OpenChess

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:This one

In addition I have asked the first signers of the Fabien letter (Fabien, Zach, SMK and Mark Uniacke) 2 questions:

1. Did you know that "if (movetime >= 0.0)" was false ?

2. How much influence had "if (movetime >= 0.0)" in your decision making process.

Pending their answers.

Yes.

And ?

I like to know because Bob (suddenly) is downplaying the 0.0 importance. Suddenly because at Rybka forum he has held 0.0 numerous times against the VII camp that had no plausible explanation for the 2 character oddity for 7 months.

And in the email you said you would not mention any programmers for Privacy reasons but here you are posting.

hyatt wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote: ICGA arrogance.

btw your email above that you sent to mark, fabien, SMK, zach etc - didn't you write in the email that you would not make it public?

How can you possibly know? I have not sent you anything.

Happy Easter Harvey.

I asked mark if he had received the email you had posted about. He was surprised you had published it as the email he received suggested you would not.

No idea what you are talking about. If you mean this one: http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?p=16618#p16618 then these are MY words only to Fabien. Do you have a problem with transparency?

I would think that if you say you are NOT going to do something, you would NOT do it. If you agree to NOT do something, you would NOT do it. For example, posting Wiki stuff? Sound familiar?

I made no single promise, Harvey is talking nonsense.

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:This one

In addition I have asked the first signers of the Fabien letter (Fabien, Zach, SMK and Mark Uniacke) 2 questions:

1. Did you know that "if (movetime >= 0.0)" was false ?

2. How much influence had "if (movetime >= 0.0)" in your decision making process.

Pending their answers.

Yes.

And ?

I like to know because Bob (suddenly) is downplaying the 0.0 importance. Suddenly because at Rybka forum he has held 0.0 numerous times against the VII camp that had no plausible explanation for the 2 character oddity for 7 months.

And in the email you said you would not mention any programmers for Privacy reasons but here you are posting.

You are badly informed. Just stop this nonsense.

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:This one

In addition I have asked the first signers of the Fabien letter (Fabien, Zach, SMK and Mark Uniacke) 2 questions:

1. Did you know that "if (movetime >= 0.0)" was false ?

2. How much influence had "if (movetime >= 0.0)" in your decision making process.

Pending their answers.

Yes.

And ?

I like to know because Bob (suddenly) is downplaying the 0.0 importance. Suddenly because at Rybka forum he has held 0.0 numerous times against the VII camp that had no plausible explanation for the 2 character oddity for 7 months.

And in the email you said you would not mention any programmers for Privacy reasons but here you are posting.

You are badly informed. Just stop this nonsense.

You promised you were stopping a couple of months ago in the email you sent out asking permission to publish private material, although you posted how people voted anyway. It seems you are unable to stop.

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:This one

In addition I have asked the first signers of the Fabien letter (Fabien, Zach, SMK and Mark Uniacke) 2 questions:

1. Did you know that "if (movetime >= 0.0)" was false ?

2. How much influence had "if (movetime >= 0.0)" in your decision making process.

Pending their answers.

Yes.

And ?

I like to know because Bob (suddenly) is downplaying the 0.0 importance. Suddenly because at Rybka forum he has held 0.0 numerous times against the VII camp that had no plausible explanation for the 2 character oddity for 7 months.

And in the email you said you would not mention any programmers for Privacy reasons but here you are posting.

You are badly informed. Just stop this nonsense.

You promised you were stopping a couple of months ago in the email you sent out asking permission to publish private material, although you posted how people voted anyway. It seems you are unable to stop.

You are good with obfuscating to the point of lying. In group email I asked to put those HIDDEN Panel deliberations into the open. When I saw there was no majority for transparency I dropped the idea. That's all there was. Your fantasy has no limits.

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:This one

In addition I have asked the first signers of the Fabien letter (Fabien, Zach, SMK and Mark Uniacke) 2 questions:

1. Did you know that "if (movetime >= 0.0)" was false ?

2. How much influence had "if (movetime >= 0.0)" in your decision making process.

Pending their answers.

Yes.

And ?

I like to know because Bob (suddenly) is downplaying the 0.0 importance. Suddenly because at Rybka forum he has held 0.0 numerous times against the VII camp that had no plausible explanation for the 2 character oddity for 7 months.

And in the email you said you would not mention any programmers for Privacy reasons but here you are posting.

You are badly informed. Just stop this nonsense.

You promised you were stopping a couple of months ago in the email you sent out asking permission to publish private material, although you posted how people voted anyway. It seems you are unable to stop.

