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 8 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 39 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 11:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fonn9gFm8llU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455232 |
On 6/17/18 11:00 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > 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. There are some, such as "doMath" which I think would have to be separate ... they just are too different from the others, and other are more similar but still different enough where it might not be possible. But most are fairly similar, just using or not using "reaction" (how much the person is "liked", "someOne" (someone else other than the person the bot is responding to), "mentionMe", and maybe others -- but they can be passed with some notation if they are needed. Maybe. Would have to work that out. Even if I needed a few functions depending on specifics many could likely be consolidated. -- 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 13:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <c492a7a0-c4bd-42ea-aeea-02fe40c0d7bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455233 |
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 12:23:47 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/17/18 11:00 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > 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. > > There are some, such as "doMath" which I think would have to be separate > ... they just are too different from the others, and other are more > similar but still different enough where it might not be possible. But > most are fairly similar, just using or not using "reaction" (how much > the person is "liked", "someOne" (someone else other than the person the > bot is responding to), "mentionMe", and maybe others -- but they can be > passed with some notation if they are needed. Maybe. Would have to work > that out. Even if I needed a few functions depending on specifics many > could likely be consolidated. I assume that reaction is checked on every input and mentionMe probably should be (if you recall our previous conversation on it)... if true (actually, even if not), there's no reason they can't be handled pretty easily: <https://streamable.com/vngli> These are currently in the response function, I put 'em in because they were so small for the outcomes required to show it can be easily done. I'd probably break them out into their own functions if there was a ton of stuff going on with them (and I mean other than text responses), if not, I'd just expand the number of outputs for 'bot' and leave it. In case you're wondering, it's really not a lot of code: <https://imgur.com/a/fFGU2b3> IOW, not counting blank lines, there are less than 20 lines blurred... you're only that many lines away from giving your bot a new brain ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 15:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <foo6d6Fp2e0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455234 |
On 6/17/18 1:16 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >>>> 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. >> >> There are some, such as "doMath" which I think would have to be separate >> ... they just are too different from the others, and other are more >> similar but still different enough where it might not be possible. But >> most are fairly similar, just using or not using "reaction" (how much >> the person is "liked", "someOne" (someone else other than the person the >> bot is responding to), "mentionMe", and maybe others -- but they can be >> passed with some notation if they are needed. Maybe. Would have to work >> that out. Even if I needed a few functions depending on specifics many >> could likely be consolidated. > > I assume that reaction is checked on every input and mentionMe probably > should be (if you recall our previous conversation on it)... if true (actually, > even if not), there's no reason they can't be handled pretty easily: > > <https://streamable.com/vngli> There are quite a few where mentionMe is not checked, including some which have added complexity. For example, check out "osText" here: <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/TuringText.txt> Trying to do something like that in a universal function would be a challenge. It is not that many could not be done that way, but there are lots of topics where things have to be customized (or at least I found if they were the bot ran a lot better). Not denying there are better ways to do things, but so far I have not see you or Sandman (both better programmers than I am) nor others (many of whom are better programmers than me -- this is a very low bar!) do better than I have. I am going to guess it has something to do with: 1) The time I put into something so useless. It was fun for me and I put in FAR more time than I "should" have. 2) Understanding the human side of it. I am NOT a good programmer, but I have a pretty good understanding of humans. That is important for such a program. > These are currently in the response function, I put 'em in because they > were so small for the outcomes required to show it can be easily done. > I'd probably break them out into their own functions if there was a ton > of stuff going on with them (and I mean other than text responses), if > not, I'd just expand the number of outputs for 'bot' and leave it. If I understand you correctly there, you are noting you might need to break things out into their own functions sometimes... but the goal would be to do that as rarely as reasonably possible. If so that makes sense to me. > In case > you're wondering, it's really not a lot of code: > > <https://imgur.com/a/fFGU2b3> > > IOW, not counting blank lines, there are less than 20 lines blurred... > you're only that many lines away from giving your bot a new brain ;) Well, that would leave out a lot, but, sure there are ways to make it much better than it is. My bot also tracked whom it was talking to (no more than five at a time, and if someone did not talk for some time they were bumped from the list to give someone else a chance... or if "mentionMe" was true someone could be added to the list, etc.), and all sorts of other things. The "brain" was actually not THAT much longer than your code: <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/Turing%20Brain.txt> -- 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 19:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <52e920e0-043e-49e8-a61c-8e5d4c0a2caf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455235 |
