Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #452930 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-31 22:42 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-06-03 23:23 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 143 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 22:42 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 17:01 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 01:12 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 01:49 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 14:19 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:35 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 14:49 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 08:04 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 09:16 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 09:35 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 16:24 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 09:53 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 10:06 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit says unsupported claims are lies <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 12:42 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 20:32 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 13:38 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 14:38 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit ignores the 9th amendment <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 14:48 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit says unsupported claims are lies <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 14:01 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 04:58 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:03 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 22:32 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:48 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 18:05 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 21:26 -0400
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 01:36 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:50 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 22:07 -0400
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 04:05 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 08:18 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 08:58 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 03:07 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 10:14 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:29 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 11:54 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:15 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:32 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:37 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 14:27 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:34 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 18:13 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 18:19 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:36 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:01 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:18 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:12 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:38 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:46 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 21:28 -0400
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:50 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 22:04 -0400
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:08 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:24 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:12 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 01:50 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:50 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 21:32 -0400
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:50 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:10 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:35 -0500
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 07:21 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 09:21 -0500
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 13:48 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 08:03 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 08:35 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:33 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 11:07 -0700
Re: Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2018-06-04 06:51 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:02 -0700
Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2018-06-04 14:16 +0000
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 07:48 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 09:20 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 09:33 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 09:59 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:10 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 10:12 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:52 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:35 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:42 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:54 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:43 -0500
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 07:21 -0700
Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2018-06-14 08:58 +0000
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-14 08:44 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 09:07 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-14 11:59 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 13:07 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-14 13:24 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 14:56 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-14 16:21 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 17:12 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-14 18:03 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 09:30 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-15 11:24 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 09:54 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 10:06 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 10:15 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 10:31 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 10:47 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 11:05 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 11:22 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 11:32 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 12:02 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 12:13 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 12:24 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 12:34 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 13:56 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 14:31 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 16:12 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 17:44 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 20:30 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 21:03 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-16 21:41 +0000
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 14:51 -0700
Re: Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2018-06-04 06:07 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 23:42 -0700
Re: Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2018-06-04 12:53 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:41 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 08:46 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 10:00 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 10:06 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 11:58 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 10:10 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 11:56 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 12:01 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 12:22 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:08 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:24 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 16:03 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 16:32 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 17:00 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:23 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:17 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:17 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 10:00 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 07:45 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 08:00 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 08:16 -0700
Re: Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2018-06-04 06:04 +0000
Re: Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 23:23 -0700
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 10:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <fokvr9F6k0mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455167 |
On 6/16/18 10:15 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
...
>>>>>> Do you understand what I meant now?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think i's clear what I understood.
>>>>>
>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>> Your games are amusing as long as you do not take them too far.
>>>
>>> What part wasn't clear? You have an *opinion* on his output. That doesn't
>>> automatically call into question his programming ability
>>
>> Hence why I never pulled into question his programming ability.
>
> Of course you did:
> "Come on, you are a programmer... why can't you do better than I did?" - Snit
You need a LOT of disclaimers and explanations and adding of known
context in conversation to have any hope of understanding. Here, let me
reword that to give it the same meaning but be a lot more verbose for you:
Sandman is a programmer. One of skill considerably greater than
mine. One who's skill I respect. One who has shown he generally
knows what he is talking about in terms of programming. Given
that, it is surprising that his auto-posting bot is so crappy.
Your Usenet bot and my AIM bot both produced, in my view, far
better output than his.
I predict your game will be to insist that I should have anticipated
your lack of understanding and helped you wish such verbosity from the
start, and that your lack of understanding, and continued failure even
on explanation, is somehow my fault.
> It's a "game" to claim otherwise
>
>> Try not to slide into your games of defining what OTHERS meant.
>
> Try not to slide into your games of defining reality based on only
> your own *opinion*.
You can disagree and think he is a crappy programmer or think his
auto-posting bot is the greatest thing since computers were invented.
Not relevant to your repeated claim that I am denouncing his programming
ability.
