Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 17:35:50 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 20:24:01, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: > >> >>So the committee felt it had an obligation to satisfy the complainant, when in >>fact, the obligation of the committee was to request solid evidence from the >>complainant, not circumstantial evidence. > >If you are a programmer, you know that this is not possible. Making clones look >different from the original is too easy. > >The rules of the tourniament are not great, but it is as with Democracy. It is >the best of all bad systems. > >>My theory, therefore, that the accuser has some special relationship with the >>committee members. Who is the accuser to have such a special relationship? >> > >Oh come on. Do we really have to read such crap in every second post here. You >are smarter than this. > >Georg I said the obligation of the committee was to request evidence that was more solid before proceeding to request the source. I did not say that it was possible to provide evidence that was postively damning. I only said that the committee was obliged to request evidence that would pass a more stringent test than being merely circumstantial before proceeding to the next step. Roger
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.