19 Dec, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
cbunting said:
I'm sorry if these test bits of code were not properly formatted.


Both the snippets are syntacticly and logicly broken. Formatting has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

cbunting said:
The Diku codebase that offered OLC is and has been downloadable online long before Locke released OLC in the Isles…


Facts
1) You've never seen the code.
2) You wouldn't even know how to get hold of it either.
3) The ONLY reason that YOU are even aware of its existence is that I wrote about it on Wikipedia.
Finally…
4) I have and it does not resemble TheIsles OLC in any way at all.

You don't accuse a person of code theft unless you have evidence of it. Since I am 100% certain that YOU do not have a shred of evidence to back up your ridiculous claim that Locke and Surreal stole OLC from somewhere else, I must conclude that you are a malicious scumbag liar.
19 Dec, 2006, Cratylus wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
As opposed to a malicious scumbag pedant?

-Crat
19 Dec, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
As opposed to a malicious scumbag pedant?

-Crat


Pendancy? What sort of lowlife scumbag punk libels a dead man with an unsubstantiated charge of code theft?
Then again maybe he'll accuse you or Samson of code theft on a forum and not provide a shred of evidence.

Samson said:
As far as the OLC crap, this really wasn't the place to drag that in at random and I fail to see how attacking each other over it is helping anyone.


Call it topic drift. Further topic drift…
According to cbunting you're the guy who screwed up all the code on mudmagic so it won't compile on Cygwin.
http://www.mudmagic.com/boards/misc/10/1...

Like the original code ever did.

And according to cbunting, you're a license violator:
Samson is the last person to touch the codebases to make the Modifications to GCC4.. A modification was made, therefore, the licenses have been broken because it was Samson and MudMagic who zipped these changes and made the releases, Not the original authors.

Most of the codebases here were taken from game.org to begin with, couple of which were mine or started by myself. (Samson wasn't on our coding/devteam) I didn't give permission for any of those to be touched and re-released with any changes or under the same name… And I'm not just talking about the ones offered under this username, ooooo… Some of my bases were first found on game.org, but that doesn't give MudMagic the permission to do as they please with those old codebases.


You help the feces slinging punk.
19 Dec, 2006, Kayle wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche always does have a way with words. Always fun to read a post or two of his.
19 Dec, 2006, Guest wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Call it topic drift. Further topic drift…
According to cbunting you're the guy who screwed up all the code on mudmagic so it won't compile on Cygwin.
http://www.mudmagic.com/boards/misc/10/1...

Like the original code ever did.

And according to cbunting, you're a license violator:
Samson is the last person to touch the codebases to make the Modifications to GCC4.. A modification was made, therefore, the licenses have been broken because it was Samson and MudMagic who zipped these changes and made the releases, Not the original authors.

Most of the codebases here were taken from game.org to begin with, couple of which were mine or started by myself. (Samson wasn't on our coding/devteam) I didn't give permission for any of those to be touched and re-released with any changes or under the same name… And I'm not just talking about the ones offered under this username, ooooo… Some of my bases were first found on game.org, but that doesn't give MudMagic the permission to do as they please with those old codebases.


You help the feces slinging punk.


Obviously he wronged you in a very awful and terrible way… er… wait… no. Your name isn't Locke. He didn't libel the dead one. He libeled Locke. But then I don't think any of us can say with certainty if either one of them is right in what they claim.

I'm not sure what your issue is with this guy but clearly it's huge. You might notice that I've paid no attention to his rantings about the gcc4 updates. At least here. I did comment on it on the AFKMud forum. I haven't embarked on a crusade against him for it. His misinterpretation of the license isn't important enough for me to give a shit. His lack of awareness about what will and won't compile in Cygwin also isn't important enough for me to give a shit. If Kyndig agreed with his claims, the bases would have been taken down by now.
19 Dec, 2006, Omega wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
another slamdunk by samson
20 Dec, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Obviously he wronged you in a very awful and terrible way… er… wait… no. Your name isn't Locke.
He didn't libel the dead one. He libeled Locke.


Yeah cute, libel. He clearly libeled both since neither stole code from a earlier Diku OLC. Now of course he didn't wrong me, then again self-interest would stand against me making the point. Obviously if my name was Locke I wouldn't be allowed to respond. It just occurred to me that's why the posters felt free to lie and make baseless accusations.