<snip repetition>
--
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 10:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <5a529d20-6cf2-41b5-80cb-42eacb849c0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455168 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/16/18 10:15 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > >>>>>> Do you understand what I meant now? > >>>>> > >>>>> I think i's clear what I understood. > >>>>> > >>>> LOL! > >>>> > >>>> Your games are amusing as long as you do not take them too far. > >>> > >>> What part wasn't clear? You have an *opinion* on his output. That doesn't > >>> automatically call into question his programming ability > >> > >> Hence why I never pulled into question his programming ability. > > > > Of course you did: > > "Come on, you are a programmer... why can't you do better than I did?" - Snit > > You need a LOT of disclaimers and explanations and adding of known > context in conversation to have any hope of understanding. LOL! You don't "need" anything, whether you meant to, or not, you clearly threw down a gauntlet based on your programming skills vs his in that statement. A logical question any reader might ask after reading it is: Where are Snit's programming efforts? > Here, let me > reword that to give it the same meaning but be a lot more verbose for you: > > Sandman is a programmer. One of skill considerably greater than > mine. One who's skill I respect. One who has shown he generally > knows what he is talking about in terms of programming. Given > that, it is surprising that his auto-posting bot is so crappy. > Your Usenet bot and my AIM bot both produced, in my view, far > better output than his. > > I predict your game No game... anyone can see that you are still *opining* that the output is "crappy", you've even use the term "in my view" in your explanation; not that it's necessary, we all know what one responds to as based on what they've read is their "view". Will someone who opines the output as "great" have cause to grade his programming abilities? Of course not, which is why anyone's opinion on the output is completely irrelevant to that topic, including yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 11:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <fol1qmF6veeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455170 |
On 6/16/18 10:47 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/16/18 10:15 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... >>>>>>>> Do you understand what I meant now? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think i's clear what I understood. >>>>>>> >>>>>> LOL! >>>>>> >>>>>> Your games are amusing as long as you do not take them too far. >>>>> >>>>> What part wasn't clear? You have an *opinion* on his output. That doesn't >>>>> automatically call into question his programming ability >>>> >>>> Hence why I never pulled into question his programming ability. >>> >>> Of course you did: >>> "Come on, you are a programmer... why can't you do better than I did?" - Snit >> >> You need a LOT of disclaimers and explanations and adding of known >> context in conversation to have any hope of understanding. > > LOL! > > You don't "need" anything, whether you meant to, or not, you clearly threw > down a gauntlet based on your programming skills vs his in that statement. > A logical question any reader might ask after reading it is: > Where are Snit's programming efforts? Ah, you start with the nonsense that I was putting his programming skills down (a misunderstanding on your part) and then move to wanting to me prove my skills (though I have repeatedly noted they are poor). You had a good run there being reasonable in another thread but are going back to your game mode. Got it. >> Here, let me >> reword that to give it the same meaning but be a lot more verbose for you: >> >> Sandman is a programmer. One of skill considerably greater than >> mine. One who's skill I respect. One who has shown he generally >> knows what he is talking about in terms of programming. Given >> that, it is surprising that his auto-posting bot is so crappy. >> Your Usenet bot and my AIM bot both produced, in my view, far >> better output than his. >> >> I predict your game will be to insist that I should have anticipated your lack of understanding and helped you wish such verbosity from the start, and that your lack of understanding, and continued failure even on explanation, is somehow my fault. Ah, I left out your snipping as a part of your game. Gee, I only predicted your victim mentality and not your snipping. Good for you, I guess. > No game... anyone can see that you are still *opining* that the output is > "crappy", No shit. > you've even use the term "in my view" in your explanation; not > that it's necessary, we all know what one responds to as based on what > they've read is their "view". > > Will someone who opines the output as "great" have cause to grade his > programming abilities? Of course not, which is why anyone's opinion on > the output is completely irrelevant to that topic, including yours. Ah, even with the paragraph above, written to explain the simple sentence you failed to understand, you STILL insist you are not understanding the connection. Fair enough: you simply do not understand, or will insist you do not. Or, really, will insist your failed understanding of what I said must be what I meant, no matter how many times you are told you are wrong. I cannot change that. Carry on, I suppose. -- 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 11:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <cfd703f2-642e-45d5-b55e-d3e6eeba704a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455171 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:05:14 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/16/18 10:47 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/16/18 10:15 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> ... > >>>>>>>> Do you understand what I meant now? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think i's clear what I understood. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> LOL! