Author: David Dahlem
Date: 22:46:15 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. > >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... Contrary to human nature or not, just because a person doesn't respond to accusations says absolutely nothing about guilt or innocence. All humans are, fortunately, not the same. :-) Regards Dave
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.