wrote:

Lastly I am sure that he had a least 10 - 15 minutes to repond in some way
to this matter even with his exams. The fact that he did not means that he
did not care enough about it. So why should he cry now. I am sure that he
has no time to reply now given his exams and all so we will have to wait
until he has time to answer the charges.

You are a bit fast in your conclusions. And you make a mistake in an important
assumption.

You write that he must have had 10 minutes. For sure. But now I say that if you
are innocent, let's assume that, and you know that it's NOT done with a short
answer and that they probably want all your code - but you know that you are
innocent, you are in a trap.

Please bear that in mind for the following reflection. He has his examins.
Something VERY important. Something that sucks all your energies. Now with such
a sudden quest you get extremely disturbed. But you also have no time to react
in a cool manner. You must ignore the whole affair. Otherwise it completely
takes your energies.

Final reflection: all this is only true if you are innocent. If you see no
case. The total opening of your code is impossible in such a case. It becomes a
kafkaesk situation. Another reason to exclude the disturbance.



Given that I see no reason that the
WCCC should have to wait on his exams to be completed just to finish their
event.


No, but they should let the operator play with LIST as usual. The decision was
wrong because there is NO case. And the formal non-answering which is a formal
violation of the rules must be regarded as a mistake in favor of the student
who has examination stress.

Again all that with the caveat that there is no case. And all what I've read
until now, there can't be a case because the two progs are completely
different.

So the commission was NOT in need of computerchess experts but
real-life-non-dickhead. But as it seems the commission was built out of all
such characters. Although all academics. But too blind to see that they had no
case at all. I am certain that they had several talks in secrecy what led them
to the belief that they had found a fantastic solution. The deliverance of the
code. They simply couldn't imagine that that couldn't be obliged to in case of
innocence. But a simple answer was also impossible for the combined reasons of
stress and absolute certainty of innocence.

As a last idea: in case that there is a true case of fraud the commission did
it all right. But that could have been tested without the exact source code
already. Because the difference of the progs is so apparent! It's not a close
decision as far as I understood.

We have a case now which is comparable with the Feinman solution of the reason
of the catastrophy of the US Space Shuttle. Feinman showed an absolutely
trivial reason. Just like here. The whole board of ICGA with included Ernst, a
not too old expert - they were all _obsessed_ by the fixation that they had to
see the code. Because it's in the rules like that. But a really trivial
reflection had shown them that they had _no_ case at all! Now they are trapped.

I see only the consequence that the all must retire. They completely failed to
do their job as academics. They have too many blind spots after such a long
history in office.

Rolf