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your games are amusing as long as you do not take them too far. > >>>>> > >>>>> What part wasn't clear? You have an *opinion* on his output. That doesn't > >>>>> automatically call into question his programming ability > >>>> > >>>> Hence why I never pulled into question his programming ability. > >>> > >>> Of course you did: > >>> "Come on, you are a programmer... why can't you do better than I did?" - Snit > >> > >> You need a LOT of disclaimers and explanations and adding of known > >> context in conversation to have any hope of understanding. > > > > LOL! > > > > You don't "need" anything, whether you meant to, or not, you clearly threw > > down a gauntlet based on your programming skills vs his in that statement. > > A logical question any reader might ask after reading it is: > > Where are Snit's programming efforts? > > Ah, you start with the nonsense that I was putting his programming > skills down (a misunderstanding on your part) and then move to wanting > to me prove my skills (though I have repeatedly noted they are poor). Moving to? Come on, you are a medical doctor... why can't you do better than I did? Come on, you are a CEO for Apple... why can't you do better than I did? Come on, you are a NASA astronaut... why can't you do better than I did? Come on, you are a business analyst... why can't you do better than I did? > You had a good run there being reasonable in another thread but are > going back to your game mode. Got it. Translation: Do something and loudly squawk the other guy is doing it. > >> Here, let me > >> reword that to give it the same meaning but be a lot more verbose for you: > >> > >> Sandman is a programmer. One of skill considerably greater than > >> mine. One who's skill I respect. One who has shown he generally > >> knows what he is talking about in terms of programming. Given > >> that, it is surprising that his auto-posting bot is so crappy. > >> Your Usenet bot and my AIM bot both produced, in my view, far > >> better output than his. > >> > >> I predict your game will be to insist that I should have anticipated your lack of understanding and helped you wish such verbosity from the start, and that your lack of understanding, and continued failure even on explanation, is somehow my fault. > > Ah, I left out your snipping as a part of your game. Gee, I only > predicted your victim mentality and not your snipping. Good for you, I > guess. > > > No game... anyone can see that you are still *opining* that the output is > > "crappy", > > No shit. A lone opinion. > > you've even use the term "in my view" in your explanation; not > > that it's necessary, we all know what one responds to as based on what > > they've read is their "view". > > > > Will someone who opines the output as "great" have cause to grade his > > programming abilities? Of course not, which is why anyone's opinion on > > the output is completely irrelevant to that topic, including yours. > > Ah, even with the paragraph above, written to explain the simple > sentence you failed to understand, If it's so "simple" then why are you explaining it instead of leaving it be and letting the reader decide I failed to comprehend what I'd read? Here's what you miss: The more you 'explain' it, the more it looks like you agree with my assessment ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 11:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <fol3e1F79bmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455173 |
On 6/16/18 11:22 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:05:14 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/16/18 10:47 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/16/18 10:15 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> Do you understand what I meant now? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think i's clear what I understood. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LOL! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your games are amusing as long as you do not take them too far. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What part wasn't clear? You have an *opinion* on his output. That doesn't >>>>>>> automatically call into question his programming ability >>>>>> >>>>>> Hence why I never pulled into question his programming ability. >>>>> >>>>> Of course you did: >>>>> "Come on, you are a programmer... why can't you do better than I did?" - Snit >>>> >>>> You need a LOT of disclaimers and explanations and adding of known >>>> context in conversation to have any hope of understanding. >>> >>> LOL! >>> >>> You don't "need" anything, whether you meant to, or not, you clearly threw >>> down a gauntlet based on your programming skills vs his in that statement. >>> A logical question any reader might ask after reading it is: >>> Where are Snit's programming efforts? >> >> Ah, you start with the nonsense that I was putting his programming >> skills down (a misunderstanding on your part) and then move to wanting >> to me prove my skills (though I have repeatedly noted they are poor). > > Moving to? > > Come on, you are a medical doctor... why can't you do better than I did? > > Come on, you are a CEO for Apple... why can't you do better than I did? > > Come on, you are a NASA astronaut... why can't you do better than I did? > > Come on, you are a business analyst... why can't you do better than I did? > >> You had a good run there being reasonable in another thread but are >> going back to your game mode. Got it. > > Translation: Do something and loudly squawk the other guy is doing it. > >>>> Here, let me >>>> reword that to give it the same meaning but be a lot more verbose for you: >>>> >>>> Sandman is a programmer. One of skill considerably greater than >>>> mine. One who's skill I respect. One who has shown he generally >>>> knows what he is talking about in terms of programming. Given >>>> that, it is surprising that his auto-posting bot is so crappy. >>>> Your Usenet bot and my AIM bot both produced, in my view, far >>>> better output than his. >>>> >>>> I predict your game will be to insist that I should