I never called the ICGA imposters; it was the subject to which I replied.
Please double check your facts. Thus, it appears the premise of your retort
is faulted. Additionally, read again my original post; there are no
denigrating states of the ICGA per se.

As for the losing side of a debate, I suggest you again look at the merits
of your position. I am an attorney and know about the law (at least in the
US) of copyright infringment and the burden of proof in both civil and
criminal court. While the ICGA is not a judicial body, it was acting in a
quasi-judicial role. My point is some procedural process should be in place
rather than an ad-hoc demand for source code within a couple of days. The
culpability of the accused is not my concern, it is the process by which the
accused was *ASSUMED* culpable and had the *BURDEN OF PROOF* to prove he was
not culpable that I found to be troublesome, and the willingness to publish
an adjudication without giving the accused a *REASONALBE AMOUNT OF TIME* to
respond.




"marc margolies" wrote in message
...
lemme see, you called the tournament commitee of the igca 'a bunch of
imposters' because you don't like their decision, but of course my tone
offends you.
i suggest you resort to critiquing the manners of others and disregarding
your own because you are on the losing side of a stupid debate than cannot
be won on the basis of facts and content.
"Znarf" wrote in message
...
It is not BS. My subjective belief is irrelevant; I do not know if he
copied any code or not. My point is that giving a person roughly 48
hours
to answer allegations of copyright infringement and then banning him for
a
couple of years is not a fair procedural process. Perhaps the later
poster's recommendation could be used - source code is provided under a
non-disclosure agreement and may be examined ONLY to evaluate copying
allegation.

As for your offensive tone, it is not warranted, and only illustrates
the
"guilty until proven innocent" ignorance of unfair people.


"marc margolies" wrote in message
...
since you defend the programmer, then you don't think his 'reputation
is
damaged beyond repair" either or you wouldn't bother trying to do just
that.
cut the bull****.