Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #453161 > unrolled thread
| Started by | oOze <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 21:57 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-06-14 09:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 763 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Microsoft to purchase Github oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 21:57 -0400
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit ignores the 9th amendment <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 18:58 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Fred <Fred.rscmdffjf@l.invalid> - 2018-06-01 19:05 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Sam E <why.should.this@be.email.invalid> - 2018-06-02 10:06 -0500
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 08:34 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 23:42 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Big Al <Big_Al@invalid.com> - 2018-06-01 22:13 -0400
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-02 07:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 05:41 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:30 -0500
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-08 11:12 -0400
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 08:13 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-06-08 21:56 +0000
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 13:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-06-09 23:08 +0000
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:20 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 23:29 +0000
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:40 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 17:23 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:46 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:39 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 17:33 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:38 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 08:22 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 16:02 +0000
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 09:16 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 09:38 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 09:46 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 09:52 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 11:17 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 11:54 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 12:17 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:47 -0700
Is Mike on (prescription) drugs, or not ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-10 13:28 -0700
Re: Is Mike on (prescription) drugs, or not ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 13:39 -0700
Re: Is Mike on (prescription) drugs, or not ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:01 -0700
Get your story straight, please. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-10 14:16 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:24 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 17:41 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:53 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 15:42 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 16:00 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 19:39 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 17:22 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:27 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 17:32 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:39 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 20:54 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-10 18:08 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 18:24 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 18:19 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 21:30 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 19:21 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 22:32 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 19:38 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 22:53 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 19:59 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 23:02 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 03:07 +0000
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 20:13 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 20:24 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 20:41 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 20:45 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 20:18 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 18:03 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 01:10 +0000
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 18:27 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 01:41 +0000
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 19:15 -0700
Random egos, Random games, and Random religions. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-10 23:55 -0700
Re: Random egos, Random games, and Random religions. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 10:58 -0700
More lizard than human. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 13:45 -0700
Re: More lizard than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 13:50 -0700
More bot than human. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 14:09 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 14:21 -0700
Does not compute. Beep ! Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 14:52 -0700
Re: Does not compute. Beep ! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 14:53 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 14:53 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 15:05 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 15:27 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 16:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:39 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-11 19:43 -0400
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:53 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 17:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:02 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 20:36 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:43 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 20:49 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 17:20 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:42 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 20:08 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 21:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 21:27 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 09:17 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-12 09:33 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 09:50 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 11:12 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-12 11:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 11:43 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-12 12:34 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 15:57 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-12 16:43 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 19:07 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-12 19:55 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 09:27 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-13 10:45 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 11:56 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 12:01 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-13 14:31 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-13 14:30 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 09:33 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-14 11:57 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 14:39 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-14 22:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 09:59 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-15 11:42 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 13:16 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-15 23:30 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 09:46 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 10:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 10:34 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 11:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 12:05 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 12:27 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 13:25 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 14:25 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 16:13 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 18:04 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 20:24 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 21:59 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 22:57 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 23:57 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 10:44 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-17 10:53 -0700
Re: More bot than human. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-17 09:56 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-17 10:18 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 11:00 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-17 11:23 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 13:16 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-17 15:41 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 19:56 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-17 20:11 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 21:26 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-17 21:53 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 22:35 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-17 22:49 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 23:11 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-18 05:24 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 08:42 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-18 09:32 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 10:18 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-18 17:48 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 12:02 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-18 12:30 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 13:38 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-18 13:54 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Whistle Blower <wbedward@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 21:24 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 14:48 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Whistle Blower <wbedward@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 21:53 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-18 16:03 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Stumpee McGee <stumpeemcgee49@inoverter.net> - 2018-06-18 19:57 -0400
Is a woman "lying" when she spends thousands on cosmetic surgery ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-18 18:55 -0700
Re: Is a woman "lying" when she spends thousands on cosmetic surgery ? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-06-19 19:22 +0000
Re: Is a woman "lying" when she spends thousands on cosmetic surgery ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 12:31 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 14:47 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-18 16:01 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 17:53 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 18:35 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 18:48 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 20:22 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 20:47 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 21:04 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 22:09 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 22:22 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 20:53 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 21:09 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 22:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 09:36 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 10:50 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 11:16 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 11:23 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 11:29 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 11:51 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 21:12 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 21:20 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 22:22 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 09:40 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steven Petruzzellis <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 09:41 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 10:52 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 11:16 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 11:28 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 11:32 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 11:54 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 12:23 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 12:32 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 13:04 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 15:17 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:59 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 18:00 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:02 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 21:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:35 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 21:43 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:55 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-21 09:41 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steven Petruzzellis <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 10:20 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 12:07 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-21 13:50 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steven Petruzzellis <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 14:42 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 18:47 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 12:35 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 13:08 -0700
Re: More bot than human. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-21 02:08 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 19:31 -0700
Re: More bot than human. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-21 02:50 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 20:04 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 20:54 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 21:17 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 13:05 -0600
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-21 13:47 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 15:49 -0600
Re: More bot than human. Steven Petruzzellis <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 14:50 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 14:51 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-21 15:04 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 17:01 -0600
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-21 16:22 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 18:08 -0600
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 17:13 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-21 17:20 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 17:29 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 08:55 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-22 09:38 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 11:44 -0600
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-22 11:29 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 13:45 -0600
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-22 13:07 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 14:29 -0600
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-22 14:20 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 15:01 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-22 15:19 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 15:24 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-22 15:29 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-23 11:05 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 12:37 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-25 12:51 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 12:59 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 11:52 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 15:31 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-25 13:20 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 13:48 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-25 14:31 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 15:00 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-25 15:11 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 15:24 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-25 15:35 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-26 09:53 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-26 13:19 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 14:41 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-26 15:28 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 16:24 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-26 16:31 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-27 03:08 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 08:52 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-01 09:51 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-01 10:03 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-01 10:19 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-01 23:00 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-02 01:15 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-02 09:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 10:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-13 11:07 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 11:35 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-13 12:24 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 02:09 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 10:01 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-14 10:08 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 10:33 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-14 11:17 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 11:36 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 10:47 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-14 11:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 11:22 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-14 11:27 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 11:33 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 12:07 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-14 11:52 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 12:36 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-14 21:00 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 14:29 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-14 15:03 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 09:18 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-15 09:28 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 09:38 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-15 16:43 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-15 10:50 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-15 10:49 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 11:19 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 11:50 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-15 13:54 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 14:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 14:54 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-15 17:25 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 17:34 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-15 23:26 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 17:02 -0700
Re: More bot than human. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-07-16 00:04 +0000
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-16 00:16 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-15 17:48 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-16 01:04 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-15 20:58 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 21:43 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 17:50 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-15 17:46 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-16 00:58 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-15 18:28 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-16 01:59 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 19:22 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 02:31 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 20:09 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-16 11:02 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 04:42 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 15:43 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-16 15:45 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 16:03 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 09:13 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-16 16:27 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 09:40 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 17:16 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 17:47 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 17:58 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 18:11 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 18:19 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 18:31 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 19:08 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 19:17 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 22:49 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 10:02 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 10:29 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 10:31 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 10:38 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 11:30 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 12:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 13:53 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 09:29 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:53 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 16:51 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 17:53 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 00:49 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 19:12 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 20:23 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-17 01:27 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-17 01:47 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 19:18 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 19:27 -0700
