Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 17:45:56 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 20:35:50, Roger D Davis wrote: >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 If I understand this thread, it all boils down to whether or not the evidence available to the committee was sufficient to justify their unholy actions. Apparently not. Bob D.
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.