To campaign or not

[chrisw]

funny, apparently both Ed and Bob are just skimming posts. Bob wrongly assumes that the 100% and 95% remark was about the Rebel 'case', while Ed still assumes that Bob is talking about the MChess case

All that stuff is so completely in the past, has been fought over so many times and ground into the dust, that nobody should ever mention it again. imo.

[chrisw]

Ed,

Thanks for the support guys.

Well, you don't have mine

It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Of course, I completely agree. Proof should be posted. But there are a couple of things you don't understand.

1. I was not the one who started this, and only got involved once the flamewars started.
2. When I got involved, just by adding simple opinions, numerous people started clamoring for evidence. So I began to collect it, and post it as it came. Of course I got incessantly flamed for doing so anyway.

Well you better watch out and start learning some politics fast. Usually there's a fall guy.

Zach's intent was to start a discussion where others could help, in a forum known for having lots of technical expertise around (not to mention lots of idiots, vitriol and such of course).

Seems to imply this all started because of Zach's intent. N'est ce pas?

I challenged it where it was posted, but, unsurprisingly, no response.

This all came about due to Christophe's post questioning if Vas breached the GPL Agreement.

There was no crime in asking the question and there's no reason for them to make Zack a fall guy.

However, you're obfuscation of the facts would imply otherwise.

In fact you have played a major role imo to revile Zach when you pretend to do him a service.

This is beneath contempt!

Opprobrious Regards.....

Well, I'm not exactly sure who started it, but it wasn't Zach.

Perhaps you'ld like to ask Bob about his quote:

Zach's intent was to start a discussion where others could help, in a forum known for having lots of technical expertise around (not to mention lots of idiots, vitriol and such of course).

start a discussion?
where others could help?

The text sounds like Zach started the discussion and Bob+others came and helped. Doesn't it?

Sound like positioning to me. Am I too cynical?

[henkf]

funny, apparently both Ed and Bob are just skimming posts. Bob wrongly assumes that the 100% and 95% remark was about the Rebel 'case', while Ed still assumes that Bob is talking about the MChess case

All that stuff is so completely in the past, has been fought over so many times and ground into the dust, that nobody should ever mention it again. imo.

While I don't disagree, I just thought, this being a board of misunderstanding and heated debate, lately, I could maybe prevent something similar here

[Guetti]

Ed,

Thanks for the support guys.

Well, you don't have mine

It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Of course, I completely agree. Proof should be posted. But there are a couple of things you don't understand.

1. I was not the one who started this, and only got involved once the flamewars started.
2. When I got involved, just by adding simple opinions, numerous people started clamoring for evidence. So I began to collect it, and post it as it came. Of course I got incessantly flamed for doing so anyway.

Well you better watch out and start learning some politics fast. Usually there's a fall guy.

Zach's intent was to start a discussion where others could help, in a forum known for having lots of technical expertise around (not to mention lots of idiots, vitriol and such of course).

Seems to imply this all started because of Zach's intent. N'est ce pas?

I challenged it where it was posted, but, unsurprisingly, no response.

This all came about due to Christophe's post questioning if Vas breached the GPL Agreement.

There was no crime in asking the question and there's no reason for them to make Zack a fall guy.

However, you're obfuscation of the facts would imply otherwise.

In fact you have played a major role imo to revile Zach when you pretend to do him a service.

This is beneath contempt!

Opprobrious Regards.....

Very disappointing indeed, and especially from a moderator I expect more reservation.

[Zach Wegner]

Well you better watch out and start learning some politics fast. Usually there's a fall guy.

Zach's intent was to start a discussion where others could help, in a forum known for having lots of technical expertise around (not to mention lots of idiots, vitriol and such of course).

Seems to imply this all started because of Zach's intent. N'est ce pas?

I challenged it where it was posted, but, unsurprisingly, no response.

Yes, of course, Bob is trying to blame this all on me...

I wasn't the one who started the discussion, but it really doesn't matter who did. There were many people who tried to start intelligent discussions. I was one of them. So trying to place all the blame on one person is just silly.

It is unsuprising that nobody bothered to correct your post, when the crux of its message was:

20 year old Zach was the prime mover and got this whole game rolling?

Which IMO is just an ad hominem.

[bob]

funny, apparently both Ed and Bob are just skimming posts. Bob wrongly assumes that the 100% and 95% remark was about the Rebel 'case', while Ed still assumes that Bob is talking about the MChess case

If one doesn't skim posts in these threads, one would spend 24 hours a day reading mostly irrelevant stuff.

[rebel777]

Your friend Enrique tried to argue with me about this on the Rybka forum. He said "So self-servingly touchy about your name and cheerfully disrespectful of Vas, whose name is really being dragged down by all this. A bit too devoid of thought, don't you think?"

Naturally people get upset when you attack their favorites. Especially when the evidence is non-conclusive. You and others have chosen to investigate in public instead of hidden in private email. So don't be too surprised when you are flamed, it is a result of your choice debating in public. Perhaps you did not count it would backfire on you?

You see, I AM collecting evidence, and we ARE in the process of creating a web page. Even then, I think your insistence on proper "due process" is a bit unnecessary. After all, if this debate didn't come up here, I wouldn't be involved at all. Many other respected programmers wouldn't have given their input.

I noticed and it's good. I am not blaming you for investigation, I am pointing out the risks and damage involved for doing it in public. It's just the wrong procedure. Homework first, then post. It's the only intend of my initial posting.

Wish you well,

Ed

[chrisw]

Well you better watch out and start learning some politics fast. Usually there's a fall guy.

Zach's intent was to start a discussion where others could help, in a forum known for having lots of technical expertise around (not to mention lots of idiots, vitriol and such of course).

Seems to imply this all started because of Zach's intent. N'est ce pas?

I challenged it where it was posted, but, unsurprisingly, no response.

Yes, of course, Bob is trying to blame this all on me...

I wasn't the one who started the discussion, but it really doesn't matter who did. There were many people who tried to start intelligent discussions. I was one of them. So trying to place all the blame on one person is just silly.

It is unsuprising that nobody bothered to correct your post, when the crux of its message was:

20 year old Zach was the prime mover and got this whole game rolling?

Which IMO is just an ad hominem.

Read it again. I was challenging the idea that you either started it or were prime mover. The question mark at the end means "really? no way."

Anyway, I apologise for bringing up the idea because it seems to have created a bunch of misunderstandings which were not meant. Shan't mention it again.

[chrisw]

funny, apparently both Ed and Bob are just skimming posts. Bob wrongly assumes that the 100% and 95% remark was about the Rebel 'case', while Ed still assumes that Bob is talking about the MChess case

All that stuff is so completely in the past, has been fought over so many times and ground into the dust, that nobody should ever mention it again. imo.

While I don't disagree, I just thought, this being a board of misunderstanding and heated debate, lately, I could maybe prevent something similar here

Yes, I see that

I think the the new version of Sod's Law I just learnt is that if you do something with good intention on a forum it's guaranteed someone will find some bad intention in it somehow and somewhere.

[Werner]

It was REBEL-6 for sure. And there was no way around the fact 3 positions were solved too quickly
Ed

Hi Ed,
just had a look in PC Schach 1/95
Rebel 6.0 and the BT-Test - the "affair" with the bonus. And I saw I have tried do help you in CSS 1/95...
I think it was quite interesting in those times for the readers - and it was the last issue of this magacin

But sometimes I think: Was it the same what we see now in CCC ???
I do not like to read this very much...

best
Werner