Re: More bot than human. GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-16 23:17 -0400
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 22:52 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 22:51 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 23:15 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 19:13 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 18:33 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 17:19 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 17:31 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 09:57 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-16 17:32 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 11:00 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-16 20:46 +0000
Re: More bot than human. GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-16 17:01 -0400
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-16 21:39 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-16 22:00 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 15:20 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-16 22:58 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 17:08 -0700
Re: More bot than human. GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-16 20:20 -0400
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-17 00:30 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-17 00:32 +0000
Re: More bot than human. RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 15:57 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 09:00 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 10:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 10:34 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 10:54 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 12:18 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 12:48 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 13:46 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 14:07 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 14:34 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 14:55 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 14:32 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 14:45 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 14:53 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 14:58 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 15:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 14:47 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 08:15 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 08:40 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 15:52 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:27 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 09:33 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 19:53 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:57 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 08:24 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:13 -0700
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-18 11:31 -0500
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:56 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 11:17 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:26 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:02 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:07 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:26 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 13:20 -0700
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-18 13:32 -0500
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:47 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:24 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:22 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:36 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:47 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:49 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:40 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 19:51 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 09:31 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:44 -0700
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-18 11:25 -0500
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:49 -0700
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-18 13:11 -0500
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:16 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:03 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 11:19 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:29 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:06 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:15 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:26 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 19:36 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:38 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 13:51 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 14:25 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 14:36 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 14:45 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 14:50 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 15:08 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 15:27 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 09:31 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:57 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 11:13 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:18 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 11:59 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:33 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 13:35 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 20:23 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 13:41 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 09:44 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 20:11 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 13:14 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 09:57 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:39 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:20 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:34 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:44 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 15:11 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 13:53 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 07:37 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 07:42 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 09:30 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 19:48 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:50 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 09:29 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 19:48 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:49 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:50 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:55 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 20:40 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 13:56 -0700
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-18 11:33 -0500
Re: More bot than human. RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 17:02 +0000
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-19 07:51 -0500
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 08:22 -0700
Re: More bot than human. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-07-19 15:40 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 09:32 -0700
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-19 11:41 -0500
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 09:57 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 10:28 -0700
Re: More bot than human. GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-19 15:46 -0400
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-19 15:02 -0500
Re: More bot than human. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-07-19 20:47 +0000
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 07:14 -0500
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 19:53 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:57 -0700
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-18 15:03 -0500
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 20:41 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 14:12 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 14:15 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 14:22 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 14:29 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 15:05 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 17:48 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:19 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 11:04 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 11:40 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 12:13 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 12:17 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 12:38 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 16:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 16:32 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 18:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 12:38 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-19 11:55 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 08:28 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 08:55 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 11:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 11:38 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 11:46 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 12:01 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 12:56 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 13:05 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 13:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 14:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 15:26 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 15:58 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 16:11 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 12:37 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 16:08 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 16:28 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 16:14 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 09:55 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 17:19 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 13:04 -0700
Re: More bot than human. RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 20:57 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 16:19 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-21 16:06 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 12:44 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 14:04 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 14:36 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 14:41 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 16:01 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 10:29 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-22 11:11 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 11:29 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 13:13 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-22 11:09 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 13:51 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:04 -0600
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 14:18 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 10:06 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 12:59 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 14:30 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 12:37 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 16:59 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 12:37 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 12:37 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 16:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 12:38 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 12:04 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 12:15 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 12:38 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 12:38 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 14:54 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 14:23 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 15:03 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 15:26 -0700
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-18 11:12 -0500
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:46 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 19:31 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:36 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:44 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 13:49 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 09:27 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 19:46 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:23 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 14:47 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 13:35 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 07:06 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 08:58 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 16:12 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:35 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 09:42 -0700
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-18 11:38 -0500
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:41 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 20:00 +0000
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-18 15:01 -0500
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 20:41 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 13:11 -0700
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-18 11:09 -0500
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 16:12 +0000
Re: More bot than human. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-18 11:59 -0500
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:42 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:48 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-18 20:10 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 13:14 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:36 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-18 12:31 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 17:46 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carrol Busted.... Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-17 01:14 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carrol Busted.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 19:17 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-17 01:14 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 19:14 -0700
Re: More bot than human. RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 15:59 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 09:00 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-17 01:14 +0000
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-17 01:33 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 19:12 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 19:17 -0700
Re: More bot than human. RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 15:56 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 09:01 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-17 16:27 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-17 09:30 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 15:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-16 21:06 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 15:34 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 16:44 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-15 21:04 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 23:02 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 02:23 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 18:05 -0700
Re: More bot than human. SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-15 22:51 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-15 17:27 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 10:36 -0700
Re: More bot than human. RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 03:26 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-16 03:37 +0000
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 20:40 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-14 13:16 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 14:13 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 10:17 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-14 11:18 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 10:09 -0600
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 09:55 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-23 10:19 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 10:26 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steven Petruzzellis <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 20:41 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 13:48 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 14:20 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 20:51 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 21:16 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:27 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 21:39 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:47 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-20 21:52 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 02:13 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steven Petruzzellis <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 10:15 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 01:41 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steven Petruzzellis <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 10:10 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 08:01 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 08:06 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 08:21 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 08:27 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 08:33 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 08:44 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 09:15 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 09:28 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 09:56 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 10:12 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 10:56 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 14:01 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 14:14 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 14:13 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 15:03 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 15:28 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 16:39 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 16:47 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 19:03 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 16:49 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 16:50 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 17:18 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 16:45 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 16:56 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 16:59 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 20:30 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 11:28 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-19 08:49 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 08:30 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 10:46 -0700
Re: More bot than human. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-17 10:52 -0700
Re: More bot than human,talk.politics.guns Whistle Blower <wbedward@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 23:24 +0000
Re: More bot than human,talk.politics.guns Stumpee McGee <stumpeemcgee49@inoverter.net> - 2018-06-13 07:32 -0400
Re: More bot than human, Whistle Blower <wbedward@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 21:14 +0000
How much do you think it's worth ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 15:19 -0700
Re: How much do you think it's worth ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 15:26 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 18:23 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 21:32 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 19:22 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 22:33 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 19:02 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 19:34 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 22:46 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 19:51 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 19:49 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 19:54 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 22:59 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 20:42 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 20:37 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 18:29 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 21:42 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 16:55 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 20:33 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:39 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 20:56 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:55 -0700