Samson said:
But then I don't think any of us can say with certainty if either one of them is right in what they claim.


What a crock of steaming excrement. Frankly it's more damn certain they did not steal code than it is that the closed source Mercthievia is. The fact is… TheIsles OLC code has been open to the public for 12 years. The authors of every other Diku OLCs are in fact contempories of Locke and Surreal, and damn well knew about TheIsles OLC since they actually discussed it and their own OLCs on Usenet. The fact that no Diku OLC author ever alleged it, and nobody else has alleged it for 12 years stands against it being stolen.

Nope, not until Darien and cbunting did on this forum.

Your own standards and judgements are obviously clouded by your bitter personal antipathy towards Locke. I'm not particulary suprised nor do I particularly give a shit that you don't give a shit. I have higher standards.
20 Dec, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Darien said:
another slamdunk by samson


If you think that hiding behind Samson's skirt and stupid cheering gets you off from your earlier posts you got another thing coming. You haven't substantiated your code theft allegations either. I've kept an open mind, have waited a week, and haven't flamed you since I figured you aren't as overtly retarded as cbunting. So you got proof that TheIsles OLC was stolen or not? Or are you like cbunting, a malicious punk liar?
20 Dec, 2006, Guest wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Yeah cute, libel. He clearly libeled both since neither stole code from a earlier Diku OLC. Now of course he didn't wrong me, then again self-interest would stand against me making the point. Obviously if my name was Locke I wouldn't be allowed to respond. It just occurred to me that's why the posters felt free to lie and make baseless accusations.


Just as you ask for proof from Darien and others, we should expect to see the same sort of standard of proof from you as well. Your own self interest is irrelevant to the issue. Locke got himself booted for completely legitimate reasons whether you like it or not, but that has nothing to do with people who make baseless accusations against others. You've been guilty of making plenty of those against others in the past but for some reason you think you have a right to engage in this sort of thing but others don't.

Now, Darien says he has proof. Give the guy a chance to post it and get off his back about it. I'm waiting to see it myself. We all have lives to attend to. Christmas and other holidays to deal with. Other projects which are quite a bit more important than some silly debate over the possibility that Locke borrowed from previous code. We already know he didn't invent the concept, so it's not completely baseless to consider the possibility he may have used other people's ideas. Nobody is disputing that he had a huge influence over future versions of OLC in many codebases.

Samson said:
But then I don't think any of us can say with certainty if either one of them is right in what they claim.


Tyche said:
What a crock of steaming excrement. Frankly it's more damn certain they did not steal code than it is that the closed source Mercthievia is. The fact is… TheIsles OLC code has been open to the public for 12 years. The authors of every other Diku OLCs are in fact contempories of Locke and Surreal, and damn well knew about TheIsles OLC since they actually discussed it and their own OLCs on Usenet. The fact that no Diku OLC author ever alleged it, and nobody else has alleged it for 12 years stands against it being stolen.

Nope, not until Darien and cbunting did on this forum.

Your own standards and judgements are obviously clouded by your bitter personal antipathy towards Locke. I'm not particulary suprised nor do I particularly give a shit that you don't give a shit. I have higher standards.


Yes. The Isles OLC has been public knowledge for 12 years. So what? Claiming that *EVERY* other Diku OLC author is a contemporary of his does not disprove the possibility that Locke may have used code from others. His own actions place anything he claims into suspicion. He himself has stripped Diku and Merc credits when he figured nobody would catch him. He tried it here when he uploaded NiMud a billion times hoping we'd get sick of it and let it through. After the 5th package we checked was found to be in violation, all others were simply dropped without inspection. The pattern was clear. You're asking people to trust a pathological liar at face value. The skepticism seems perfectly reasonable to me.

So because nobody before Darien or Cbunting bothered to speak up, that means that the code can't have been stolen? What a crock of steaming shit. Maybe those who are involved in mudding today don't know who did what or why 12 years ago. Perhaps they aren't the gurus of usenet you seem to think you are. Maybe there's not enough information in obvious places. Perhaps 12 years of time passing has caused the proof to slip into obscurity. We have no way to know. You have no way to know. Maybe the emperor really does have no clothes and Cbunting finally pointed it out. Silence on an issue is not proof of an argument. It could simply be that all those people using Ivan's or ILAB OLC just don't care where it came from as long as it still works. Suppose Darien comes back with ironclad proof that Locke simply stole an OLC from another codebase that came before him and obfuscated it to the point where nobody recognizes it for what it is? Then what?

