Replies

Sheesh...
You and vick are still trying to come from the perspective that this was an error. It wasn’t. How do we know that, because it did not happen across the board. It was specific. And not just specific to Minor v Happersett and other case names. Or to case citations, there was text removed, parts of the cases themselves. Parts that include sentances like (paraphrasing here) ‘Natural Born Citizenship which is important only when determining eligiblity for president of the United States,’. Yea a sentance like that got erased.

You and Vick are welcome to continue to believe it was an accident. I strongly disagree. It is too deliberate, too specific, and every coder I have spoken to (and that includes a PhD) has literally laughed when this was shown to them. Its stupid crazy to try and asert that it was an error, or an accident. It had to be done specifically. With deliberate choice and information behind it which helped to identify what needed to be removed and why.

It’s no accident.

Let me just say something...I've been following Leo's work since 2008 and I do believe in the validity of his research. With that said, unlike Vick, I do have a background on programming languages and I know how a simple syntax error can leave you head scratching for days. By no means I am implying that the Justia story is full of crap and this was an unintentional error, at the contrary, i believe it needs more attention than what it deserves. However, there are times that computer languages can play the dirtiest tricks and can really mess up with your heads. This is the reason why I was somewhat skeptical for a moment there when Vick brought that hypothesis and as a programmer, you should look for those type o patterns when you are debugging the hell out of the mess.

So to go after the facts, and deviate from opinions a bit,I read Vicks explanation and from the pattern recognition perspective, it made sense to me so I went through Leo's snapshots and I found one case that debunked Vick's hypothesis, I just needed one case to prove it, see my previous post.

So no, I am not trying to come from the other side or have a specific agenda in mind. I was just trying to make sense of the pattern and analyze Vick's statement