Re: Get your story straight, please. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 18:10 -0400
Re: Get your story straight, please. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 21:28 +0000
Re: Get your story straight, please. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:32 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 13:42 -0700
An example of how snit trolls. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 21:03 +0000
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:15 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 21:26 +0000
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:43 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-10 17:48 -0400
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:47 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 22:01 +0000
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:48 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 15:29 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:45 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 16:45 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 17:29 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:37 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2018-06-12 17:54 +0000
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-12 11:22 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-12 13:22 -0500
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 15:59 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2018-06-12 23:02 +0000
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 16:10 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-12 16:46 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-12 16:45 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-13 06:53 -0500
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-12 16:45 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 09:20 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:35 -0700
Re: An example of how snit trolls. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-10 16:52 -0500
Re: An example of how snit trolls. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 15:30 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 16:13 +0000
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 09:39 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-10 11:49 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 11:52 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-10 11:53 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 12:18 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 10:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 04:11 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:28 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> - 2018-06-17 11:02 +0000
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Stumpee McGee <stumpeemcgee49@inoverter.net> - 2018-06-17 08:05 -0400
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-11 06:23 +0000
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 23:33 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 05:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 09:00 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 11:09 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 11:25 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 11:36 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 10:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:38 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-02 22:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-06-02 22:55 -0400
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-03 09:38 -0400
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steven Petruzzellis <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 09:38 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Steven Petruzzellis <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 09:39 -0700
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-06-02 11:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft to purchase Github Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 03:52 -0700
what are all these Linux Developers going to do Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 05:55 -0700
Re: what are all these Linux Developers going to do owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-06-14 13:55 +0000
Re: what are all these Linux Developers going to do chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-14 09:17 -0500
how can Microsoft be the great evil if Linux is all over their site? Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 07:38 -0700
Re: what are all these Linux Developers going to do William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2018-06-14 15:54 +0100
Re: what are all these Linux Developers going to do Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-16 06:33 -0400
Re: what are all these Linux Developers going to do Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 09:08 -0700
Page 7 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 39 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 23:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fojp4oFtt7nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455122 |
On 6/15/18 1:16 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:43:02 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/15/18 9:59 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 11:10:31 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> >>>>> If you do what I suggest it's *way* easier to see what's going on. >>>>> That alone is worth the price of admission in my mind. >>>> >>>> You mean with doing the swapping after? >>> >>> I'm talking about the way it's organized. >> >> You mean for the individual functions... like animeText? > > On any function that mixes things the way you are; it's *the* reason > you'd have trouble converting. Not sure what "mix" you mean? > If you had used a data structure like I > showed in the Gist, converting would be a lot easier, as would adding > new topics. The main difference I see is the doing the swap outside of the sentences. Do you mean something else? > As it is, even if you had the time, you're undoubtedly > flabbergasted by the amount of work it'd take to convert and it's based > on how you architected it. I would look to see how to do the inline swap in JavaScript or for each function do them out of the sentences as you do. I do not think that would be much of a problem. Maybe I am missing something. > Sure, there are functions you can write to > make things easier but its a hill you wouldn't be climbing it you didn't > wing it. With some structure, your bot could've 'lived on' indefinitely.... > instead, it now rests for eternity in its AppleScript casket ;) > >>> I was referring to methods that can be associated with objects and >>> how they can be used to create custom outputs that might fill a >>> variations slot or be used in some other way. >> >> This is going over my head.. but sounds like the replacement solution >> you have, doing it after creating the text instead of as I create it (I >> actually do some after as well). > > I wouldn't worry about this aspect. > >>>> OK, got that to work. :) >>> >>> And what happened? Describe what you see. >> >> ["shortstop", "doubleheader", "dugout", "knuckleball"] > > And that comes up because, unlike the earlier example, 'keyword' is now > set by userInput. This is key to organizing things. Would have to spend some time looking at this. >>> It depends on how many variation sets you need, if hundreds, you >>> have a mess you can't untangle. >> >> I would say dozens if not hundreds. Each function would have fewer of >> course. > > And you may not actually need as many as you're using. And if might do better if it had more. :) >>> IMO there'd be no need for more >>> than a few. >> >> To have lots of variations I used a lot. > > You can have as many as you want but it's probably a good idea to > limit how many are in a given object, but the number could probably > be quite high. The problem is it's cumbersome to deal with them the > more you add. Sure, to do a good job at what I was attempting the program became quite cumbersome. No doubt. > You could even write test functions to help you gen > up sentences and associated word variations to create equally (or > more) effective responses with less variations. Not sure what you mean by this. >> Sincerely appreciate the help. > > You're welcome... and I know you probably won't convert it but it'd be > interesting to see rise from the 'dead' ;) Maybe some day... if my interests go back that way. Maybe even just in a room like you described which would be mostly one-on-one just to see what it does. Another challenge of JavaScript is, if I understand correctly, it is always client side. I would not want users to see the code. :) >>> <https://streamable.com/70szt> >> >> Good example of the value of the "some item in" feature I have. Look at >> your neutralText, you have; >> >> My favorite position is shortstop >> >> With swapping you could change positions easily without having it >> repeatedly talking about the favorite position. > > Here are the data sets in the baseball object: > > keywords: ["shortstop", "doubleheader", "dugout", "knuckleball"], > > good: ["I love a %yourword% but a %variation2% is better.", "Nothing is better than a %myword%","Baseball is the best sport by far Period!","I like how a %variation1% revs the crowd up."], > neutral: ["I don't care for baseball all the much... but I do like watching a %variation1%", "Baseball is alright when there is a %yourword%", "My favorite position is %variation2%."], > > bad: ["BASEBALL SUCKS!", "Baseball is boring as hell.", "I'd rather watch paint dry then watch a baseball game."], > > variation1: ["double play", "triple play", "home run", "grand slam"], > > variation2: ["the catcher", "2nd base", "in the outfield", "the relief pitcher","shortstop"] > > Instead of using the term 'variations', you could have them be named > after parts of speech... have some for nouns of different 'flavors', verbs, > adjectives, etc. You can go nuts but you probably don't need to if the > stuff was matched well. To me that looks a LOT more cumbersome. I think the naming would get confusing and the sentences harder to read in the code. I can see if for "myword" and "yourword" and other common items like that, but I think the rest works best, at least for my way of thinking of things, being inline. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 09:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <a38b959d-c8f1-4428-b012-3de81f1804b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455140 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:30:52 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > To me that looks a LOT more cumbersome. I think the naming would get > confusing and the sentences harder to read in the code. I can see if for > "myword" and "yourword" and other common items like that, but I think > the rest works best, at least for my way of thinking of things, being > inline. Dang it! I just got bit again by Safari's 'pin (did yesterday, too)! I had written a response and Safari ate it ;) The bottom line is I don't know if I can explain things to you any better than I already have. If you've read and understood the things I've mentioned and they don't make sense to do then you probably won't do them (this is stated under the assumption you'd proceed, a thing you said you're not likely to do).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 10:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fokujfFu30eU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455161 |
On 6/16/18 9:46 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:30:52 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> To me that looks a LOT more cumbersome. I think the naming would get >> confusing and the sentences harder to read in the code. I can see if for >> "myword" and "yourword" and other common items like that, but I think >> the rest works best, at least for my way of thinking of things, being >> inline. > > Dang it! I just got bit again by Safari's 'pin (did yesterday, too)! I had written > a response and Safari ate it ;) You could use an actual newsreader if you could find a service that would accept you. Then again, I admit macOS has no good Usenet clients. I am now on Thunderbird and it SUCKS! > The bottom line is I don't know if I can explain things to you any better than > I already have. If you've read and understood the things I've mentioned and > they don't make sense to do then you probably won't do them (this is stated > under the assumption you'd proceed, a thing you said you're not likely to do). Could be that or could be we disagree. You clearly know many programming in general far better than I do -- but I am not sure you have even looked at the program being talked about. You may be missing the forest for the trees here. Not saying you are -- but we disagree about some unimportant details on a program that is likely never going to be ported anyway. And it also could be JavaScript has no good way to do as I was doing with AppleScript and your way is the best work-around if I ever did want to port it. In any case, I do sincerely appreciate your help here. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 10:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <034774de-1d0d-4c01-afb5-84e822be560c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455166 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 11:10:11 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/16/18 9:46 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:30:52 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > > >> To me that looks a LOT more cumbersome. I think the naming would get > >> confusing and the sentences harder to read in the code. I can see if for > >> "myword" and "yourword" and other common items like that, but I think > >> the rest works best, at least for my way of thinking of things, being > >> inline. > > > > Dang it! I just got bit again by Safari's 'pin (did yesterday, too)! I had written > > a response and Safari ate it ;) > > You could use an actual newsreader if you could find a service that > would accept you. It's my fault, it happened yesterday and I should have been paying attention. Its a cool feature but you have to be paying attention. I do use other readers. > Then again, I admit macOS has no good Usenet clients. I am now on > Thunderbird and it SUCKS! > > > The bottom line is I don't know if I can explain things to you any better than > > I already have. If you've read and understood the things I've mentioned and > > they don't make sense to do then you probably won't do them (this is stated > > under the assumption you'd proceed, a thing you said you're not likely to do). > > Could be that or could be we disagree. If you fully understood what I was talking about that could be the case but you don't appear, to me, to see the implications. You've written unstructured code that repeats far more often than is necessary. I'm advocating for structure, DRYing things up and separating concerns (which is good for the reasons I've stated). > You clearly know many programming > in general far better than I do -- but I am not sure you have even > looked at the program being talked about. You may be missing the forest > for the trees here. Not saying you are -- but we disagree about some > unimportant details on a program that is likely never going to be ported > anyway. > > And it also could be JavaScript has no good way to do as I was doing > with AppleScript and your way is the best work-around if I ever did want > to port it. JS does, but they aren't *as* English-like as AS. BYW, JS doesn't only run client-side, which is why I suggested node.js > > In any case, I do sincerely appreciate your help here. It behooves you to think about the things I mentioned, the biggest one being you have one function per topic, I only have *1* function to generate responses. This means you're duplicating the same basic idea over and over, which is fine for a function here and there, but not as a system (which is what your bot grew into). The second biggest is separating data from logic, you don't seem to understand the way I've talked about doing it. If you look closely, you'll see that you can do more with less while being able to decouple the data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 11:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fol245F71k7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455169 |
On 6/16/18 10:34 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 11:10:11 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/16/18 9:46 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:30:52 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> To me that looks a LOT more cumbersome. I think the naming would get >>>> confusing and the sentences harder to read in the code. I can see if for >>>> "myword" and "yourword" and other common items like that, but I think >>>> the rest works best, at least for my way of thinking of things, being >>>> inline. >>> >>> Dang it! I just got bit again by Safari's 'pin (did yesterday, too)! I had written >>> a response and Safari ate it ;) >> >> You could use an actual newsreader if you could find a service that >> would accept you. > > It's my fault, it happened yesterday and I should have been paying attention. > Its a cool feature but you have to be paying attention. I do use other readers. I do not check headers... but if that is the case I stand corrected. >> Then again, I admit macOS has no good Usenet clients. I am now on >> Thunderbird and it SUCKS! >> >>> The bottom line is I don't know if I can explain things to you any better than >>> I already have. If you've read and understood the things I've mentioned and >>> they don't make sense to do then you probably won't do them (this is stated >>> under the assumption you'd proceed, a thing you said you're not likely to do). >> >> Could be that or could be we disagree. > > If you fully understood what I was talking about that could be the > case but you don't appear, to me, to see the implications. You've > written unstructured code that repeats far more often than is > necessary. I'm advocating for structure, DRYing things up and > separating concerns (which is good for the reasons I've stated). What do you think it repeats that it should not? >> You clearly know many programming >> in general far better than I do -- but I am not sure you have even >> looked at the program being talked about. You may be missing the forest >> for the trees here. Not saying you are -- but we disagree about some >> unimportant details on a program that is likely never going to be ported >> anyway. >> >> And it also could be JavaScript has no good way to do as I was doing >> with AppleScript and your way is the best work-around if I ever did want >> to port it. > > JS does, but they aren't *as* English-like as AS. BYW, JS doesn't > only run client-side, which is why I suggested node.js Fair enough. >> In any case, I do sincerely appreciate your help here. > > It behooves you to think about the things I mentioned, the biggest > one being you have one function per topic, I only have *1* function > to generate responses. While I might be able to combine functions, there is quite a bit of difference from one to the next. Combining them would lose functionality in many cases (though there might be ways to combine a number which do things in significantly similar ways). Would take the passing of a LOT of "exceptions" in terms of swapping of words in sentences... > This means you're duplicating the same > basic idea over and over, which is fine for a function here and there, > but not as a system (which is what your bot grew into). The second > biggest is separating data from logic, you don't seem to understand > the way I've talked about doing it. If you look closely, you'll see that > you can do more with less while being able to decouple the data. Thanks. Would love to see you create a conversion with your ideas. The code is open source. Not saying you have to... just I would love to see it. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 12:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <8a3ae9eb-9e60-4e9a-91f6-12af7a672ee5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455172 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:10:16 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> Could be that or could be we disagree. > > > > If you fully understood what I was talking about that could be the > > case but you don't appear, to me, to see the implications. You've > > written unstructured code that repeats far more often than is > > necessary. I'm advocating for structure, DRYing things up and > > separating concerns (which is good for the reasons I've stated). > > What do you think it repeats that it should not? How many text generating functions do you have? Take lines like these (and there are more)... set theList to set myword to some item in theList set goodText to some item in set neutralText to some item in set Badtext to some item in ... and multiple them by the number of functions they're used in. How many lines would that be? > > It behooves you to think about the things I mentioned, the biggest > > one being you have one function per topic, I only have *1* function > > to generate responses. > > While I might be able to combine functions, there is quite a bit of > difference from one to the next. Combining them would lose functionality > in many cases (though there might be ways to combine a number which do > things in significantly similar ways). Would take the passing of a LOT > of "exceptions" in terms of swapping of words in sentences... What's the highest number of variation sets you've used in a function? > > This means you're duplicating the same > > basic idea over and over, which is fine for a function here and there, > > but not as a system (which is what your bot grew into). The second > > biggest is separating data from logic, you don't seem to understand > > the way I've talked about doing it. If you look closely, you'll see that > > you can do more with less while being able to decouple the data. > > Thanks. Would love to see you create a conversion with your ideas. That's what I used to produce the last screencast... it's basically just stitching together the stuff I gave you prior to that. > The code is open source. Not saying you have to... just I would love to see it. You've seen the basic ideas behind it. Think about what your goal is... your goal is *not* to duplicate the exact responses you have, wasn't even your original goal... which kept growing over time. Your goal was to have a bot that produce responses that tend to appear human-like. Don't hold another system to a different standard. What I'm suggesting is that you could have *far* more variations with fewer lines of code and virtually no duplication. You're looking at this for what (you believe) it *can't* do, not what it *can* do. Over time, if you wanted this to produce the same output as yours, you could do it, minus all the cruft... but you'd get many more variations and all the other stuff I mentioned, as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 12:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fol6luF7su3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455176 |