BTW: Split this off from the original thread. The issue is separate from Cbunting's original request for help.
20 Dec, 2006, Guest wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Oh, and Tyche, I'm sure you can make your case without having to resort to calling people names and engaging in personal attacks. You might think it's helping your cause, but it only damages your argument when you have to fling insults to get the point across.
20 Dec, 2006, cbunting wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Hello All…

In regards to the posts or replies that I had made about GCC.. I was told by Russ Taylor, and then by someone from the Merc team many years ago that if I was to modify or change any bit of code, even to make it work with a newer compiler or anything. One change in spacing would be a modification and therefore, I could not upload it without changing the Name.. I've have 4 derivs since 1995, Not one was every called Merc or Rom or any variation of it because of what I was told..

In regards to OLC and the Locke mess…

Number 1… Foremost.. I really don't care if Locke wrote OLC.. But since I've been around muds since the release of Diku, I guess my experience with muds is what mostly leads me to believe that Locke is trying to take "More" credit than he deserves.. Almost all codebases available today where written during times when the authors where in college or started them as part of a programming class or whatever.

Locke was 15 years old when OLC was released. I, to this date have not seen any complete code additions to any mud that was written by someone who hadn't taken any sort of programming class, not part of a thesis or while in college. However, When Locke was 15 and the Isles was released, the OLC co-author was 18.. Someone more viable to write a complete online creation system. I had read in the past from people who said that Locke didn't have much involvement as far as coding went.. Hence, you have to write something to be an author.

To say that no one has seen any code that resembles the ISLES olc doesn't even make sense. There have been more codebases leaked on the net than a few. And the one that Locke based his OLC on, that codebase was online at one time too.. On the same site that had the Rot (Addarian Realms) source code. I did have all of these..

The thing is, There are many olc authors. Many of which released simular code to that of the Isles Olc.. The problem is that no one seems to really know the exact dates when the different codebases were released or when the original authors wrote thier versions of OLC. MURPE wrote olc in Sword Quest.. A Merc 1.0 deriv, It looks simular to the Isles but either MURPE didn't give Locke credit or it just happens to look fairly simular.

This discussion can go on for ages.. But the problem is that no one can prove that Locke did in fact write OLC.

Quote
As far as my mention about my code not being formatted…


I was trying to figure out this sublevel system for 4 days. I code at home alone and I have no one who I know personally who has any interest in coding. So aside from not being 100% sure how to go about creating this system, I also tried about a million different things. And I am not coding on Linux so I don't have to have all of the braces in the right places..

On that note… I also never said I was a perfect programmer.. There are a lot of Diku Deriv's that are NOT properlly formatted, are missing needed braces or whatever else new compilers whine about these days.
20 Dec, 2006, Guest wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't think anyone here is claiming Locke wrote OLC. Except perhaps Locke himself.

Locke and Surreal wrote *AN* olc for their codebase. It's origins are unclear after all these years because Locke has actively obscured any information about OLC from 12-15 years ago because it suits his agenda of trying to hold The Isles OLC over everyone's head like some kind of bludgeon. He's even tried to accuse Throic of ripping him off with the Smaug OLC even though the two systems have nothing in common aside from command names.

Locke actively strips proper credits from the codebases he tries to release to community sites. Then gets angry when those sites tell him he needs to comply with the license or they won't host it. He acts like only his copyright means anything, even though he's derived from Merc and Diku before it. So when he gets angry when he thinks people are trying to get away with using his OLC and not credting him, you can imagine it doesn't leave a good impression. It should also be no surprise that some of us think he might well have lifted parts of that OLC from something older. I don't have any proof of this. But Darien says he does, so we'll see.

Quote
On that note… I also never said I was a perfect programmer.. There are a lot of Diku Deriv's that are NOT properlly formatted, are missing needed braces or whatever else new compilers whine about these days.