You are good with obfuscating to the point of lying. In group email I asked to put those HIDDEN Panel deliberations into the open. When I saw there was no majority for transparency I dropped the idea. That's all there was. Your fantasy has no limits.

So you did not say in that email you were winding things up?

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:This one

In addition I have asked the first signers of the Fabien letter (Fabien, Zach, SMK and Mark Uniacke) 2 questions:

1. Did you know that "if (movetime >= 0.0)" was false ?

2. How much influence had "if (movetime >= 0.0)" in your decision making process.

Pending their answers.

Yes.

And ?

I like to know because Bob (suddenly) is downplaying the 0.0 importance. Suddenly because at Rybka forum he has held 0.0 numerous times against the VII camp that had no plausible explanation for the 2 character oddity for 7 months.

And in the email you said you would not mention any programmers for Privacy reasons but here you are posting.

You are badly informed. Just stop this nonsense.

You promised you were stopping a couple of months ago in the email you sent out asking permission to publish private material, although you posted how people voted anyway. It seems you are unable to stop.

You are good with obfuscating to the point of lying. In group email I asked to put those HIDDEN Panel deliberations into the open. When I saw there was no majority for transparency I dropped the idea. That's all there was. Your fantasy has no limits.

So you did not say in that email you were winding things up?

What now again? You retract your false accusation by starting new innuendo?

In the meantime having hijacked and spammed the whole thread by your silly questions?

I am done with you, have the last word by all means.

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:This one

In addition I have asked the first signers of the Fabien letter (Fabien, Zach, SMK and Mark Uniacke) 2 questions:

1. Did you know that "if (movetime >= 0.0)" was false ?

2. How much influence had "if (movetime >= 0.0)" in your decision making process.

Pending their answers.

Yes.

And ?

I like to know because Bob (suddenly) is downplaying the 0.0 importance. Suddenly because at Rybka forum he has held 0.0 numerous times against the VII camp that had no plausible explanation for the 2 character oddity for 7 months.

And in the email you said you would not mention any programmers for Privacy reasons but here you are posting.

You are badly informed. Just stop this nonsense.

You promised you were stopping a couple of months ago in the email you sent out asking permission to publish private material, although you posted how people voted anyway. It seems you are unable to stop.

You are good with obfuscating to the point of lying. In group email I asked to put those HIDDEN Panel deliberations into the open. When I saw there was no majority for transparency I dropped the idea. That's all there was. Your fantasy has no limits.

So you did not say in that email you were winding things up?

What now again? You retract your false accusation by starting new innuendo?

In the meantime having hijacked and spammed the whole thread by your silly questions?

I am done with you, have the last word by all means.

I just reread the email and you did say you were wrapping things up.

Harvey Williamson wrote:I just reread the email and you did say you were wrapping things up.

Let's add something substantial regarding the topic at hand. I made a fair proposal to the active Panel members (those who participated in the hidden forum) to make the Panel deliberations public. When I got too many negative reactions I dropped the idea. And what was the main reason for the refusal Harvey? Someone said it quite honestly but conveniently forgot his own role.

Bottom line is to take accountability for your actions and many were not willing. The Panel deliberations should be public for transparency reasons. As I said to someone, "It is as you say XXX, there is nothing special in these documents, nothing that can't see the daylight. I wanted to have it public since people keep on asking about it, publicly and privately."

The true reason for the denial is that you want the Rybka-ICGA topic to die as it would cause new questions and an extension of the discussion. Be honest about it, yes ?

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:I just reread the email and you did say you were wrapping things up.

Let's add something substantial regarding the topic at hand. I made a fair proposal to the active Panel members (those who participated in the hidden forum) to make the Panel deliberations public. When I got too many negative reactions I dropped the idea. And what was the main reason for the refusal Harvey? Someone said it quite honestly but conveniently forgot his own role.

Bottom line is to take accountability for your actions and many were not willing. The Panel deliberations should be public for transparency reasons. As I said to someone, "It is as you say XXX, there is nothing special in these documents, nothing that can't see the daylight. I wanted to have it public since people keep on asking about it, publicly and privately."

The true reason for the denial is that you want the Rybka-ICGA topic to die as it would cause new questions and an extension of the discussion. Be honest about it, yes ?

I expect no person on the planet wants to see this discussoin die more than Vas. Yet YOU keep it alive and well. with friends like you, he needs no enemies... This should have been over long ago. He is obviously not going to say anything to the ICGA, meaning he would like to see it end and move on. Why not let him do so???