have anticipated your lack of understanding and helped you wish such verbosity from the start, and that your lack of understanding, and continued failure even on explanation, is somehow my fault. >> >> Ah, I left out your snipping as a part of your game. Gee, I only >> predicted your victim mentality and not your snipping. Good for you, I >> guess. >> >>> No game... anyone can see that you are still *opining* that the output is >>> "crappy", >> >> No shit. > > A lone opinion. > >>> you've even use the term "in my view" in your explanation; not >>> that it's necessary, we all know what one responds to as based on what >>> they've read is their "view". >>> >>> Will someone who opines the output as "great" have cause to grade his >>> programming abilities? Of course not, which is why anyone's opinion on >>> the output is completely irrelevant to that topic, including yours. >> >> Ah, even with the paragraph above, written to explain the simple >> sentence you failed to understand, > > If it's so "simple" then why are you explaining it instead of leaving it be and > letting the reader decide I failed to comprehend what I'd read? > > Here's what you miss: > The more you 'explain' it, the more it looks like you agree with my assessment ;) > Sandman is a programmer. One of skill considerably greater than mine. One who's skill I respect. One who has shown he generally knows what he is talking about in terms of programming. Given that, it is surprising that his auto-posting bot is so crappy. Your Usenet bot and my AIM bot both produced, in my view, far better output than his. If you disagree and think his bot's output is somehow amazingly spectacular, or merely just better than what you and I produced, that is fine with me. If you wish to misinterpret my comments and say that I am putting down his programming skills I will, and have, correct you but I cannot force a horse to drink, I can only bring him to water. If you blame me for your failure to understand that is on you, and given your victim mentality it is not in any way surprising. I think that pretty much covers 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 12:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <6b16ab21-f4fc-4b36-86da-92c7c9466ad9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455174 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: (snip) > >> Ah, even with the paragraph above, written to explain the simple > >> sentence you failed to understand, > > > > If it's so "simple" then why are you explaining it instead of leaving it be and > > letting the reader decide I failed to comprehend what I'd read? > > > > Here's what you miss: > > The more you 'explain' it, the more it looks like you agree with my assessment ;) > > > > > Sandman is a programmer. One of skill considerably greater than mine. > One who's skill I respect. One who has shown he generally knows what he > is talking about in terms of programming. Opinions a reader would never suspect from you after reading your statement. > Given that, it is surprising > that his auto-posting bot is so crappy. An opinion you hold by yourself, that should tell you something. > If you disagree and think his bot's output is somehow amazingly > spectacular, or merely just better than what you and I produced, that is > fine with me. I'm saying the output isn't relevant. Look at how you're generating text responses as an example, as compared to how my lame ones (because I haven't given consideration to the exact output) are bing generated. No one will look at spaghetti code and claim it's better than structured code unless they have no idea about code. > If you wish to misinterpret my comments and say that I am > putting down his programming skills I will, and have, correct you but I > cannot force a horse to drink, I can only bring him to water. > > If you blame me for your failure to understand that is on you Could be that.. could be that you didn't convey what you intended. I'd argue the latter, given that you're spending so much time trying to 'explain' it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 12:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <fol5qaF7ngpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455175 |
On 6/16/18 12:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > (snip) > >>>> Ah, even with the paragraph above, written to explain the simple >>>> sentence you failed to understand, >>> >>> If it's so "simple" then why are you explaining it instead of leaving it be and >>> letting the reader decide I failed to comprehend what I'd read? >>> >>> Here's what you miss: >>> The more you 'explain' it, the more it looks like you agree with my assessment ;) >>> >> >> >> Sandman is a programmer. One of skill considerably greater than mine. >> One who's skill I respect. One who has shown he generally knows what he >> is talking about in terms of programming. > > Opinions a reader would never suspect from you after reading your statement. Whom else are you speaking for? >> Given that, it is surprising >> that his auto-posting bot is so crappy. > > An opinion you hold by yourself, that should tell you something. Whom else are you speaking for? >> If you disagree and think his bot's output is somehow amazingly >> spectacular, or merely just better than what you and I produced, that is >> fine with me. > > I'm saying the output isn't relevant. Given how the output is what I am talking about, it is extremely relevant! > Look at how you're generating > text responses as an example, as compared to how my lame ones > (because I haven't given consideration to the exact output) are > bing generated. No one will look at spaghetti code and claim it's > better than structured code unless they have no idea about code. > >> If you wish to misinterpret my comments and say that I am >> putting down his programming skills I will, and have, correct you but I >> cannot force a horse to drink, I can only bring him to water. >> >> If you blame me for your failure to understand that is on you > > Could be that.. could be that you didn't convey what you intended. > I'd argue the latter, given that you're spending so much time