and assumptions without evidential base.

The ball is very much in their court,

i appreciate the above summary of the current state of affairs Chris
sorry to make you repeat above but for those not able to follow each and every thread..hour by hour..its very informative to know exactly where were are right now
a final question and i will leave you to tend to the many threads dealing with this

how long has it been since the questioners have agreed to prepare their list of questions?

is this a matter of days now or only a matter of hours?

Final Question Regards
Steve

Unfortunately I'm not sure it is a good idea to rely of Mr Whittington's view to get an accurate picture of what is happening.

I would say that evidence has been provided, but it has been brushed away in such an absurd way that the source code of a program would never be recognized as such even if you are given the corresponding executable. So if you cannot tell that this executable comes from this source, don't even dream about finding about the similarity between this other source and this executable.

For example the process of finding the variables names in the binary code (which has no variable names because they have been replaced by numeric addresses) and trying to make them fit with the original source code we are comparing to is described by Mr Whittington as the work of a "creative artist", which is a way to discredit competely the process. He says that disassembling is making things up.

So we stand at a point where no evidence would ever convince Mr Whittington and we say that someone is trying to obstruct the debate.



// Christophe

No proof no debate. Guess this one is winding down.

[tiger]

how long has it been since the questioners have agreed to prepare their list of questions?

is this a matter of days now or only a matter of hours?

Final Question Regards
Steve

Days, but I'm not sure how many.
Chris will confirm.

Getting tired regards,
Graham.

It's a few days ago that they promised.

However, Christophe's antics in trying to get a discussion going again on the discredited UCI material rather than quietly beavering away producing some proper case indicates to me, at least, that the preparation of further and better material has hit the buffers. I suppose the proof will be in the pudding.

Perhaps one of the antis would like to provide readers with an indication of when their material will be complete and released?

This year, next year, sometime, never?

Perhaps when you will stop rejecting any disassembly as "hieroglyphs" and any reconstructed code as the work of a "creative artist" making thing up. And when you stop rejecting lines one by one instead of looking at them in blocks.

In short, when you start really looking at the evidence instead of trying to destroy with the lowest tactics you can think of.

You are the only one arguing against the evidence that has been presented, and you reject it so broadly that I believe we need some real expert here to have a reak look at it. Oh well... The people who have an expertise on this have already seen troubling similarities. But nothing is troubling in your opinion.



// Christophe

[tiger]

The evidence has not been accepted by Chris Whittington, who is anyway constantly doing obstruction.

By his standard, no program can be a derivative work of another as soon as you change variable names.

If you count the number of programmers who have found the evidence good enough to raise a serious doubt in their mind, the big picture will change.



// Christophe

If you think your case is so strong, then why not take it straight to the FSF instead of conducting a kangaroo court here?

I was sucked into this discution when I expressed my opinion and ad hominem attacks started immediately against me.

The FSF is not going to do anything for this, right?

The people who have attacked me personally for the opinion I had are here. I think it's right to show them the evidence.



// Christophe

If the FSF aren't prepared to do anything, then there's absolutely no point going any further, is there?
After all, they own the rights to the code.
Aren't they supposed to be the judge and jury when all is said and done?

Regards, Graham.

They will take action if they want. Their decision can be based on so many things, like for example how many cases they have to deal with at that time.

Tell me, Graham, do you remember a few cases where an engine has been banned from further tesing by the CCRL? Which ones and why?



// Christophe