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:41:46 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > There are quite a few where mentionMe is not checked, As it can (and IMO, should) be checked on every input, and it's trivial to include it, there are more reasons to do so than not (it is part of a basic response, after all). > including some > which have added complexity. For example, check out "osText" here: > > <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/TuringText.txt> > > Trying to do something like that in a universal function would be a > challenge. It is not that many could not be done that way, but there are > lots of topics where things have to be customized (or at least I found > if they were the bot ran a lot better). I don't know what they are but I have no doubt they couldn't be handled the way I previously mentioned. > Not denying there are better ways to do things, but so far I have not > see you or Sandman (both better programmers than I am) nor others (many > of whom are better programmers than me -- this is a very low bar!) do > better than I have. The output is based on the sentence and word pairings, which can be done any old way, as you proved with spaghetti muscle. The point I'm making is, had you started like this, you would have been able to put your time into more and better pairings, which is what creates a more human-like bot. I get it, you're attached to all the work you put in... but this is a better way to go. Can you write stuff that'd do anything this would? Sure... but I'd be writing more pairings in the mean time and you'd have to catch up again. The bigger problem is it wouldn't be linear on subsequent attempts so, at some point, you wouldn't be able to keep up. Do you understand why this would be the case? > I am going to guess it has something to do with: > > 1) The time I put into something so useless. It was fun for me and I put > in FAR more time than I "should" have. As you learned along the way I wouldn't call that useless, not by a long stretch. > 2) Understanding the human side of it. I am NOT a good programmer, but I > have a pretty good understanding of humans. That is important for such a > program. > > > These are currently in the response function, I put 'em in because they > > were so small for the outcomes required to show it can be easily done. > > I'd probably break them out into their own functions if there was a ton > > of stuff going on with them (and I mean other than text responses), if > > not, I'd just expand the number of outputs for 'bot' and leave it. > > If I understand you correctly there, you are noting you might need to > break things out into their own functions sometimes... but the goal > would be to do that as rarely as reasonably possible. If so that makes > sense to me. Yes, you get as many things as are a 'normal' part of the response sequence dealt with. > > In case > > you're wondering, it's really not a lot of code: > > > > <https://imgur.com/a/fFGU2b3> > > > > IOW, not counting blank lines, there are less than 20 lines blurred... > > you're only that many lines away from giving your bot a new brain ;) > > Well, that would leave out a lot, but, sure there are ways to make it > much better than it is. > > My bot also tracked whom it was talking to (no more than five at a time, > and if someone did not talk for some time they were bumped from the list > to give someone else a chance... or if "mentionMe" was true someone > could be added to the list, etc.), and all sorts of other things. You're just writing functions so you couldn't come up with an example that wouldn't be able to be handled the way I mentioned stated. No matter how you twirl 'em, spaghetti functions are still just functions ;) > The "brain" was actually not THAT much longer than your code: > > <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/Turing%20Brain.txt> C'mon, dude... you had 'grey matter' splattered all over the joint ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 20:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <foom6vFri8kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455240 |
On 6/17/18 7:56 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:41:46 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> There are quite a few where mentionMe is not checked, > > As it can (and IMO, should) be checked on every input, and it's > trivial to include it, there are more reasons to do so than not > (it is part of a basic response, after all). The main reason not to is the need to add content if you are (or are not) mentioned. I already have a LOT of content... it would take more. And there are many times when it is not really relevant -- you do not need to recognize when someone mentions you in every statement they do. >> including some >> which have added complexity. For example, check out "osText" here: >> >> <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/TuringText.txt> >> >> Trying to do something like that in a universal function would be a >> challenge. It is not that many could not be done that way, but there are >> lots of topics where things have to be customized (or at least I found >> if they were the bot ran a lot better). > > I don't know what they are but I have no doubt they couldn't > be handled the way I previously mentioned. Did you even look at the function? >> Not denying there are better ways to do things, but so far I have not >> see you or Sandman (both better programmers than I am) nor others (many >> of whom are better programmers than me -- this is a very low bar!) do >> better than I have. > > The output is based on the sentence and word pairings, which can > be done any old way, as you proved with spaghetti muscle. There is more than just "word pairings". > The > point I'm making is, had you started like this, you would have > been able to put your time into more and better pairings, which > is what creates a more human-like bot. I get it, you're attached > to all the work you put in... but this is a better way to go. Again, not denying there are many which could be combined, but, again, have you even looked at the functions you say could be combined? > Can