chrisw wrote:bob wrote:rebel777 wrote:Zach Wegner wrote: Thanks for the support guys.
Well, you don't have mine
Zach Wegner wrote: 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.
Zach, you are obviously a bright guy and looking at your age you must have a lot of potential. Realize that (chess) programming is something entirely different than politics, the latter being an issue you apparently not master. No real surprise looking at your age!
I suggest you to work on a document that beyond any doubt provides the evidence Rybka contains Fruit code. Else it is better for you to step down and hope that people will forget real fast.
Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.
Another example from the past, old-timers here will surely remember. In 1995/96 MCHESS-5 was leading the SSDF-list for the wrong reasons. I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me.
Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof...............
I hope this all makes some sense to you and wish you all the best.
Ed
You need to reread your quote above. "I posted and then got 95% behind me." 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).
One has to start somewhere. Some consider it unfair when the police come to their door questioning them about a crime they are suspected of committing. They consider it unfair when the police go to their friends to verify statements or alibis. etc. But you do have to investigate, and this is a far more private place than putting it in the old r.g.c.c for example.
Oh, police again?!
The police are subject to vigorous selection, training and discipline. And for good reason. They do not employ, for example, criminals who recently committed the same crime that allegedly requires investigation.
Bullshit, bullshit and bullshit. We had a local police officer last year that was found guilty of murder. He and his wife murdered his ex in-laws who were trying to meddle with his kids. We have had two local police officers found guilty of various crimes and also are now in prison. For asking for "sexual favors" and in return they would tear up a ticket they had written. The list goes on and on. A Detective in Texas was found guilty of manufacturing evidence, and put in prison. And thousands of guilty verdicts in the cases he prosecuted were immediately appealed and many were released on bond. We had a state trooper that beat someone to death and claimed self-defense. Later it turned out that the evidence did not match his report, and witnesses came forth to dispute his explanation. It then turns out he had prior criminal issues that should have disqualified him from serving but they somehow were overlooked.
Police are people just like everyone else. There are good ones and bad ones, just like everyone else
They carry out much of their investigative process quietly and at their own offices. They only start breaking down doors as part of their investigation after assembling good evidence and getting a warrant from a judge. They refrain from publicly accusing suspects unless and until they have assembled evidence considered good wnough to win a prosecution.
False. Friend of ours had a child that got into a small difficulty with the law. He was out camping with his dad, when the local deputies came by to serve the warrant and arrest him. He was not home. They checked the house, and in so doing, noted a couple of phone numbers displayed somewhere. They had the phone company look those up and "went a calling" to see if those people might be hiding the child. One of those was us. My wife had called that home to ask about something advertised in the paper for sale. We got a visit and a detailed explanation of why they had come and who they were looking for. Is that "in the office?" Don't think so. Now we knew about "the problem". And they visited others that "then knew". And this happens all the time. Don't know what utopian world you live in, but it isn't the way things actually work, and never has been. It might be how we would like for them to work, but it isn't how they really work.
In short, they go about their business in a professional manner.
Finally, are you right in stating "it was Zach's intent to start a discussion ....". That rather implies he started this off and is responsible for it. Are you quite sure that is how it happened? 20 year old Zach was the prime mover and got this whole game rolling?
For me, yes. Whether he made the first post or Christophe, I could not say. I believe the first thing I responded to was in Zach's post, but even that could be wrong. So let's say "either Zach or Christophe posted some information to start a discussion." Is that better? Are we going to have to continually argue about every _minor_ point when the bigger issue is still sitting there? My issue in joining in was the rather ridiculous claims that "duplicate code is not surprising at all in a program this big." More bullshit.
Sorry for the expletive, but to say "crap" does "crap" an injustice.