On 6/16/18 12:05 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:10:16 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> Could be that or could be we disagree. >>> >>> If you fully understood what I was talking about that could be the >>> case but you don't appear, to me, to see the implications. You've >>> written unstructured code that repeats far more often than is >>> necessary. I'm advocating for structure, DRYing things up and >>> separating concerns (which is good for the reasons I've stated). >> >> What do you think it repeats that it should not? > > How many text generating functions do you have? > Take lines like these (and there are more)... > > set theList to > set myword to some item in theList > set goodText to some item in > set neutralText to some item in > set Badtext to some item in > > ... and multiple them by the number of functions they're used in. > > How many lines would that be? Quite a few. And their processing would often be similar, though with customizations as needed. For example some account for if mentionMe is true or not, etc. As I note below, though, there might be some way of combining some. Heck, this could be done and then if cusomizations are needed it could be done differently. It is not one or the other. So, sure, if I could combine a fair number into one that would be cool. To do so, I think, I would need to have the sentences be in an array that gets passed to and from the function... but that of course is possible. >>> It behooves you to think about the things I mentioned, the biggest >>> one being you have one function per topic, I only have *1* function >>> to generate responses. >> >> While I might be able to combine functions, there is quite a bit of >> difference from one to the next. Combining them would lose functionality >> in many cases (though there might be ways to combine a number which do >> things in significantly similar ways). Would take the passing of a LOT >> of "exceptions" in terms of swapping of words in sentences... > > What's the highest number of variation sets you've used in a function? Not sure what you mean by "variation sets". Do you mean the "some item in" type structure that I have (where you pick one item from a set). If so I see about two dozen as being the max (helpText has about that many). Of course if I kept working on it I might go above that. So imagine having those two dozen lists disconnected from the sentences they are having their content put into. To me that would make it more confusing to read. Having "myWord" and "yourWord" and "theUser" and things like that would not be as confusing... but of course the others can be done, even if you had an array of arrays where you could have an arbitrary number (so if I went above the two dozen it would not be a programmatic issue). >>> This means you're duplicating the same >>> basic idea over and over, which is fine for a function here and there, >>> but not as a system (which is what your bot grew into). The second >>> biggest is separating data from logic, you don't seem to understand >>> the way I've talked about doing it. If you look closely, you'll see that >>> you can do more with less while being able to decouple the data. >> >> Thanks. Would love to see you create a conversion with your ideas. > > That's what I used to produce the last screencast... it's basically just > stitching together the stuff I gave you prior to that. Can you give a link to that screecast again? Maybe I missed something in it. Likely did... a LOT of this, esp. in JavaScript, is pushing my ability. No doubt there is some miscommunication and misunderstanding. >> The code is open source. Not saying you have to... just I would love to see it. > > You've seen the basic ideas behind it. > > Think about what your goal is... your goal is *not* to duplicate the exact > responses you have, wasn't even your original goal... which kept growing > over time. Your goal was to have a bot that produce responses that tend > to appear human-like. Don't hold another system to a different standard. But to do so I do not want to give up the flexibility in making output that I have. Or had. Have not touched the code other than in this conversation in many years. > What I'm suggesting is that you could have *far* more variations with > fewer lines of code and virtually no duplication. You're looking at this for > what (you believe) it *can't* do, not what it *can* do. Over time, if you > wanted this to produce the same output as yours, you could do it, minus > all the cruft... but you'd get many more variations and all the other stuff I > mentioned, as well. It might be possible to do with the array of arrays or something similar... and that might not be a bad idea. Even then might need some special functions for more complex things, but I can see the value in what (I think) you are saying. My concern is that human reading might be reduced... you would not have the "swaps" inside of the sentences and thus the context would be made more confusing. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 13:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <f59baf39-b107-4d75-baf2-c48456ba3d3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455179 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 1:28:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/16/18 12:05 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:10:16 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > > >>>> Could be that or could be we disagree. > >>> > >>> If you fully understood what I was talking about that could be the > >>> case but you don't appear, to me, to see the implications. You've > >>> written unstructured code that repeats far more often than is > >>> necessary. I'm advocating for structure, DRYing things up and > >>> separating concerns (which is good for the reasons I've stated). > >> > >> What do you think it repeats that it should not? > > > > How many text generating functions do you have? > > Take lines like these (and there are more)... > > > > set theList to > > set myword to some item in theList > > set goodText to some item in > > set neutralText to some item in > > set Badtext to some item in > > > > ... and multiple them by the number of functions they're used in. > > > > How many lines would that be? > > Quite a few. There ya go. > And their processing would often be similar, though with > customizations as needed. For example some account for if mentionMe is > true or not, etc. Why only some? What'd be so bad about standardizing the checking of that? IOW, you're probably only checking when you think it makes sense to based on the back and forth, but that's not always how real conversation flows. > As I note below, though, there might be some way of > combining some. Heck, this could be done and then if cusomizations are > needed it could be done differently. It is not one or the other. So, > sure, if I could combine a fair number into one that would be cool. > > To do so, I think, I would need to have the sentences be in an array > that gets passed to and from the function... but that of course is possible. That's exactly what I'm doing... as I've shown. > >>> It behooves you to think about the things I mentioned, the biggest > >>> one being you have one function per topic, I only have *1* function > >>> to generate responses. > >> > >> While I might be able to combine functions, there is quite a bit of > >> difference from one to the next. Combining them would lose functionality > >> in many cases (though there might be ways to combine a number which do > >> things in significantly similar ways). Would take the passing of a LOT > >> of "exceptions" in terms of swapping of words in sentences... > > > > What's the highest number of variation sets you've used in a function? > > Not sure what you mean by "variation sets". Mainly, the lookups not used for 'theList'. > Do you mean the "some item > in" type structure that I have (where you pick one item from a set). If > so I see about two dozen as being the max (helpText has about that > many). Of course if I kept working on it I might go above that. And you'd be digging a deeper hole ;) > So imagine having those two dozen lists disconnected from the sentences > they are having their content put into. To me that would make it more > confusing to read. * see below > Having "myWord" and "yourWord" and "theUser" and > things like that would not be as confusing... but of course the others > can be done, even if you had an array of arrays where you could have an > arbitrary number (so if I went above the two dozen it would not be a > programmatic issue). A multi-dim array isn't needed, this is essentially Mad Libs with better editing. > >>> This means you're duplicating the same > >>> basic idea over and over, which is fine for a function here and there, > >>> but not as a system (which is what your bot grew into). The second > >>> biggest is separating data from logic, you don't seem to understand > >>> the way I've talked about doing it. If you look closely, you'll see that > >>> you can do more with less while being able to decouple the data. > >> > >> Thanks. Would love to see you create a conversion with your ideas. > > > > That's what I used to produce the last screencast... it's basically just > > stitching together the stuff I gave you prior to that. > > Can you give a link to that screecast again? It's in one of the posts, the only place it exists now. > Maybe I missed something in > it. Likely did... a LOT of this, esp. in JavaScript, is pushing my > ability. No doubt there is some miscommunication and misunderstanding. > > >> The code is open source. Not saying you have to... just I would love to see it. > > > > You've seen the basic ideas behind it. > > > > Think about what your goal is... your goal is *not* to duplicate the exact > > responses you have, wasn't even your original goal... which kept growing > > over time. Your goal was to have a bot that produce responses that tend > > to appear human-like. Don't hold another system to a different standard. > > But to do so I do not want to give up the flexibility in making output > that I have. I don't see why you'd have to. On any given output you can do what I was talking about earlier and just use a custom function for the times you'd need it. Ideally, though, if you did it right, you probably wouldn't need it often, if at all. > Or had. Have not touched the code other than in this > conversation in many years. > > > What I'm suggesting is that you could have *far* more variations with > > fewer lines of code and virtually no duplication. You're looking at this for > > what (you believe) it *can't* do, not what it *can* do. Over time, if you > > wanted this to produce the same output as yours, you could do it, minus > > all the cruft... but you'd get many more variations and all the other stuff I > > mentioned, as well. > > It might be possible to do with the array of arrays or something > similar... and that might not be a bad idea. I don't see why you'd need that but you could do it. > Even then might need some > special functions for more complex things, but I can see the value in > what (I think) you are saying. > > My concern is that human reading might be reduced... Reading of the code, a bit... but it's a trade off anyone writing a system makes. If you want spaghetti, you know how to make it, If you want a system, you avoid makin' spaghetti. > you would not have > the "swaps" inside of the sentences and thus the context would be made > more confusing. * Well, they're right there on the screen next to each other... but like I said, I'd probably use a function to generate them anyway so this wouldn't be an issue... just cull the ones I didn't like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 14:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <foldhqF9429U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455183 |
On 6/16/18 1:25 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 1:28:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/16/18 12:05 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:10:16 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Could be that or could be we disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you fully understood what I was talking about that could be the
>>>>> case but you don't appear, to me, to see the implications. You've
>>>>> written unstructured code that repeats far more often than is
>>>>> necessary. I'm advocating for structure, DRYing things up and
>>>>> separating concerns (which is good for the reasons I've stated).
>>>>
>>>> What do you think it repeats that it should not?
>>>
>>> How many text generating functions do you have?
>>> Take lines like these (and there are more)...
>>>
>>> set theList to
>>> set myword to some item in theList
>>> set goodText to some item in
>>> set neutralText to some item in
>>> set Badtext to some item in
>>>
>>> ... and multiple them by the number of functions they're used in.
>>>
>>> How many lines would that be?
>>
>> Quite a few.
>
> There ya go.
>
>> And their processing would often be similar, though with
>> customizations as needed. For example some account for if mentionMe is
>> true or not, etc.
>
> Why only some? What'd be so bad about standardizing the checking
> of that? IOW, you're probably only checking when you think it makes
> sense to based on the back and forth, but that's not always how real
> conversation flows.
To have this change the sentences for all topics would require a lot
more work. From what I recall it only did so when it was needed... such
as "isA"... that checks to see if someone is saying "Turing is a... ".
And from there it did a lot of other checks... was the person making a
bigoted attack, for example. Sadly that was too common on AIM and is too
common here.
>> As I note below, though, there might be some way of
>> combining some. Heck, this could be done and then if cusomizations are
>> needed it could be done differently. It is not one or the other. So,
>> sure, if I could combine a fair number into one that would be cool.
>>
>> To do so, I think, I would need to have the sentences be in an array
>> that gets passed to and from the function... but that of course is possible.
>
> That's exactly what I'm doing... as I've shown.
Right. I expand on this below.
>>>>> It behooves you to think about the things I mentioned, the biggest
>>>>> one being you have one function per topic, I only have *1* function
>>>>> to generate responses.
>>>>
>>>> While I might be able to combine functions, there is quite a bit of
>>>> difference from one to the next. Combining them would lose functionality
>>>> in many cases (though there might be ways to combine a number which do
>>>> things in significantly similar ways). Would take the passing of a LOT
>>>> of "exceptions" in terms of swapping of words in sentences...
>>>
>>> What's the highest number of variation sets you've used in a function?
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by "variation sets".
>
> Mainly, the lookups not used for 'theList'.
>
>> Do you mean the "some item
>> in" type structure that I have (where you pick one item from a set). If
>> so I see about two dozen as being the max (helpText has about that
>> many). Of course if I kept working on it I might go above that.
>
> And you'd be digging a deeper hole ;)
Here you seem to be limiting the responses to what can be easily
programmed. But I think we could get the best of both worlds if we had
an array of arrays... so no real limit (of course there would be ones
based on resources and the like but unlikely to hit those).
It would also make it so you can have words be replicated... with my
method there was no easy way to have the same selected word be repeated.
Your replacement method makes that trivial.
Again, the downside is making sure you use words that would not be
actual words, AND having the replacements not tied to the sentences with
as much context and that can add some complexity in making the content.
>> So imagine having those two dozen lists disconnected from the sentences
>> they are having their content put into. To me that would make it more
>> confusing to read.
>
> * see below
>
>> Having "myWord" and "yourWord" and "theUser" and
>> things like that would not be as confusing... but of course the others
>> can be done, even if you had an array of arrays where you could have an
>> arbitrary number (so if I went above the two dozen it would not be a
>> programmatic issue).
>
> A multi-dim array isn't needed, this is essentially Mad Libs with
> better editing.
If you do not have an array of arrays you run into a hard limit on the
number of swaps you can do, right?
>>>>> This means you're duplicating the same
>>>>> basic idea over and over, which is fine for a function here and there,
>>>>> but not as a system (which is what your bot grew into). The second
>>>>> biggest is separating data from logic, you don't seem to understand
>>>>> the way I've talked about doing it. If you look closely, you'll see that
>>>>> you can do more with less while being able to decouple the data.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. Would love to see you create a conversion with your ideas.
>>>
>>> That's what I used to produce the last screencast... it's basically just
>>> stitching together the stuff I gave you prior to that.
>>
>> Can you give a link to that screecast again?
>
> It's in one of the posts, the only place it exists now.
>
>> Maybe I missed something in
>> it. Likely did... a LOT of this, esp. in JavaScript, is pushing my
>> ability. No doubt there is some miscommunication and misunderstanding.
>>
>>>> The code is open source. Not saying you have to... just I would love to see it.
>>>
>>> You've seen the basic ideas behind it.
>>>
>>> Think about what your goal is... your goal is *not* to duplicate the exact
>>> responses you have, wasn't even your original goal... which kept growing
>>> over time. Your goal was to have a bot that produce responses that tend
>>> to appear human-like. Don't hold another system to a different standard.
>>
>> But to do so I do not want to give up the flexibility in making output
>> that I have.
>
> I don't see why you'd have to. On any given output you can do what I
> was talking about earlier and just use a custom function for the times
> you'd need it. Ideally, though, if you did it right, you probably wouldn't
> need it often, if at all.
If you limit your output to what your code allows, sure... but it limits
the number of "swaps" (and breaks up the replacement phrase from the
sentence, making it harder to write). But, still, it clearly offers
benefits... and the array of arrays would solve the first issue (though
not the second... might even make that one worse, but with line breaks
maybe not).
>> Or had. Have not touched the code other than in this
>> conversation in many years.
>>
>>> What I'm suggesting is that you could have *far* more variations with
>>> fewer lines of code and virtually no duplication. You're looking at this for
>>> what (you believe) it *can't* do, not what it *can* do. Over time, if you
>>> wanted this to produce the same output as yours, you could do it, minus
>>> all the cruft... but you'd get many more variations and all the other stuff I
>>> mentioned, as well.
>>
>> It might be possible to do with the array of arrays or something
>> similar... and that might not be a bad idea.
>
> I don't see why you'd need that but you could do it.
If I understand your array, it is a group of items to be put into a
"swap". The array of arrays would be to have multiple items that could
be swapped. You might end up with:
{
"swap1",
"swap2"
}
{
{
"baseball",
"football",
"soccer"
},
{
"hates",
"loves",
"thinks makes people smell funny"
}
}
With the sentence that relates to being:
thePerson said swap1 is something he swap2.
Even for that simple example things can get confusing fast... and if you
have 50 sentences with different swaps that is going to get very hard to
follow.
With my way it is just like this:
thePerson & "said " & some item in {"baseball" ,"football",
"soccer"} & " is something he " & some item in
{"hates","loves","thinks makes people smell funny"} & "."
If you want to edit that sentence later, with my way it is very easy to
see what is in the sentence... though with a bunch of swaps it can be
cumbersome no doubt! And I cannot have something like:
Fred said baseball is something he thinks only people who
like baseball can understand.
The use of baseball twice would be much harder without your swaps.
And with both of my examples I leave out the "Reaction" score and
more... so there is other complexity.
>> Even then might need some
>> special functions for more complex things, but I can see the value in
>> what (I think) you are saying.
>>
>> My concern is that human reading might be reduced...