you write stuff that'd do anything this would? Sure... but > I'd be writing more pairings in the mean time and you'd have to > catch up again. The bigger problem is it wouldn't be linear on > subsequent attempts so, at some point, you wouldn't be able to > keep up. Do you understand why this would be the case? I understand you can add more, but that does not mean you can add BETTER replies. But, sure, being able to streamline how many of the functions are done, combining them, is a benefit. >> I am going to guess it has something to do with: >> >> 1) The time I put into something so useless. It was fun for me and I put >> in FAR more time than I "should" have. > > As you learned along the way I wouldn't call that useless, not > by a long stretch. Fair enough... and it was enjoyable. >> 2) Understanding the human side of it. I am NOT a good programmer, but I >> have a pretty good understanding of humans. That is important for such a >> program. This is a part I am not sure you get. You see content as quantity but there are places where quality might be sacrificed. Again, NOT saying you are wrong to think in terms of combining (I would say you are right) but there would be a fair number of "special" cases. >>> These are currently in the response function, I put 'em in because they >>> were so small for the outcomes required to show it can be easily done. >>> I'd probably break them out into their own functions if there was a ton >>> of stuff going on with them (and I mean other than text responses), if >>> not, I'd just expand the number of outputs for 'bot' and leave it. >> >> If I understand you correctly there, you are noting you might need to >> break things out into their own functions sometimes... but the goal >> would be to do that as rarely as reasonably possible. If so that makes >> sense to me. > > Yes, you get as many things as are a 'normal' part of the response > sequence dealt with. So above we might be using different terms but largely agreeing -- combine when you can and when you cannot it is OK to use "one off" functions. >>> In case >>> you're wondering, it's really not a lot of code: >>> >>> <https://imgur.com/a/fFGU2b3> >>> >>> IOW, not counting blank lines, there are less than 20 lines blurred... >>> you're only that many lines away from giving your bot a new brain ;) >> >> Well, that would leave out a lot, but, sure there are ways to make it >> much better than it is. >> >> My bot also tracked whom it was talking to (no more than five at a time, >> and if someone did not talk for some time they were bumped from the list >> to give someone else a chance... or if "mentionMe" was true someone >> could be added to the list, etc.), and all sorts of other things. > > You're just writing functions so you couldn't come up with > an example that wouldn't be able to be handled the way I > mentioned stated. No matter how you twirl 'em, spaghetti > functions are still just functions ;) Of course they are functions... but if one function did everything possible you could just that one function for everything. :) But I think we are mostly in agreement -- combined where you can but understand there may be some one-off examples. >> The "brain" was actually not THAT much longer than your code: >> >> <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/Turing%20Brain.txt> > > C'mon, dude... you had 'grey matter' splattered all over the joint ;) I do have a rather insane number of global variables... but meant I did not have to pass things to my 10,000 functions. If you look right under there I have my settings... and you can see some of the features other than just simple pairings: --***************************************************** -- SETTINGS BEGIN set bot_chances to 3 -- how many chances you are given before completely ignored set queue_size to 3 -- number of people to focus on at once: 3 set myPatience to 10 -- if I do not speak for this many (non-bot) postings, open a spot: 7 set waitTime to 60 -- number of seconds allowed to be behind before resetting queue and losing posts: 60 set block_count to 3 -- number of possible bots to have on ignore at 1 time set self_mem to 100 -- how many posts to remember, used for finding dupes: 50 set other_mem to 25 -- how many of others posts to remember, use for dupes & reaction: 25 set allow_dupes to 5 -- number of time I can duplicate the same set of phrases (2nd posting is dupe 1): 2 set dupe_me to true --allow repeated responses to my own name (only if allow_dupes would allow): True set doTypos to true --make some typos in my replies: True set fastTypos to true --make some typos in my replies if I am catching up (or more if doType is True): True set logResponseText to true -- log categories I respond to: True set logMeRespond to true -- log postings that I respond to: True set logMyResponse to true -- log my responses: True set logMeIgnore to true -- log postings that I do NOT respond to: True set logRepeats to false -- log repeated comments: False set logBots to false -- log postings from bots: False set beBot to true -- if false then is only a bot blocker: True set font_color to "#990066" -- 990066 = wine, 006600 = green, 000000 = black, 0000FF = Blue, 990000 = Red, 9900CC = Purple --***************************************************** -- SETTINGS END -- 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 21:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <412dbfbb-61d3-4158-968e-9403bd402dfa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455241 |
