Author: Eric Oldre
Date: 09:25:42 05/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2005 at 11:53:29, Peter Skinner wrote: > >I explained how the virus _could_ have happened. I have not looked at the source >at all. I just haven't had the time, but the proof offered here doesn't convince >me. I _will_ eat crow if it is conclusively proven however :) > >Peter Peter, Just want to clarify. I don't think that what has been offered as evidence yet 'scientificly' proves that Fafis is a clone. I'm simply saying that the evidence is close to being 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. And I think we need to give Rafael a chance to offer evidence that Fafis is indeed original. However, if Rafael refuses, or can not, offer evidence that Fafis is original. Then I think it would be safe to call it a clone. I'm not saying he should have to make the source public. But either give to someone well respected and trusted (Dann for instance). Or find some other way to show us how it's original. Eric
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.