There's a difference between leaving out explicit braces and the code you posted in the other thread. The code you posted there suffered from logic problems because you left out critical braces. Some of the chunks you posted would not have compiled. Even Tyche in his own insulting way was trying to tell you that.
20 Dec, 2006, cbunting wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
As far as the block of code, it wasn't mine, it compiled fine but just didn't work.. Once I woke up and looked at the code again. I easily found that I could achieve the same affect. Sometimes it just takes a day or two for me to get it.

void gain_exp( CHAR_DATA *ch, int gain )
{
if ( IS_NPC(ch) || ch->level >= LEVEL_HERO )
return;

ch->exp = UMAX( exp_per_level(ch,ch->pcdata->exp_lvl), ch->exp + gain );
while ( ch->level < LEVEL_HERO && ch->exp >=
exp_per_level(ch,ch->pcdata->exp_lvl) * (ch->level+1) )
{
send_to_char( "{MYou raise a level!!{x ", ch );
advance_level( ch );
ch->level += 1;
check_level( ch );
check_tier( ch );
save_char_obj( ch );
return;
}

while ( ch->level == LEVEL_HERO && ch->exp >=
exp_per_level(ch,ch->pcdata->exp_lvl) * (ch->level+1) )
{
send_to_char( "{MYou raise a HERO level!!{x ", ch );
advance_level( ch );
ch->sublevel += 1;
save_char_obj( ch );
return;
}
}


And this is my last post on the olc bit.. It's in reply to Tyche since he claims I'd never see the code or that I only knew about it from Wikipedia.

————— LONG ———————-


cbunting said:
The Diku codebase that offered OLC is and has been downloadable online long before Locke released OLC in the Isles…


Quote
Facts
1) You've never seen the code.
2) You wouldn't even know how to get hold of it either.


You make some pretty big claims…

OLC from DIKU…

void do_zname (CHAR_DATA *ch, char *argument, int cmd)
{
char buf [MAX_STRING_LENGTH];

while ( isspace (*argument) )
argument++;

sprintf (buf, "zset %d name %s", ch->room->zone, argument);

command_interpreter (ch, buf);
}

void do_rlink(CHAR_DATA *ch, char *argument, int cmd)
{

char buf1 [MAX_INPUT_LENGTH];
char buf2 [MAX_INPUT_LENGTH];
int dir;
int cha_rnum;
ROOM_DATA *troom;

argument = one_argument (argument, buf1);
argument = one_argument (argument, buf2);

if ( !*buf2 ) {
send_to_char ("Syntax: rlink <direction> <room-number>\n", ch);
return;


void do_rexit(CHAR_DATA *ch, char *argument, int cmd)
{
char buf1 [MAX_INPUT_LENGTH];
char buf2 [MAX_INPUT_LENGTH];
int dir;
int cha_rnum;
ROOM_DATA *troom;

half_chop(argument, buf1, buf2);

if(!strcmp(buf2,"")) {
send_to_char("No room specified…aborting…\n",ch);
return;
}

switch (*buf1) {
case 'n': dir = 0; break;
case 'e': dir = 1; break;
case 's': dir = 2; break;
case 'w': dir = 3; break;
case 'u': dir = 4; break;
case 'd': dir = 5; break;
default: dir = -1; break;
}

if (dir == -1) {
send_to_char("What direction is that?\n", ch);
return;
}
cha_rnum = ch->in_room;

if ( !(troom = vtor (atoi (buf2))) ) {
send_to_char("No room exists with that number.\n", ch);
return;
}

if ( !vtor (ch->in_room)->dir_option[dir])
CREATE (vtor (cha_rnum)->dir_option[dir], struct room_direction_data,1);


Quote
3) The ONLY reason that YOU are even aware of its existence is that I wrote about it on Wikipedia.
Finally…


I already knew about what you wrote on wikipedia…

Quote
You don't accuse a person of code theft unless you have evidence of it. Since I am 100% certain that YOU do not have a shred of evidence to back up your ridiculous claim that Locke and Surreal stole OLC from somewhere else, I must conclude that you are a malicious scumbag liar.


I said one or the other "Did Not" give any credit to anyone else as I posted originally and mentioned multiple times. I never said they stole it either. I just said that OLC for DIKU and MERC 1.0 was released 1 - 2 years before Locke released the ISLES!