trying > to 'explain' it. Ah, you repeatedly fail to understand and use my patience in explaining it to you as "evidence" that I did not mean what I meant. Oy. -- 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 12:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <aa9449c7-a7be-4cf2-a74f-f5a0c1dcee68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455177 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 1:13:18 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/16/18 12:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > >>>> Ah, even with the paragraph above, written to explain the simple > >>>> sentence you failed to understand, > >>> > >>> If it's so "simple" then why are you explaining it instead of leaving it be and > >>> letting the reader decide I failed to comprehend what I'd read? > >>> > >>> Here's what you miss: > >>> The more you 'explain' it, the more it looks like you agree with my assessment ;) > >>> > >> > >> > >> Sandman is a programmer. One of skill considerably greater than mine. > >> One who's skill I respect. One who has shown he generally knows what he > >> is talking about in terms of programming. > > > > Opinions a reader would never suspect from you after reading your statement. > > Whom else are you speaking for? Why would anyone suspect you'd ever give him programming kudos after reading something like that? > >> Given that, it is surprising > >> that his auto-posting bot is so crappy. > > > > An opinion you hold by yourself, that should tell you something. > > Whom else are you speaking for? Who has stated otherwise? That there is a ton of evidence no one would also speaks volumes. > >> If you disagree and think his bot's output is somehow amazingly > >> spectacular, or merely just better than what you and I produced, that is > >> fine with me. > > > > I'm saying the output isn't relevant. > > Given how the output is what I am talking about, it is extremely relevant! Not to programming it isn't. > > Look at how you're generating > > text responses as an example, as compared to how my lame ones > > (because I haven't given consideration to the exact output) are > > bing generated. No one will look at spaghetti code and claim it's > > better than structured code unless they have no idea about code. > > > >> If you wish to misinterpret my comments and say that I am > >> putting down his programming skills I will, and have, correct you but I > >> cannot force a horse to drink, I can only bring him to water. > >> > >> If you blame me for your failure to understand that is on you > > > > Could be that.. could be that you didn't convey what you intended. > > I'd argue the latter, given that you're spending so much time trying > > to 'explain' it. > Ah, you repeatedly fail to understand and use my patience in explaining > it to you as "evidence" that I did not mean what I meant. > > Oy. Indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 12:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <fol72eF7utmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455178 |
On 6/16/18 12:24 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 1:13:18 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/16/18 12:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>>>>> Ah, even with the paragraph above, written to explain the simple >>>>>> sentence you failed to understand, >>>>> >>>>> If it's so "simple" then why are you explaining it instead of leaving it be and >>>>> letting the reader decide I failed to comprehend what I'd read? >>>>> >>>>> Here's what you miss: >>>>> The more you 'explain' it, the more it looks like you agree with my assessment ;) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sandman is a programmer. One of skill considerably greater than mine. >>>> One who's skill I respect. One who has shown he generally knows what he >>>> is talking about in terms of programming. >>> >>> Opinions a reader would never suspect from you after reading your statement. >> >> Whom else are you speaking for? > > Why would anyone suspect you'd ever give him programming kudos after > reading something like that? > >>>> Given that, it is surprising >>>> that his auto-posting bot is so crappy. >>> >>> An opinion you hold by yourself, that should tell you something. >> >> Whom else are you speaking for? > > Who has stated otherwise? That there is a ton of evidence no one would > also speaks volumes. > >>>> If you disagree and think his bot's output is somehow amazingly >>>> spectacular, or merely just better than what you and I produced, that is >>>> fine with me. >>> >>> I'm saying the output isn't relevant. >> >> Given how the output is what I am talking about, it is extremely relevant! > > Not to programming it isn't. > >>> Look at how you're generating >>> text responses as an example, as compared to how my lame ones >>> (because I haven't given consideration to the exact output) are >>> bing generated. No one will look at spaghetti code and claim it's >>> better than structured code unless they have no idea about code. >>> >>>> If you wish to misinterpret my comments and say that I am >>>> putting down his programming skills I will, and have, correct you but I >>>> cannot force a horse to drink, I can only bring him to water. >>>> >>>> If you blame me for your failure to understand that is on you >>> >>> Could be that.. could be that you didn't convey what you intended. >>> I'd argue the latter, given that you're spending so much time trying >>> to 'explain' it. >> Ah, you repeatedly fail to understand and use my patience in explaining >> it to you as "evidence" that I did not mean what I meant. >> >> Oy. > > Indeed. > Without going line by line in your games: I *still* find it surprising, given Sandman's impressive programming skills, that the OUTPUT of his bot is, in my view, far inferior to my AIM bot or your Usenet bot. If you disagree and think his programming skills are not as impressive as I do, or if you think his bot output is more impressive than I find it, that is fine by me. As far as your efforts to blame me for your misunderstanding, your claims that my patience with you is support of your misunderstanding