>
> Reading of the code, a bit... but it's a trade off anyone writing a
> system makes. If you want spaghetti, you know how to make it,
> If you want a system, you avoid makin' spaghetti.
I think the idea of the array of arrays combines the best of both worlds
-- a more unified function AND an unlimited number of swaps (and the
ability to reuse the same swap which I have now added as a benefit). But
the trade off is the complexity of reading and editing and adding more
phrases. Still, might be worth it. Would have to dig through my
functions to see how many this would work with.
For other things such as "mentionMe" that can be a passed parameter that
is ignored when it is not needed... or I can do that check outside of
the function and have two separate ones (though that would lead to
replication of content). Still, there is likely a good way to handle this.
One of the benefits of how I did it is I could read my logs and then
easily add or change or remove phrases.
>> you would not have
>> the "swaps" inside of the sentences and thus the context would be made
>> more confusing.
>
> * Well, they're right there on the screen next to each other... but like
> I said, I'd probably use a function to generate them anyway so this
> wouldn't be an issue... just cull the ones I didn't like.
>
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 16:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <d8818708-b68e-4319-962b-1475c27920a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455186 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 3:25:18 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 6/16/18 1:25 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > Why only some? What'd be so bad about standardizing the checking
> > of that? IOW, you're probably only checking when you think it makes
> > sense to based on the back and forth, but that's not always how real
> > conversation flows.
>
> To have this change the sentences for all topics would require a lot
> more work.
Exactly, and that's because you don't have anything centralized... so
if you need to add what would be tantamount to functionality that is
centralized, it's a much bigger job.
> From what I recall it only did so when it was needed... such
> as "isA"... that checks to see if someone is saying "Turing is a... ".
> And from there it did a lot of other checks... was the person making a
> bigoted attack, for example. Sadly that was too common on AIM and is too
> common here.
It's natural conversation in a real time chat, though.
> Here you seem to be limiting the responses to what can be easily
> programmed.
In my tiny example that demonstrates a concept I left out some things.
I also didn't talk about other things so you'd understand that concept...
a thing I'm still not sure you fully grasp yet. I've tried to explain this to
you but you don't seem to understand this was to demonstrate a basic
concept. You're still focusing on what you believe it can't do.
> But I think we could get the best of both worlds if we had
> an array of arrays... so no real limit (of course there would be ones
> based on resources and the like but unlikely to hit those).
So go with it... I did in my last screencast but I think there's a better way.
> It would also make it so you can have words be replicated... with my
> method there was no easy way to have the same selected word be repeated.
> Your replacement method makes that trivial.
Organizing makes things trivial, that's sorta the point of doing it.
> Again, the downside is making sure you use words that would not be
> actual words,
I don't get it, why would you include those in your data?
> AND having the replacements not tied to the sentences with
> as much context and that can add some complexity in making the content.
Look, you'd still want to make sure that the end result is sensible,
regardless of how you achieve it. I'm just saying system over spaghetti.
Obviously, you'd have to choose language and words that work, just
as you had to do... it's a system, not a magic box.
> >> Having "myWord" and "yourWord" and "theUser" and
> >> things like that would not be as confusing... but of course the others
> >> can be done, even if you had an array of arrays where you could have an
> >> arbitrary number (so if I went above the two dozen it would not be a
> >> programmatic issue).
> >
> > A multi-dim array isn't needed, this is essentially Mad Libs with
> > better editing.
>
> If you do not have an array of arrays you run into a hard limit on the
> number of swaps you can do, right?
Limited by memory... trust me, you'd limit it long before that happened,
just like you've done already.
> If you limit your output to what your code allows, sure... but it limits
> the number of "swaps" (and breaks up the replacement phrase from the
> sentence, making it harder to write).
You can write them 'inline' in textEdit and then paste them into your objects.
You're making a mountain out of a molehill here, which is strange for a guy
who duplicated the livin' snot out of his code to produce linguini mountain ;)
> But, still, it clearly offers
> benefits... and the array of arrays would solve the first issue (though
> not the second... might even make that one worse, but with line breaks
> maybe not).
>
> >> Or had. Have not touched the code other than in this
> >> conversation in many years.
> >>
> >>> What I'm suggesting is that you could have *far* more variations with
> >>> fewer lines of code and virtually no duplication. You're looking at this for
> >>> what (you believe) it *can't* do, not what it *can* do. Over time, if you
> >>> wanted this to produce the same output as yours, you could do it, minus
> >>> all the cruft... but you'd get many more variations and all the other stuff I
> >>> mentioned, as well.
> >>
> >> It might be possible to do with the array of arrays or something
> >> similar... and that might not be a bad idea.
> >
> > I don't see why you'd need that but you could do it.
>
> If I understand your array, it is a group of items to be put into a
> "swap".
It's doing what you're doing (replacing text), it's just not doing it 'inline'.
> The array of arrays would be to have multiple items that could
> be swapped. You might end up with:
>
> {
> "swap1",
> "swap2"
> }
> {
> {
> "baseball",
> "football",
> "soccer"
> },
> {
> "hates",
> "loves",
> "thinks makes people smell funny"
> }
> }
>
> With the sentence that relates to being:
>
> thePerson said swap1 is something he swap2.
>
> Even for that simple example things can get confusing fast... and if you
> have 50 sentences with different swaps that is going to get very hard to
> follow.
I guess I can point out the obvious now... nothing stops you from writing
Javascript flavored spaghetti if you believe benefits outweigh negatives.
> With my way it is just like this:
>
> thePerson & "said " & some item in {"baseball" ,"football",
> "soccer"} & " is something he " & some item in
> {"hates","loves","thinks makes people smell funny"} & "."
>
> If you want to edit that sentence later, with my way it is very easy to
> see what is in the sentence... though with a bunch of swaps it can be
> cumbersome no doubt! And I cannot have something like:
>
> Fred said baseball is something he thinks only people who
> like baseball can understand.
>
> The use of baseball twice would be much harder without your swaps.
>
> And with both of my examples I leave out the "Reaction" score and
> more... so there is other complexity.
You see these things as insurmountable problems if you don't code them
into a spaghetti dinner (or I didn't show them in my trivial examples)?
> >> Even then might need some
> >> special functions for more complex things, but I can see the value in
> >> what (I think) you are saying.
> >>
> >> My concern is that human reading might be reduced...
> >
> > Reading of the code, a bit... but it's a trade off anyone writing a
> > system makes. If you want spaghetti, you know how to make it,
> > If you want a system, you avoid makin' spaghetti.
>
> I think the idea of the array of arrays combines the best of both worlds
> -- a more unified function AND an unlimited number of swaps
I don't know about the best of both worlds but it's tried and true, though,
computationally intensive... which probably isn't an issue here so I guess
it's a moot point.
> (and the
> ability to reuse the same swap which I have now added as a benefit). But
> the trade off is the complexity of reading and editing and adding more
> phrases. Still, might be worth it. Would have to dig through my
> functions to see how many this would work with.
>
> For other things such as "mentionMe" that can be a passed parameter that
> is ignored when it is not needed... or I can do that check outside of
> the function and have two separate ones (though that would lead to
> replication of content). Still, there is likely a good way to handle this.
>
> One of the benefits of how I did it is I could read my logs and then
> easily add or change or remove phrases.
So generate a log file. I know you might find this difficult to believe but
the coding of spaghetti isn't required for that, either ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 18:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <folqd9Fba2vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455191 |
On 6/16/18 4:13 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 3:25:18 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/16/18 1:25 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>>> Why only some? What'd be so bad about standardizing the checking
>>> of that? IOW, you're probably only checking when you think it makes
>>> sense to based on the back and forth, but that's not always how real
>>> conversation flows.
>>
>> To have this change the sentences for all topics would require a lot
>> more work.
>
> Exactly, and that's because you don't have anything centralized... so
> if you need to add what would be tantamount to functionality that is
> centralized, it's a much bigger job.
Would help to know where I was going before I start. I did not when I
wrote the original. :)
>> From what I recall it only did so when it was needed... such
>> as "isA"... that checks to see if someone is saying "Turing is a... ".
>> And from there it did a lot of other checks... was the person making a
>> bigoted attack, for example. Sadly that was too common on AIM and is too
>> common here.
>
> It's natural conversation in a real time chat, though.
Sadly true. And in groups like this.
>> Here you seem to be limiting the responses to what can be easily
>> programmed.
>
> In my tiny example that demonstrates a concept I left out some things.
> I also didn't talk about other things so you'd understand that concept...
> a thing I'm still not sure you fully grasp yet. I've tried to explain this to
> you but you don't seem to understand this was to demonstrate a basic
> concept. You're still focusing on what you believe it can't do.
I am sure there is a lot I do not understand and likely things about how
it makes responses now you do not understand.
Below, though, I cover how it could be (mostly) the best of both worlds.
>> But I think we could get the best of both worlds if we had
>> an array of arrays... so no real limit (of course there would be ones
>> based on resources and the like but unlikely to hit those).
>
> So go with it... I did in my last screencast but I think there's a better way.
If I ever update it I likely will try it... though have to be careful to
not make it too hard to read the sentences. I am willing to have other
weaknesses to make the content easier to see, understand, and edit.
>> It would also make it so you can have words be replicated... with my
>> method there was no easy way to have the same selected word be repeated.
>> Your replacement method makes that trivial.
>
> Organizing makes things trivial, that's sorta the point of doing it.
And different organizations will make different things easier / harder.
Of course.
You suggested the idea of using the arrays and passing them... it makes
sense, but given the nature of the swaps seems one would need an array
of arrays... which is where I went with the idea. I think that would
likely be the best method... though I am very much open to other ideas.
>> Again, the downside is making sure you use words that would not be
>> actual words,
>
> I don't get it, why would you include those in your data?
It is not likely, but maybe you would want the output to have some term
you use in a swap. This could be mostly alleviated, though, by making
sure the swap "words" are very unlikely to be used in ANY conversation
other than about its own code (which the bot never discusses). On the
off chance you DID want to use one of those words you could use ANOTHER
word and let that be swapped.
>> AND having the replacements not tied to the sentences with
>> as much context and that can add some complexity in making the content.
>
> Look, you'd still want to make sure that the end result is sensible,
> regardless of how you achieve it. I'm just saying system over spaghetti.
> Obviously, you'd have to choose language and words that work, just
> as you had to do... it's a system, not a magic box.
Of course. Not sure you are getting my point on the "swap" structure
possibly making it harder to create / edit content. There is that risk
and the risk of special "topics" which need some other structure (though
those can be built, of course... but if it becomes too many the unified
one is of less value).
>>>> Having "myWord" and "yourWord" and "theUser" and
>>>> things like that would not be as confusing... but of course the others
>>>> can be done, even if you had an array of arrays where you could have an
>>>> arbitrary number (so if I went above the two dozen it would not be a
>>>> programmatic issue).
>>>
>>> A multi-dim array isn't needed, this is essentially Mad Libs with
>>> better editing.
>>
>> If you do not have an array of arrays you run into a hard limit on the
>> number of swaps you can do, right?
>
> Limited by memory... trust me, you'd limit it long before that happened,
> just like you've done already.
I am not talking memory... if you do not have the array of arrays you
would need, if I understand correctly, variables such as "swap1"...
