Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: List is NOT a Crafty clone, ... etc

Author: David Dahlem

Date: 22:25:53 08/21/04

Go up one level in this thread


On August 22, 2004 at 00:12:29, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On August 21, 2004 at 23:03:25, Mike Byrne wrote:
>
>>On August 21, 2004 at 22:49:23, Russell Reagan wrote:
>>
>>>On August 21, 2004 at 21:18:52, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>I do not believe that everything in the newspaper is correct(I know that there
>>>>are cases when there is even contradiction between different newspapers) but if
>>>>a big newspaper publish really bad things against sombody(and I am not talking
>>>>about every mistake in details about him but about accusation of something that
>>>>he is not quilty) then I expect the person to do something against the newspaper
>>>>if the claim of the newspaper is a lie.
>>>
>>>Your expectations have no bearing on the innocence or guilt of another person in
>>>a single instance.
>>>
>>>You are using a probabilistic argument which doesn't hold up for a single
>>>instance. Even if innocent people usually defend themselves more often than not
>>>(I don't know if this is true or not), that doesn't mean that if one person does
>>>not defend against one accusation that the person is more likely to be guilty.
>>>
>>>If you flip a coin 100 times and it lands on heads 100 times, the chance that it
>>>will land on tails the next time is still 50%. Past events don't change the
>>>probabilities for future events. Whether he chooses to defend himself publicly
>>>or not doesn't change the chance that he cheated. He either did or he didn't,
>>>and none of us know the truth. Unless you have some evidence to present, you are
>>>just speculating.
>>>
>>>Every person was raised differently by their parents, has different values,
>>>different life circumstances, a different culture, and so on. His reason for not
>>>releasing his source code could be almost anything. Just becuase you would have
>>>released your source code if you were innocent doesn't mean that everyone else
>>>would do the same thing if they were innocent. Maybe he just doesn't care what a
>>>bunch of computer chess nerds think about something they don't know anything
>>>about :-)
>>
>>I was going to reply to Uri- but you actually said it much better and in more
>>depth - a denial or lack of denial has no bearing on guilt or innocence.  in
>>fact, how often have we seen denials that later turned to be false.  Also what
>>"big newspaper publish really bad things " about Reul - none as far I know.
>>
>>I find it odd ( and interesting) that someone would actually attribute more
>>guilt (in their eyes) due to lack of denial.  It runs along the same lines as
>>attributing guilt to a defendant that refuses to testify in case against
>>himself.  Clearly applying his own "code of conduct" to others ,where it may
>>have absolutly no relevancy.
>
>Actually, when a defendent does _not_ take the stand in his own defense, that
>tends to put the jury on notice that there is something in his background that
>he wants to keep out of the trial.  It does influence the result and defense
>attorneys only use that tactic when the potential damage is worse than keeping
>the defendent off the stand and biasing the jury against him.
>

Having a bias against a defendant because he doesn't take the stand is WRONG,
WRONG, WRONG!!

Regards
Dave
>It _is_ strange that he did not respond.  It is contrary to human nature to not
>respond to accusations when they are really false and damaging...



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.