being correct, and your repeat claims to speak for unnamed others, I am not going to follow you down that rabbit hole every time you beg me to and then dodge the questions I ask you about your claims. Have a great day! -- 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 13:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <010bc350-04b4-4eef-bdeb-98f0a1f9067d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455180 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > Without going line by line in your games: No games needed... and no one needs to go line by line on your 1 line statement ... that you written dozens of statements about now ;) > I *still* find it surprising, > given Sandman's impressive programming skills, that the OUTPUT of his > bot is, in my view, far inferior to my AIM bot or your Usenet bot. Define "inferior" where it's not doing what he intended it to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 14:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <foldsqF97f7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455184 |
On 6/16/18 1:56 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> Without going line by line in your games: > > No games needed... and no one needs to go line by line on your 1 line statement > .... that you written dozens of statements about now ;) > >> I *still* find it surprising, >> given Sandman's impressive programming skills, that the OUTPUT of his >> bot is, in my view, far inferior to my AIM bot or your Usenet bot. > > Define "inferior" where it's not doing what he intended it to do. If we want to get into ratings we can do so. This will be somewhat subjective, but here is how I would rate them off hand. Say 1-10 in these two categories: A) Responding to what was said B) Giving a human-like response With A (Responding to what was said): Sandman: 3 At least as far as I can see, his bot DOES respond to sentences, but has little or nothing to do with the sentence it responds to. The only "understanding" shown is known what a sentence is, not content. It also repeats a LOT. But it does break that content up and respond, so 3 instead of 1. Carroll: 2 As far as I can tell your bot does not respond to ANYTHING that was said, it just plops in new content at the end. I have seen you talk about it giving customized responses so I rate a 2 instead of a 1 based on perhaps misplaced trust in you. If you have examples of your bot doing better I would like to see it. Snit: 6 Here is where mine really shines compared to what you two do... with the keyword checking, the rating of "reaction" scores for different people, the checking to see if it mentions the bot, etc. it did quite well. Of course it has nothing even approaching AI... so I would not put it any higher than this. With B (Giving a human-like response): Sandman: 1 His comments are nothing like what a human would say. They are just random insults and links. It also posts numbers so he can log his trolling or whatever. Completely useless and absurd... yet Sandman has claimed there is supposed to be value and meaning to what is basically arbitrary nonsense. Carroll: 5 Your comments are reasonably human-like. Heck, in a FB group people found your posts where you trolled me and they thought it was an actual person (albeit an insane one). With that said, it does repeat a lot of posts, if not exactly close to it. I have seen it repost things *I* have written with little alteration. That gets you marked down (even if you are doing so to play victim or whatever). Snit: 6 People were sometimes convinced my bot was a human for hours at times, and it could handle a range of topics. It did not come close to passing a Turing test but it was pretty darn good. As I have said the best AIM bot I saw. This gives us scores of: Sandman: 4 Carroll: 7 Snit: 12 Now this is just my own rating... and it is all approximate. Maybe you would rate them in other ways or with different scores. What is interesting is how the scores there are opposite of how good of programmers I would say we are: Sandman is better than either of us and you are better than me. Maybe NOT thinking like a programmer offers benefits for this type of work. Even if you disagree with my ratings, though, do you see where this is NOT putting down Sandman's programming skills -- it is noting how odd it seems that his bot is so bad considering his programming skills are better than ours. You not only misunderstood my comment about his skills, you got my view completely backward. -- 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 16:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <bf85a5f1-6508-4ad5-a955-cb28cb21b072@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455187 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 3:31:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/16/18 1:56 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > > >> Without going line by line in your games: > > > > No games needed... and no one needs to go line by line on your 1 line statement > > .... that you written dozens of statements about now ;) > > > >> I *still* find it surprising, > >> given Sandman's impressive programming skills, that the OUTPUT of his > >> bot is, in my view, far inferior to my AIM bot or your Usenet bot. > > > > Define "inferior" where it's not doing what he intended it to do. > > If we want to get into ratings we can do so. OK... <http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html> See? No one shares your opinion of your behavior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 17:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <folp73Fb36qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455190 |