"swap10"... but if you needed to use 11 swaps you hit that limit.
Having an array of arrays makes it so you have a (basically) unlimited
number of swaps.
Seems like good programming anyway to have an array instead of "swap1",
"swap2", .... "swapN".
>> If you limit your output to what your code allows, sure... but it limits
>> the number of "swaps" (and breaks up the replacement phrase from the
>> sentence, making it harder to write).
>
> You can write them 'inline' in textEdit and then paste them into your objects.
> You're making a mountain out of a molehill here, which is strange for a guy
> who duplicated the livin' snot out of his code to produce linguini mountain ;)
I think you are missing the point of editing the code as you learn more.
>> But, still, it clearly offers
>> benefits... and the array of arrays would solve the first issue (though
>> not the second... might even make that one worse, but with line breaks
>> maybe not).
>>
>>>> Or had. Have not touched the code other than in this
>>>> conversation in many years.
>>>>
>>>>> What I'm suggesting is that you could have *far* more variations with
>>>>> fewer lines of code and virtually no duplication. You're looking at this for
>>>>> what (you believe) it *can't* do, not what it *can* do. Over time, if you
>>>>> wanted this to produce the same output as yours, you could do it, minus
>>>>> all the cruft... but you'd get many more variations and all the other stuff I
>>>>> mentioned, as well.
>>>>
>>>> It might be possible to do with the array of arrays or something
>>>> similar... and that might not be a bad idea.
>>>
>>> I don't see why you'd need that but you could do it.
>>
>> If I understand your array, it is a group of items to be put into a
>> "swap".
>
> It's doing what you're doing (replacing text), it's just not doing it 'inline'.
Sure.
>> The array of arrays would be to have multiple items that could
>> be swapped. You might end up with:
>>
>> {
>> "swap1",
>> "swap2"
>> }
>> {
>> {
>> "baseball",
>> "football",
>> "soccer"
>> },
>> {
>> "hates",
>> "loves",
>> "thinks makes people smell funny"
>> }
>> }
>>
>> With the sentence that relates to being:
>>
>> thePerson said swap1 is something he swap2.
>>
>> Even for that simple example things can get confusing fast... and if you
>> have 50 sentences with different swaps that is going to get very hard to
>> follow.
>
> I guess I can point out the obvious now... nothing stops you from writing
> Javascript flavored spaghetti if you believe benefits outweigh negatives.
But no comment on what I say above or the idea of an array of arrays?
>> With my way it is just like this:
>>
>> thePerson & "said " & some item in {"baseball" ,"football",
>> "soccer"} & " is something he " & some item in
>> {"hates","loves","thinks makes people smell funny"} & "."
>>
>> If you want to edit that sentence later, with my way it is very easy to
>> see what is in the sentence... though with a bunch of swaps it can be
>> cumbersome no doubt! And I cannot have something like:
>>
>> Fred said baseball is something he thinks only people who
>> like baseball can understand.
>>
>> The use of baseball twice would be much harder without your swaps.
>>
>> And with both of my examples I leave out the "Reaction" score and
>> more... so there is other complexity.
>
> You see these things as insurmountable problems if you don't code them
> into a spaghetti dinner (or I didn't show them in my trivial examples)?
Insurmountable? How so? I think you are, again, misunderstanding what I
am saying. I am speaking of pros and cons of the (now) three ideas:
* My inline method
* Your array / swap1-swapN method
* My array of swap array method
I think the third is likely the best, and clearly inspired by what you
suggested. There ARE some weaknesses (ability to edit the content later)
but I still would lean toward that as the best solution.
>>>> Even then might need some
>>>> special functions for more complex things, but I can see the value in
>>>> what (I think) you are saying.
>>>>
>>>> My concern is that human reading might be reduced...
>>>
>>> Reading of the code, a bit... but it's a trade off anyone writing a
>>> system makes. If you want spaghetti, you know how to make it,
>>> If you want a system, you avoid makin' spaghetti.
>>
>> I think the idea of the array of arrays combines the best of both worlds
>> -- a more unified function AND an unlimited number of swaps
>
> I don't know about the best of both worlds but it's tried and true, though,
> computationally intensive... which probably isn't an issue here so I guess
> it's a moot point.
Do you see the benefits of it? Do you think I am misunderstanding
something to think it has benefits (if so that is fine, I very well may be).
>> (and the
>> ability to reuse the same swap which I have now added as a benefit). But
>> the trade off is the complexity of reading and editing and adding more
>> phrases. Still, might be worth it. Would have to dig through my
>> functions to see how many this would work with.
>>
>> For other things such as "mentionMe" that can be a passed parameter that
>> is ignored when it is not needed... or I can do that check outside of
>> the function and have two separate ones (though that would lead to
>> replication of content). Still, there is likely a good way to handle this.
>>
>> One of the benefits of how I did it is I could read my logs and then
>> easily add or change or remove phrases.
>
> So generate a log file.
I think that is a given. :)
The challenge is editing the code to fit what I want as I do so.
Splitting the sentences up into chunks makes it harder to do so.
> I know you might find this difficult to believe but
> the coding of spaghetti isn't required for that, either ;)
At this point it is clear you are not understanding what I am saying.
And that is fine... there have been multiple times I have not understand
some of your comments. Not insulting either of us.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 20:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <e5169064-0051-4c27-830a-3716b35beaac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455197 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 7:04:45 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 6/16/18 4:13 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 3:25:18 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >> On 6/16/18 1:25 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >
> >>> Why only some? What'd be so bad about standardizing the checking
> >>> of that? IOW, you're probably only checking when you think it makes
> >>> sense to based on the back and forth, but that's not always how real
> >>> conversation flows.
> >>
> >> To have this change the sentences for all topics would require a lot
> >> more work.
> >
> > Exactly, and that's because you don't have anything centralized... so
> > if you need to add what would be tantamount to functionality that is
> > centralized, it's a much bigger job.
>
> Would help to know where I was going before I start. I did not when I
> wrote the original. :)
I'm aware of that... and the idea you would even talk about repeating
it in JS boggles the mind.
> I am sure there is a lot I do not understand and likely things about how
> it makes responses now you do not understand.
I don't need to, I already know that you can't do anything more convincing
just because you hand massaged spaghetti. That's not a cut, just a fact.
> If I ever update it I likely will try it... though have to be careful to
> not make it too hard to read the sentences. I am willing to have other
> weaknesses to make the content easier to see, understand, and edit.
You're paying a *huge* price for something you can do in an editor.
> You suggested the idea of using the arrays and passing them... it makes
> sense, but given the nature of the swaps seems one would need an array
> of arrays... which is where I went with the idea.
A good and easy to read 'modern JS' example is the one where I set the
keywords via userInput.
> I think that would
> likely be the best method... though I am very much open to other ideas.
Forget what I said, go with it.
> >> Again, the downside is making sure you use words that would not be
> >> actual words,
> >
> > I don't get it, why would you include those in your data?
>
> It is not likely, but maybe you would want the output to have some term
> you use in a swap.
To replace a word with another 'word' that isn't an "actual word"?
> This could be mostly alleviated, though, by making
> sure the swap "words" are very unlikely to be used in ANY conversation
> other than about its own code (which the bot never discusses).
The swap words are tethered to the keywords *as* a group so that
can't ever happen.
> On the
> off chance you DID want to use one of those words you could use ANOTHER
> word and let that be swapped.
You just include it in the swap words associated with that topic. I don't think
you looked at the object on the Gist very closely.
> Not sure you are getting my point on the "swap" structure
> possibly making it harder to create / edit content.
I get it! And I'm telling you it's not an issue if you create them in an editor.
> There is that risk and the risk of special "topics" which need
> some other structure
Why?
>(though
> those can be built, of course... but if it becomes too many the unified
> one is of less value).
You don't get it...
> >>>> Having "myWord" and "yourWord" and "theUser" and
> >>>> things like that would not be as confusing... but of course the others
> >>>> can be done, even if you had an array of arrays where you could have an
> >>>> arbitrary number (so if I went above the two dozen it would not be a
> >>>> programmatic issue).
> >>>
> >>> A multi-dim array isn't needed, this is essentially Mad Libs with
> >>> better editing.
> >>
> >> If you do not have an array of arrays you run into a hard limit on the
> >> number of swaps you can do, right?
> >
> > Limited by memory... trust me, you'd limit it long before that happened,
> > just like you've done already.
>
> I am not talking memory...
You said limitation, memory *is* the limitation.
> if you do not have the array of arrays you
> would need, if I understand correctly, variables such as "swap1"...
> "swap10"... but if you needed to use 11 swaps you hit that limit.
It seems the demos I wrote for you that got you thinking of getting away
from writing inline stuff confused you into thinking that's what I was
suggesting for everything ( I said they weren't a rewrite, just a concept).
> Having an array of arrays makes it so you have a (basically) unlimited
> number of swaps.
Which is why I did it that way... well... mine is actually an object which
contains arrays as properties, as I showed in the Gist. I do stuff them into
a container so I can map over them to process things, though. But it's all
just basic iteration, you want to get to the point where you understand the
processing part.
> Seems like good programming anyway to have an array instead of "swap1",
> "swap2", .... "swapN".
The swap examples earlier were just to show how to do (in JS) what you're
already doing... just not doing so 'inline' (like you are).
> >> If you limit your output to what your code allows, sure... but it limits
> >> the number of "swaps" (and breaks up the replacement phrase from the
> >> sentence, making it harder to write).
> >
> > You can write them 'inline' in textEdit and then paste them into your objects.
> > You're making a mountain out of a molehill here, which is strange for a guy
> > who duplicated the livin' snot out of his code to produce linguini mountain ;)
>
> I think you are missing the point of editing the code as you learn more.
Trust me, learning how to repeat yourself is not the way to go,
and you already have that down ;)
> > I guess I can point out the obvious now... nothing stops you from writing
> > Javascript flavored spaghetti if you believe benefits outweigh negatives.
>
> But no comment on what I say above or the idea of an array of arrays?
There's really nothing else to say on such a basic topic. You really should
be focusing on how to iterate them, manipulate the elements in them, the
I/O you'll use, understanding how scope works in JS, learning a little about
type conversion, brushing up on basic regex, etc.
> >> With my way it is just like this:
> >>
> >> thePerson & "said " & some item in {"baseball" ,"football",
> >> "soccer"} & " is something he " & some item in
> >> {"hates","loves","thinks makes people smell funny"} & "."
> >>
> >> If you want to edit that sentence later, with my way it is very easy to
> >> see what is in the sentence... though with a bunch of swaps it can be
> >> cumbersome no doubt! And I cannot have something like:
> >>
> >> Fred said baseball is something he thinks only people who
> >> like baseball can understand.
> >>
> >> The use of baseball twice would be much harder without your swaps.
> >>
> >> And with both of my examples I leave out the "Reaction" score and
> >> more... so there is other complexity.
> >
> > You see these things as insurmountable problems if you don't code them
> > into a spaghetti dinner (or I didn't show them in my trivial examples)?
>
> Insurmountable? How so? I think you are, again, misunderstanding what I
> am saying. I am speaking of pros and cons of the (now) three ideas:
>
> * My inline method
Inline sucks because it caused you to repeat a ton of code. the
sooner you dump thoughts to this, the better.