Quote
4) I have and it does not resemble TheIsles OLC in any way at all.


Have you never noticed how many versions there are of the same snippets? I mean, do you, or I or anyone else really know who the real authors are?


This looks more like OLC, But it's not Lockes..

bool save_zone_file( AREA_DATA *pArea )
{
int ii;
FILE *fp;
ROOM_INDEX_DATA *pRoomIndex;
MOB_INDEX_DATA *pMobIndex;
OBJ_INDEX_DATA *pObjIndex;
RESET_DATA *pReset;
EXIT_DATA *pExit;
EXTRA_DESCR_DATA *ed;
AFFECT_DATA *paf;
EQUIP_DATA *pEquip;
char fname[MAX_STRING_LENGTH];
char buf[MAX_STRING_LENGTH];
int iDoor, sn, i;

if (pArea->filename == NULL || pArea->filename[0] == '\0')
{
/*
send_to_char("Can't save zone, null file name.\n\r", ch );
*/
return -1;
}

sprintf(fname, "%s.tmp", pArea->filename);

fclose( fpReserve );
if ( ( fp = fopen( fname, "w" )) == NULL )
{
/*
send_to_char("Error opening output file.\n\r", ch );
*/
fpReserve = fopen( NULL_FILE, "r" );
return -1;
}

fprintf( fp, "#AREA " );
write_string( fp, pArea->name );
fprintf( fp, "~\n" );
write_string( fp, pArea->filename );
fprintf( fp, "~\n" );
write_string( fp, pArea->builders );
fprintf( fp, "~\n" );
fprintf( fp, "%d %d\n", pArea->vnum_start, pArea->vnum_final );
fprintf( fp, "%d %d\n\n\n", pArea->reset_length, pArea->area_bits );


fprintf( fp, "#MOBILES\n");
for ( pMobIndex = pArea->mob_first; pMobIndex != NULL; pMobIndex = pMobIndex->zone_next )
{
fprintf( fp, "#%d\n", pMobIndex->vnum );
write_string( fp, pMobIndex->name );
fprintf( fp, "~\n" );


void do_dig( CHAR_DATA *ch, char *argument )
{
extern sh_int rev_dir[];
int door;
int direction;
int vnum;
bool fEonly = FALSE;
char arg1 [MAX_INPUT_LENGTH];
char arg2 [MAX_INPUT_LENGTH];
char buf [MAX_STRING_LENGTH];
ROOM_INDEX_DATA *pRoomIndex;
EXIT_DATA *pexit = NULL;

if ( IS_NPC( ch ) )
return;

if ( !can_build( ch, ch->in_room->area ) ) {
send_to_char(
"You do not have authorization to build in this zone.\n\r", ch );
return;
}

argument = one_argument( argument, arg1 );

if ( arg1[0] != '\0' && !str_cmp( arg1, "list" ) ) {
int col = 0;

sprintf( buf, "Room vnums in use for %s.\n\r", ch->in_room->area->name );
send_to_char( buf, ch );


Quote
Hunt / Hate / Fear.. Looks just like Smaug?


Mob Hatred
It was coded for LUN telnet://lun.readiloan.com 1701 - a heavily modified Rom 2.3 by Thor - thor@lun.readiloan.com

Add before: * Check for parry.:
===
/* Hate */

bool is_hating(CHAR_DATA *ch, CHAR_DATA *victim)
{
if (!ch->hate || ch->hate->who != victim)
return FALSE;
return TRUE;
}
void stop_hating(CHAR_DATA *ch)
{
if (ch->hate)
{
free_string(ch->hate->name );


Archer code simular to what is in Smaug and/or other codebases .. But there are about 5 versions of the same shoot code and none are by the same authors.. There has been a lot of code theft. It's mainly why most people stop releasing code.