On 6/16/18 4:12 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 3:31:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/16/18 1:56 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> Without going line by line in your games: >>> >>> No games needed... and no one needs to go line by line on your 1 line statement >>> .... that you written dozens of statements about now ;) >>> >>>> I *still* find it surprising, >>>> given Sandman's impressive programming skills, that the OUTPUT of his >>>> bot is, in my view, far inferior to my AIM bot or your Usenet bot. >>> >>> Define "inferior" where it's not doing what he intended it to do. >> >> If we want to get into ratings we can do so. This will be somewhat subjective, but here is how I would rate them off hand. >> >> Say 1-10 in these two categories: >> >> A) Responding to what was said >> B) Giving a human-like response >> >> With A (Responding to what was said): >> >> Sandman: 3 >> At least as far as I can see, his bot DOES respond to sentences, but has little or nothing to do with the sentence it responds to. The only "understanding" shown is known what a sentence is, not content. It also repeats a LOT. But it does break that content up and respond, so 3 instead of 1. >> >> Carroll: 2 >> As far as I can tell your bot does not respond to ANYTHING that was said, it just plops in new content at the end. I have seen you talk about it giving customized responses so I rate a 2 instead of a 1 based on perhaps misplaced trust in you. If you have examples of your bot doing better I would like to see it. >> >> Snit: 6 >> Here is where mine really shines compared to what you two do... with the keyword checking, the rating of "reaction" scores for different people, the checking to see if it mentions the bot, etc. it did quite well. Of course it has nothing even approaching AI... so I would not put it any higher than this. >> >> With B (Giving a human-like response): >> >> Sandman: 1 >> His comments are nothing like what a human would say. They are just random insults and links. It also posts numbers so he can log his trolling or whatever. Completely useless and absurd... yet Sandman has claimed there is supposed to be value and meaning to what is basically arbitrary nonsense. >> >> Carroll: 5 >> Your comments are reasonably human-like. Heck, in a FB group people found your posts where you trolled me and they thought it was an actual person (albeit an insane one). With that said, it does repeat a lot of posts, if not exactly close to it. I have seen it repost things *I* have written with little alteration. That gets you marked down (even if you are doing so to play victim or whatever). >> >> Snit: 6 >> People were sometimes convinced my bot was a human for hours at times, and it could handle a range of topics. It did not come close to passing a Turing test but it was pretty darn good. As I have said the best AIM bot I saw. >> >> This gives us scores of: >> >> Sandman: 4 >> Carroll: 7 >> Snit: 12 >> >> Now this is just my own rating... and it is all approximate. Maybe you would rate them in other ways or with different scores. What is interesting is how the scores there are opposite of how good of programmers I would say we are: Sandman is better than either of us and you are better than me. Maybe NOT thinking like a programmer offers benefits for this type of work. >> >> Even if you disagree with my ratings, though, do you see where this is NOT putting down Sandman's programming skills -- it is noting how odd it seems that his bot is so bad considering his programming skills are better than ours. You not only misunderstood my comment about his skills, you got my view completely backward. > OK... > > <http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html> > > See? No one shares your opinion of your behavior. Seriously, why just snip and ignore the whole conversation? Why not answer if you *finally* get why I find it surprising that Sandman's bot is so poorly done given his programming skills. -- 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 20:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <fd9b003e-5b3d-4699-a866-bbd8a1532e63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455196 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 6:44:23 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > Why not answer if you *finally* get why I find it surprising that > Sandman's bot is so poorly done given his programming skills. I can't answer that because I disagree that it's poorly done. I can only say I disagree with your opinion on the output... like most everyone on your list would (and essentially already has).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 21:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <fom4rqFcvbiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455210 |
On 6/16/18 8:30 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 6:44:23 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> Why not answer if you *finally* get why I find it surprising that >> Sandman's bot is so poorly done given his programming skills. > > I can't answer that because I disagree that it's poorly done. That it is surprising to me given how I see his bot as being done so poorly. Do you see his bot as being done well? > I can only say > I disagree with your opinion on the output... like most everyone on your > list would (and essentially already has). List? What the hell. At this point you are clearly just trolling... your claim about my having put Sandman's skills down was absurd. Good to know you see that. -- 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 | 2018-06-16 21:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <foleguF99p8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455184 |
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 13:56:19 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> Without going line by line in your games: > > No games needed... and no one needs to go line by line on your 1 line > statement ... that you written dozens of statements about now ;) > >> I *still* find it surprising, >> given Sandman's impressive programming skills, that the OUTPUT of his >> bot is, in my view, far inferior to my AIM bot or your Usenet bot. > > Define "inferior" where it's not doing what he intended it to do. It's not a screen capture off a Mac screen? -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 14:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 |
| Message-ID | <folf3dF9dj2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455188 |