> * Your array / swap1-swapN method
Again: the early examples I showed you are *not* what I'm doing,
one look at the object I showed you proves that.
> * My array of swap array method
LOL! If it's 'your' method then it's funny how the object I laid out for you
*ensures* you'll be using subarrays, isn't it? ;)
> I think the third is likely the best, and clearly inspired by what you
> suggested.
It works... use it.
> There ARE some weaknesses (ability to edit the content later)
> but I still would lean toward that as the best solution.
Yes, Snit... but enough about 'your' discovery ;) Here's the main thing,
if you're only writing one function, as opposed to 1000, you can easily
try different things... so chalk up another huge plus for organization.
> >>>> Even then might need some
> >>>> special functions for more complex things, but I can see the value in
> >>>> what (I think) you are saying.
> >>>>
> >>>> My concern is that human reading might be reduced...
> >>>
> >>> Reading of the code, a bit... but it's a trade off anyone writing a
> >>> system makes. If you want spaghetti, you know how to make it,
> >>> If you want a system, you avoid makin' spaghetti.
> >>
> >> I think the idea of the array of arrays combines the best of both worlds
> >> -- a more unified function AND an unlimited number of swaps
> >
> > I don't know about the best of both worlds but it's tried and true, though,
> > computationally intensive... which probably isn't an issue here so I guess
> > it's a moot point.
>
> Do you see the benefits of it?
Being that I'm doing it and I demonstrated the concept to you already, and
I wrote you an object where you'll have to do it, I'd say that'd be a 'yes' ;)
> Do you think I am misunderstanding
> something to think it has benefits (if so that is fine, I very well may be).
I think you're not gonna truly know the benefits or negatives until you
actually write some code and see.
> >> (and the
> >> ability to reuse the same swap which I have now added as a benefit). But
> >> the trade off is the complexity of reading and editing and adding more
> >> phrases. Still, might be worth it. Would have to dig through my
> >> functions to see how many this would work with.
> >>
> >> For other things such as "mentionMe" that can be a passed parameter that
> >> is ignored when it is not needed... or I can do that check outside of
> >> the function and have two separate ones (though that would lead to
> >> replication of content). Still, there is likely a good way to handle this.
> >>
> >> One of the benefits of how I did it is I could read my logs and then
> >> easily add or change or remove phrases.
> >
> > So generate a log file.
>
> I think that is a given. :)
>
> The challenge is editing the code to fit what I want as I do so.
Trying to mold it to your current output is not the way to go (if
that's what you're thinking is here).
> At this point it is clear you are not understanding what I am saying.
And I think it's more the other way around <shrug>.
> And that is fine... there have been multiple times I have not understand
> some of your comments. Not insulting either of us.
I don't know why you think I don't understand what you've done or, at least,
can't imagine how involved it is... but I can... I've done stuff like that, many
people who write code have. Regardless of how 'cool' you think parts of
what you've written are, they live in a f*cking tomb ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 21:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fom84nFdg8lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455208 |
On 6/16/18 8:24 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... > Trust me, learning how to repeat yourself is not the way to go, > and you already have that down ;) You keep saying that. Oh. Irony. I get it. >>> I guess I can point out the obvious now... nothing stops you from writing >>> Javascript flavored spaghetti if you believe benefits outweigh negatives. >> >> But no comment on what I say above or the idea of an array of arrays? > > There's really nothing else to say on such a basic topic. You really should > be focusing on how to iterate them, manipulate the elements in them, the > I/O you'll use, understanding how scope works in JS, learning a little about > type conversion, brushing up on basic regex, etc. I am mostly focusing on the logic here. The idea of an array of arrays, or an object with a variable number of arrays if you will, is what seems to be needed. I *think* we are agreeing on that now. ... >> * My inline method > > Inline sucks because it caused you to repeat a ton of code. the > sooner you dump thoughts to this, the better. > >> * Your array / swap1-swapN method > > Again: the early examples I showed you are *not* what I'm doing, > one look at the object I showed you proves that. > >> * My array of swap array method > > LOL! If it's 'your' method then it's funny how the object I laid out for you > *ensures* you'll be using subarrays, isn't it? ;) Hey, not trying to take credit here... above, in what I snipped, you spoke of an object with multiple arrays (as many as you need). That is pretty much the concept I am speaking of. Seems we are largely in agreement that would be the best way. It has many benefits... though it also has a downside (not saying the benefits do not outweigh the down sides, but there ARE downsides). >> I think the third is likely the best, and clearly inspired by what you >> suggested. > > It works... use it. If I ever re-wrote it I likely would. In any language. >> There ARE some weaknesses (ability to edit the content later) >> but I still would lean toward that as the best solution. > > Yes, Snit... but enough about 'your' discovery ;) Here's the main thing, > if you're only writing one function, as opposed to 1000, you can easily > try different things... so chalk up another huge plus for organization. What "different things" are you thinking of? ... >> Do you think I am misunderstanding >> something to think it has benefits (if so that is fine, I very well may be). > > I think you're not gonna truly know the benefits or negatives until you > actually write some code and see. So you need to write a bot my way to see the benefits I talk about. Fair enough. ... >>> So generate a log file. >> >> I think that is a given. :) >> >> The challenge is editing the code to fit what I want as I do so. > > Trying to mold it to your current output is not the way to go (if > that's what you're thinking is here). Well, I would still want to know what topics were invoked, what "reaction" score someone had, etc. The logging, at least to me, seems reasonable (though I am sure I could do a lot more and then grep or whatever the lines I want to get subsets) > Regardless of how 'cool' you think parts of > what you've written are, they live in a f*cking tomb ;) Oh, the code has a LOT of flaws... but I would say it is a far better bot than either your or Sandman's Usenet bots. You two likely have better coding, but I have better results (well, other than that mine crashed after about two hours from AppleScript memory leaks!) Still, as I talked about before, I think I can safely say my bot works better than either of yours (and Sandman's is far behind yours). It is ironic given that is the exact opposite of how I would rate our programming skills. Could be this type program has more to do with understanding the psychology of making such responses. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 22:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <923e5f5d-1639-44be-a05d-e7087e9b4f93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455212 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:59:06 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/16/18 8:24 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > ... > > > Trust me, learning how to repeat yourself is not the way to go, > > and you already have that down ;) > > You keep saying that. > > Oh. > > Irony. I get it. > > >>> I guess I can point out the obvious now... nothing stops you from writing > >>> Javascript flavored spaghetti if you believe benefits outweigh negatives. > >> > >> But no comment on what I say above or the idea of an array of arrays? > > > > There's really nothing else to say on such a basic topic. You really should > > be focusing on how to iterate them, manipulate the elements in them, the > > I/O you'll use, understanding how scope works in JS, learning a little about > > type conversion, brushing up on basic regex, etc. > > I am mostly focusing on the logic here. The idea of an array of arrays, > or an object with a variable number of arrays if you will, is what seems > to be needed. > > I *think* we are agreeing on that now. The latter, yes. I don't suggest a numerically based array/subarray structure. To me, having the data live in one like I suggested makes more sense as, strictly speaking (and you'll find inaccurate info contrary to this), JS doesn't have associated arrays. I know this is probably confusing and I'd rather not go into it. You're obviously free to do it however you wish, if you think the former is the the way, do it, it works. > ... > > >> * My inline method > > > > Inline sucks because it caused you to repeat a ton of code. the > > sooner you dump thoughts to this, the better. > > > >> * Your array / swap1-swapN method > > > > Again: the early examples I showed you are *not* what I'm doing, > > one look at the object I showed you proves that. > > > >> * My array of swap array method > > > > LOL! If it's 'your' method then it's funny how the object I laid out for you > > *ensures* you'll be using subarrays, isn't it? ;) > > Hey, not trying to take credit here... above, in what I snipped, you > spoke of an object with multiple arrays (as many as you need). That is > pretty much the concept I am speaking of. Technically, no. Again, an array of subarrays, in JS, would all be numerically indexed. With an object you'd have keys to reference the various arrays. If you have a bunch of them, keys are easier to deal with as they make the code much easier to read. > Seems we are largely in agreement that would be the best way. It has > many benefits... though it also has a downside (not saying the benefits > do not outweigh the down sides, but there ARE downsides). The main thing you've complained about has to do with not writing the stuff inline, which really has nothing to do with this topic because you can, if you wish, write inline data structures in JS. What are the array related downsides that would give you pause? That I've seen, you said a limitation of the amount of them that you could use, but I highly doubt that'd be an issue. > >> I think the third is likely the best, and clearly inspired by what you > >> suggested. > > > > It works... use it. > > If I ever re-wrote it I likely would. In any language. > > >> There ARE some weaknesses (ability to edit the content later) > >> but I still would lean toward that as the best solution. > > > > Yes, Snit... but enough about 'your' discovery ;) Here's the main thing, > > if you're only writing one function, as opposed to 1000, you can easily > > try different things... so chalk up another huge plus for organization. > > What "different things" are you thinking of? I'm just pointing out how easy it'd be to test ideas. With your code you can't do that without rewriting a ton of functions, which means you won't be doing it. Want to add a new feature? Wait for 2.0 ;) > ... > >> Do you think I am misunderstanding > >> something to think it has benefits (if so that is fine, I very well may be). > > > > I think you're not gonna truly know the benefits or negatives until you > > actually write some code and see. > > So you need to write a bot my way to see the benefits I talk about. Nah, I've written enough code like that to know the pitfalls. That it's a bot doesn't change anything in this context (as it might in other contexts).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 23:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fomf29FeltcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455213 |
On 6/16/18 10:57 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:59:06 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/16/18 8:24 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> Trust me, learning how to repeat yourself is not the way to go, >>> and you already have that down ;) >> >> You keep saying that. >> >> Oh. >> >> Irony. I get it. >> >>>>> I guess I can point out the obvious now... nothing stops you from writing >>>>> Javascript flavored spaghetti if you believe benefits outweigh negatives. >>>> >>>> But no comment on what I say above or the idea of an array of arrays? >>> >>> There's really nothing else to say on such a basic topic. You really should >>> be focusing on how to iterate them, manipulate the elements in them, the >>> I/O you'll use, understanding how scope works in JS, learning a little about >>> type conversion, brushing up on basic regex, etc. >> >> I am mostly focusing on the logic here. The idea of an array of arrays, >> or an object with a variable number of arrays if you will, is what seems >> to be needed. >> >> I *think* we are agreeing on that now. > > The latter, yes. I don't suggest a numerically based > array/subarray structure. To me, having the data live > in one like I suggested makes more sense as, strictly > speaking (and you'll find inaccurate info contrary to > this), JS doesn't have associated arrays. I know this > is probably confusing and I'd rather not go into it. > You're obviously free to do it however you wish, if > you think the former is the the way, do it, it works. Without getting into language, the idea of an array of arrays, or an object with an unlimited number of arrays, or whatever... that makes sense to me. > >> ... >> >>>> * My inline method >>> >>> Inline sucks because it caused you to repeat a ton of code. the >>> sooner you dump thoughts to this, the better. >>> >>>> * Your array / swap1-swapN method >>> >>> Again: the early examples I showed you are *not* what I'm doing, >>> one look at the object I showed you proves that. >>> >>>> * My array of swap array method >>> >>> LOL! If it's 'your' method then it's funny how the object I laid out for you >>> *ensures* you'll be using subarrays, isn't it? ;) >> >> Hey, not