/*
* shoot.c, May 3,4 1996 (mostly) by Robert L. Peckham (rip)
* for Sword Quest MURPE.
*/

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <time.h>
#include "merc.h"

extern char * const dir_name[];
extern char * const dir_name_2[];
extern sh_int const rev_dir[];

void do_shoot( CHAR_DATA *ch, char *argument )
{
CHAR_DATA *victim;
CHAR_DATA *vch = NULL;
OBJ_DATA *bow; /* or crossbow, or sling, etc */
OBJ_DATA *arrow;
ROOM_INDEX_DATA *in_room = ch->in_room;
ROOM_INDEX_DATA *target_room;
char arg1[MAX_INPUT_LENGTH];
char buf[MAX_STRING_LENGTH];
int direction;
int ii;

if ( ( bow = get_eq_char( ch, gn_wear_secondary ) ) == NULL
|| bow->item_type != ITEM_RANGED_WEAPON )
{
send_to_char("You aren't holding a ranged weapon.\n\r", ch );
return;
}

if ( ( arrow = get_eq_char( ch, gn_wear_primary ) ) == NULL
|| arrow->item_type != ITEM_AMMUNITION )
{
send_to_char("What do you intend on firing?\n\r", ch );
return;
}


You never can tell anymore who wrote what or anything else. If you release code, it will end up in another deriv and it won't have your name on.. Almost everyone who has released snippets has been through it at one time or another.

Remember Midevia…
20 Dec, 2006, Scandum wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
It's more effective to put two segments of differently credited code next to each other.

Not to mention that most coders re-use old DIKU code when writing new stuff, so it's not all that surprising when generic stuff like a shoot command looks alike.
20 Dec, 2006, Guest wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum, the same logic applies to OLC. It's not unheard of for people to reuse older code when designing something like that. Especially when altering the information happens in much the same way. Locke and Sureal could certainly have done that. We have no way of knowing since his history of stripping credits makes it impossible to determine if they built on top of older code or wrote it themselves. If they build on top of older code, then removing the credit trail amounts to code theft. If they didn't, then they should be properly credited for it.
20 Dec, 2006, Scandum wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
If they didn't, then they should be properly credited for it.

Tyche has a point however that it's a bit shameless to accuse a dead guy of code theft without providing a shred of evidence.
20 Dec, 2006, Cratylus wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't think the dead guy cares. Even if he's in a position to
know about it, I would guess he's rather beyond it.

On the other hand, I for one would like this issue put
to bed once and for all, so count me among those
interested in seeing proof one way or another.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
20 Dec, 2006, Guest wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Samson said:
If they didn't, then they should be properly credited for it.

Tyche has a point however that it's a bit shameless to accuse a dead guy of code theft without providing a shred of evidence.


I think it's even more shameful for the surviving partner to be so disrespectful of the work of others that his code has been built upon. Meaning the codebase overall, not necessarily the OLC. People seem to be treading far too lightly around his documented violations in this area just because his partner died.
21 Dec, 2006, cbunting wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Hello All,
I just want everyone to know that I wasn't trying to point any fingers at anyone and I surely was not trying to disrespect anyone who posts on these forums. I put all of the blame on Locke because he has LIED and has been very disrespectful to Surreal..

OLC contained in the Isles was written Soley by Surreallity… Not Locke. Locke made this statement on his own that his co-author of the Isles, Meaning Surreal was the Author of OLC.

Quote
Tyche has a point however that it's a bit shameless to accuse a dead guy of code theft without providing a shred of evidence.


I never said anything about Surreality.. I've mentioned the variations of OLC because of the lies spead around by Locke. Locke doesn't even give proper credit to Surreality on his own web sites. Nimud, mercmurv or any others. I wouldn't put it paste Locke to take credit for other peoples code.. He's been doing it for years claiming and demanding credit for an OLC system that he didn't write. It's just in the codebase that he and surreality were developing thanks to Surreality. Again, when olc was released, Locke was 15, Surreality, 18. Surreality was the one with the programming knowlege.

Locke is the only known person who is trying to take full credit for something that he did not write.. So in the end, it 'is' sad that Locke rather take the credit for olc than to give it to his friend who actually wrote the olc system for thier own mud project. In my opinion, Locke is the code thief.
21 Dec, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Just as you ask for proof from Darien and others, we should expect to see the same sort of standard of proof from you as well.


Sorry. The standard is not that the accused has to prove his innocence. Anyone who believes that Locke and Surreal or anyone else has the burden to prove they wrote TheIsles OLC and did not steal it, first needs to to prove that they don't molest little boys. Why? because disproving a negative is the standard you argue. Ban the poster and then launch a barrage of lies against them. Yet again this reminds of nazi gestapo tactics…
0.0/38