On 6/16/18 2:41 PM, vallor wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 13:56:19 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> >>> Without going line by line in your games: >> >> No games needed... and no one needs to go line by line on your 1 line >> statement ... that you written dozens of statements about now ;) >> >>> I *still* find it surprising, >>> given Sandman's impressive programming skills, that the OUTPUT of his >>> bot is, in my view, far inferior to my AIM bot or your Usenet bot. >> >> Define "inferior" where it's not doing what he intended it to do. > > It's not a screen capture off a Mac screen? > As far as I know all of the bots are text-only. :) -- 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 | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 06:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-b2599cbd7a2fdee85c39d954cccb722e@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453034 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <fnd5jkFk0r9U1@mid.individual.net>, Snit wrote: > > > > > > > > simon singh: > > > > > > > > Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve > > > > > > > > Carroll not to bother you. Do you have any proof of > > > > > > > > this potentially libelous statement? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Snit: > > > > > > > There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was > > > > > > > contacted by the police over his harassment, nor > > > > > > > anything wrong with noting they spoke to him about what > > > > > > > lines he has crossed. > > > > > > > > > > > > simon singh: > > > > > > Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try > > > > > > and use a little basic reading comprehension skills, the > > > > > > question is do you have any proof of your claims. So do > > > > > > you? > > > > > > > > > > Cat got your tongue snit? > > > > > > > > Since snit apparently has no proof that Steve Carroll was > > > > contacted by the police the only conclusion that can be made > > > > is that snit has been caught in yet another one of his lies. > > > > > > > Why are you such a dishonest person snit? > > > > > > Snit: > > > It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the police over his > > > harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted to. > > > > simon singh: > > Then it should be trivial for you to prove this. > > Not really, but also not really of any importance. Your belief or > lack of belief is of no real concern. As I said, it is merely a fact > that Carroll was contacted by the police for his harassment. No, it's merely a claim that he was. A claim from you. A 100% unsubstantiated claim from you. I.e. hot air. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJbFNcVAAoJECFEwfBaA+jRyhMH/0sXrZQBJxY8RR+yABrEscm1 0jO4Zw/LZenrUJnpBPupRE90GPoGsOpqLh7bbnFbQYhtG7ebsPedK59uJLFDqy3e ts8g1Jj/LVUrJCmt82IOzBr6h3g05LSfTtScJr7RP+0dxDYP/RY3DbrHa4NPAjd0 h+5r1iphbGNJklpN2I5v+msJXwiCGvfulaffPJ+F+EpXDxPjanVcFxJiUoQsZQBe LYFUYRayvfds0TbuLt9Bxhh0urtY7O4gBmJf8J2TbSdzPCOXONS2ndB7jTKmzD0C vMijBYHwrq2aEPjA518kyo5uYEVLrW2keoigNjv0jlbnx6kQGuEviifQy21XV2g= =srpX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 23:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnk59sFtnkvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453823 |
On 6/3/18 11:07 PM, Sandman wrote:
>>>> Snit:
>>>> It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the police over his
>>>> harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted to.
>>> simon singh:
>>> Then it should be trivial for you to prove this.
>> Not really, but also not really of any importance. Your belief or
>> lack of belief is of no real concern. As I said, it is merely a fact
>> that Carroll was contacted by the police for his harassment.
> No, it's merely a claim that he was. A claim from you. A 100% unsubstantiated
> claim from you. I.e. hot air.
What an odd twist from you.
Anyway, did you see where Carroll tossed you under he bus again? He
FINALLY admitted the page of yours with the faulty CSS was, in deed,
code that would not validate. He also claimed you admitted to this before.
Invalid styling code shown on sandman.net <https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o>:
<div style="padding: 3px; align: center;">
Same errors noted at the time (proving not from WBM changes):
Message-ID: <C0A30BB5.502C7%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
-----
Line: 373
Property align doesn't exist : center
Line: 412
Property align doesn't exist : center
Line: 431
Property align doesn't exist : center
-----
And now Carroll has admitted I was right all along.
Curious what you say about 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 | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 12:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-1e4873f0493fc5b90bc4790e7f8f2214@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453826 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <fnk59sFtnkvU1@mid.individual.net>, Snit wrote: > > > > > Snit: > > > > > It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the > > > > > police over his harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted > > > > > to. > > > > > > > > simon singh: > > > > Then it should be trivial for you to prove this. > > > > > > Snit: > > > Not really, but also not really of any importance. Your belief > > > or lack of belief is of no real concern. As I said, it is merely > > > a fact that Carroll was contacted by the police for his > > > harassment. > > > > Sandman: > > No, it's merely a claim that he was. A claim from you. A 100% > > unsubstantiated claim from you. I.e. hot air. > > What an odd twist from you. Just the facts, ma'm. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJbFTZgAAoJECFEwfBaA+jRDU8H/0Cd1AvIPVJYqniAV1Q6hAJr 7GOMMz1uVoFAASGX3lBSMBrkW+TWM/pou01pnITqaRmgBYEaY2KTZ7QlawxnP3gS Tbn2jXCLhi9GP/FZT5CEFWCEpeGCHJO4CYoSebQhSAo2WMIYmOr35O6ot6Yqyc9Y b1heE3Xnqt4Hqi9tKq/F16o/sg60QQIFTj+pYbrEKaQVQnu5fxSpdQqRhv8TndQO gtAWAC8Rk2BAZquuoZUeByYiDzB7kQa2y/J54qUenT+TN/gWLy4J0qplkDVI+4PL EEkzlM3m3p2sZPbioSwVHiTViDDz4DPvoVG0gRvh8Gc2XjyJrlPxqgUzVmPa1QE= =hre0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web