trying to take credit here... above, in what I snipped, you >> spoke of an object with multiple arrays (as many as you need). That is >> pretty much the concept I am speaking of. > > Technically, no. Again, an array of subarrays, in JS, > would all be numerically indexed. With an object you'd > have keys to reference the various arrays. If you have > a bunch of them, keys are easier to deal with as they > make the code much easier to read. Don't understand all of that but from what I do it makes sense. >> Seems we are largely in agreement that would be the best way. It has >> many benefits... though it also has a downside (not saying the benefits >> do not outweigh the down sides, but there ARE downsides). > > The main thing you've complained about has to do with > not writing the stuff inline, which really has nothing > to do with this topic because you can, if you wish, > write inline data structures in JS. What are the array > related downsides that would give you pause? That I've > seen, you said a limitation of the amount of them that > you could use, but I highly doubt that'd be an issue. As long as you can use an (essentially) unlimited number (and it seems you can) that is fine. The only downsides I see: * "special" topics might now work with a universal function * there might be challenges in reading the "swaps" in the code But I do not think either of those are deal breakers. >>>> I think the third is likely the best, and clearly inspired by what you >>>> suggested. >>> >>> It works... use it. >> >> If I ever re-wrote it I likely would. In any language. >> >>>> There ARE some weaknesses (ability to edit the content later) >>>> but I still would lean toward that as the best solution. >>> >>> Yes, Snit... but enough about 'your' discovery ;) Here's the main thing, >>> if you're only writing one function, as opposed to 1000, you can easily >>> try different things... so chalk up another huge plus for organization. >> >> What "different things" are you thinking of? > > I'm just pointing out how easy it'd be to test ideas. > With your code you can't do that without rewriting a > ton of functions, which means you won't be doing it. > Want to add a new feature? Wait for 2.0 ;) I get the idea that editing in one place is easier than in 100. :) >> ... >>>> Do you think I am misunderstanding >>>> something to think it has benefits (if so that is fine, I very well may be). >>> >>> I think you're not gonna truly know the benefits or negatives until you >>> actually write some code and see. >> >> So you need to write a bot my way to see the benefits I talk about. > > Nah, I've written enough code like that to know the > pitfalls. That it's a bot doesn't change anything in > this context (as it might in other contexts). If you are going to keep using your bot I would like to see you handle some of these things in your output. I would especially like to see responses to sentences / groups of sentences with the appearance of "understanding" (not real AI, mind you). -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 10:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <d366127b-1c73-443b-b933-f5603e2a0027@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455214 |
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/16/18 10:57 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:59:06 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/16/18 8:24 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> > >>> Trust me, learning how to repeat yourself is not the way to go, > >>> and you already have that down ;) > >> > >> You keep saying that. > >> > >> Oh. > >> > >> Irony. I get it. > >> > >>>>> I guess I can point out the obvious now... nothing stops you from writing > >>>>> Javascript flavored spaghetti if you believe benefits outweigh negatives. > >>>> > >>>> But no comment on what I say above or the idea of an array of arrays? > >>> > >>> There's really nothing else to say on such a basic topic. You really should > >>> be focusing on how to iterate them, manipulate the elements in them, the > >>> I/O you'll use, understanding how scope works in JS, learning a little about > >>> type conversion, brushing up on basic regex, etc. > >> > >> I am mostly focusing on the logic here. The idea of an array of arrays, > >> or an object with a variable number of arrays if you will, is what seems > >> to be needed. > >> > >> I *think* we are agreeing on that now. > > > > The latter, yes. I don't suggest a numerically based > > array/subarray structure. To me, having the data live > > in one like I suggested makes more sense as, strictly > > speaking (and you'll find inaccurate info contrary to > > this), JS doesn't have associated arrays. I know this > > is probably confusing and I'd rather not go into it. > > You're obviously free to do it however you wish, if > > you think the former is the the way, do it, it works. > > Without getting into language, But we're talking about a language; just because it's programming doesn't mean semantics don't apply > the idea of an array of arrays, or an > object with an unlimited number of arrays, or whatever... that makes > sense to me. > > > > >> ... > >> > >>>> * My inline method > >>> > >>> Inline sucks because it caused you to repeat a ton of code. the > >>> sooner you dump thoughts to this, the better. > >>> > >>>> * Your array / swap1-swapN method > >>> > >>> Again: the early examples I showed you are *not* what I'm doing, > >>> one look at the object I showed you proves that. > >>> > >>>> * My array of swap array method > >>> > >>> LOL! If it's 'your' method then it's funny how the object I laid out for you > >>> *ensures* you'll be using subarrays, isn't it? ;) > >> > >> Hey, not trying to take credit here... above, in what I snipped, you > >> spoke of an object with multiple arrays (as many as you need). That is > >> pretty much the concept I am speaking of. > > > > Technically, no. Again, an array of subarrays, in JS, > > would all be numerically indexed. With an object you'd > > have keys to reference the various arrays. If you have > > a bunch of them, keys are easier to deal with as they > > make the code much easier to read. > > Don't understand all of that but from what I do it makes sense. It's just means the elements in an array are indexed by number (and they're zero based). Ex: const array = ["cat", "dog", 12] So if you wanted to get "cat", it'd be: array[0] This, as opposed to an associative, where references are named.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 10:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fonlgcFlt22U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455228 |
On 6/17/18 10:44 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/16/18 10:57 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:59:06 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/16/18 8:24 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> Trust me, learning how to repeat yourself is not the way to go, >>>>> and you already have that down ;) >>>> >>>> You keep saying that. >>>> >>>> Oh. >>>> >>>> Irony. I get it. >>>> >>>>>>> I guess I can point out the obvious now... nothing stops you from writing >>>>>>> Javascript flavored spaghetti if you believe benefits outweigh negatives. >>>>>> >>>>>> But no comment on what I say above or the idea of an array of arrays? >>>>> >>>>> There's really nothing else to say on such a basic topic. You really should >>>>> be focusing on how to iterate them, manipulate the elements in them, the >>>>> I/O you'll use, understanding how scope works in JS, learning a little about >>>>> type conversion, brushing up on basic regex, etc. >>>> >>>> I am mostly focusing on the logic here. The idea of an array of arrays, >>>> or an object with a variable number of arrays if you will, is what seems >>>> to be needed. >>>> >>>> I *think* we are agreeing on that now. >>> >>> The latter, yes. I don't suggest a numerically based >>> array/subarray structure. To me, having the data live >>> in one like I suggested makes more sense as, strictly >>> speaking (and you'll find inaccurate info contrary to >>> this), JS doesn't have associated arrays. I know this >>> is probably confusing and I'd rather not go into it. >>> You're obviously free to do it however you wish, if >>> you think the former is the the way, do it, it works. >> >> Without getting into language, > > But we're talking about a language; just because it's programming > doesn't mean semantics don't apply > >> the idea of an array of arrays, or an >> object with an unlimited number of arrays, or whatever... that makes >> sense to me. >> >>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>>> * My inline method >>>>> >>>>> Inline sucks because it caused you to repeat a ton of code. the >>>>> sooner you dump thoughts to this, the better. >>>>> >>>>>> * Your array / swap1-swapN method >>>>> >>>>> Again: the early examples I showed you are *not* what I'm doing, >>>>> one look at the object I showed you proves that. >>>>> >>>>>> * My array of swap array method >>>>> >>>>> LOL! If it's 'your' method then it's funny how the object I laid out for you >>>>> *ensures* you'll be using subarrays, isn't it? ;) >>>> >>>> Hey, not trying to take credit here... above, in what I snipped, you >>>> spoke of an object with multiple arrays (as many as you need). That is >>>> pretty much the concept I am speaking of. >>> >>> Technically, no. Again, an array of subarrays, in JS, >>> would all be numerically indexed. With an object you'd >>> have keys to reference the various arrays. If you have >>> a bunch of them, keys are easier to deal with as they >>> make the code much easier to read. >> >> Don't understand all of that but from what I do it makes sense. > > It's just means the elements in an array are indexed by number > (and they're zero based). Ex: const array = ["cat", "dog", 12] > > So if you wanted to get "cat", it'd be: array[0] > > This, as opposed to an associative, where references are named. > > Got it... and that would work fine it seems. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 09:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fomphnFfp6hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455213 |
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 22:57:19 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > I don't suggest a numerically based array/subarray > structure. To me, having the data live in one like I suggested makes > more sense as, strictly speaking (and you'll find inaccurate info > contrary to this), JS doesn't have associated arrays. Close enough, though: https://www.quirksmode.org/js/associative.html -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 10:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fonjegFlh6tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455218 |
On 6/17/18 2:56 AM, vallor wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 22:57:19 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> I don't suggest a numerically based array/subarray >> structure. To me, having the data live in one like I suggested makes >> more sense as, strictly speaking (and you'll find inaccurate info >> contrary to this), JS doesn't have associated arrays. > > Close enough, though: > > https://www.quirksmode.org/js/associative.html > A bit beyond me... but for the purposes here really all that is needed is some way to have a list of arrays that can be added to as needed (and have arrays removed, of course). I did not understand Carroll to be doing so, but he has said I missed it (very possible, and I think I even know which video he means where I did). While I missed it I came to the same conclusion as to the need for such... and despite our inevitable bickering, I think we both agree some structure like that would be the best bet if someone were to actually try to port my bot to JavaScript (or just update it and improve the programming). There are still some questions as to if all my functions could be put into a "universal" function, but there is a good chance many could. In any case, and as odd as it may be for some to hear, I am sincerely thankful to Carroll for his assistance on this. I has actually been fun and informative to talk to him. I sincerely hope this improved tone between us continues. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 11:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <2e84f599-fc56-401f-8466-549ea97654f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455227 |
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:18:13 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/17/18 2:56 AM, vallor wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 22:57:19 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > >> I don't suggest a numerically based array/subarray > >> structure. To me, having the data live in one like I suggested makes > >> more sense as, strictly speaking (and you'll find inaccurate info > >> contrary to this), JS doesn't have associated arrays. > > > > Close enough, though: > > > > https://www.quirksmode.org/js/associative.html > > > A bit beyond me... but for the purposes here really all that is needed > is some way to have a list of arrays that can be added to as needed (and > have arrays removed, of course). I did not understand Carroll to be > doing so, but he has said I missed it (very possible, and I think I even > know which video he means where I did). I also demonstrated it in a code example when dynamically assigning user input to 'keywords'. That example is easy to read, which is why I suggested you take another look at it. > While I missed it I came to the same conclusion as to the need for > such... and despite our inevitable bickering, I think we both agree some > structure like that would be the best bet if someone were to actually > try to port my bot to JavaScript (or just update it and improve the > programming). > > There are still some questions as to if all my functions could be put > into a "universal" function, but there is a good chance many could. It would depend on what you're doing in them. If any of them do what I'm thinking they might, I would examine if the output you're getting by their use could be obtained another way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 39 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web