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 9:11:30 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/17/18 7:56 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:41:46 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > > >> There are quite a few where mentionMe is not checked, > > > > As it can (and IMO, should) be checked on every input, and it's > > trivial to include it, there are more reasons to do so than not > > (it is part of a basic response, after all). > > The main reason not to is the need to add content if you are (or are > not) mentioned. I already have a LOT of content... it would take more. > And there are many times when it is not really relevant That doesn't happen here and it took me about 10 seconds to add it because the code is organized. I just pop the object in, put it's name in one location and it works. > -- you do not > need to recognize when someone mentions you in every statement they do. Look, whatever you're doing to check when it's relevant doesn't require writing spaghetti to do it, that's the point you don't seem to grasp. I'm using using the same kind of stuff you are, I'm just doing so with organization. > >> including some > >> which have added complexity. For example, check out "osText" here: > >> > >> <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/TuringText.txt> > >> > >> Trying to do something like that in a universal function would be a > >> challenge. It is not that many could not be done that way, but there are > >> lots of topics where things have to be customized (or at least I found > >> if they were the bot ran a lot better). > > > > I don't know what they are but I have no doubt they couldn't > > be handled the way I previously mentioned. > > Did you even look at the function? No need. > >> Not denying there are better ways to do things, but so far I have not > >> see you or Sandman (both better programmers than I am) nor others (many > >> of whom are better programmers than me -- this is a very low bar!) do > >> better than I have. > > > > The output is based on the sentence and word pairings, which can > > be done any old way, as you proved with spaghetti muscle. > > There is more than just "word pairings". You may be using phrases or whatever... this can do it. > > The > > point I'm making is, had you started like this, you would have > > been able to put your time into more and better pairings, which > > is what creates a more human-like bot. I get it, you're attached > > to all the work you put in... but this is a better way to go. > > Again, not denying there are many which could be combined, but, again, > have you even looked at the functions you say could be combined? I already know I can write them elsewhere if that is what's called for... as I've shown 4 days ago. > > Can you write stuff that'd do anything this would? Sure... but > > I'd be writing more pairings in the mean time and you'd have to > > catch up again. The bigger problem is it wouldn't be linear on > > subsequent attempts so, at some point, you wouldn't be able to > > keep up. Do you understand why this would be the case? > > I understand you can add more, but that does not mean you can add BETTER > replies. LOL! You're missing it... *whatever* you're doing, this can do, with *your* replies. The point is, you could've spent the time writing *them* instead of all that duplication that didn't add to the variation of responses. If you were to have spent the time to vary phrases, as well as words, you would have had 1000 times more variation than you do right now... and I say that without even knowing what you have because I don't need to. Think about why this would be the case. It's because coding takes time.. the less time you spend on it, the more you can spend on output. I don't know how to make this any more clear to you: There is no 'magical power' you get from writing spaghetti ;) > But, sure, being able to streamline how many of the functions are done, > combining them, is a benefit. > > >> I am going to guess it has something to do with: > >> > >> 1) The time I put into something so useless. It was fun for me and I put > >> in FAR more time than I "should" have. > > > > As you learned along the way I wouldn't call that useless, not > > by a long stretch. > > Fair enough... and it was enjoyable. It's lot of fun if you're into these geeky things. > >> 2) Understanding the human side of it. I am NOT a good programmer, but I > >> have a pretty good understanding of humans. That is important for such a > >> program. > > This is a part I am not sure you get. You see content as quantity but > there are places where quality might be sacrificed. Again, NOT saying > you are wrong to think in terms of combining (I would say you are right) > but there would be a fair number of "special" cases. Trust me, I get it! There is no phrase you can generate that this can't. There are no variations of that phrase or sentence you can create that this can't. There is no analyzation you're doing that this can't. Let this sink in. You're focusing on the wrong things as you try to compare them. > >>> These are currently in the response function, I put 'em in because they > >>> were so small for the outcomes required to show it can be easily done. > >>> I'd probably break them out into their own functions if there was a ton > >>> of stuff going on with them (and I mean other than text responses), if > >>> not, I'd just expand the number of outputs for 'bot' and leave it. > >> > >> If I understand you correctly there, you are noting you might need to > >> break things out into their own functions sometimes... but the goal > >> would be to do that as rarely as reasonably possible. If so that makes > >> sense to me. > > > > Yes, you get as many things as are a 'normal' part of the response > > sequence dealt with. > > So above we might be using different terms but largely agreeing -- > combine when you can and when you cannot it is OK to use "one off" > functions. Beats stuffing everything into one. > >>> In case > >>> you're wondering, it's really not a lot of code: > >>> > >>> <https://imgur.com/a/fFGU2b3> > >>> > >>> IOW, not counting blank lines, there are less than 20 lines blurred... > >>> you're only that many lines away from giving your bot a new brain ;) > >> > >> Well, that would leave out a lot, but, sure there are ways to make it > >> much better than it is. > >> > >> My bot also tracked whom it was talking to (no more than five at a time, > >> and if someone did not talk for some time they were bumped from the list > >> to give someone else a chance... or if "mentionMe" was true someone > >> could be added to the list, etc.), and all sorts of other things. > > > > You're just writing functions so you couldn't come up with > > an example that wouldn't be able to be handled the way I > > mentioned stated. No matter how you twirl 'em, spaghetti > > functions are still just functions ;) > > Of course they are functions... but if one function did everything > possible you could just that one function for everything. :) I don't like writing giant functions. > But I think we are mostly in agreement -- combined where you can but > understand there may be some one-off examples. As I showed you this 4 days ago, yeah, I still agree with it ;) > >> The "brain" was actually not THAT much longer than your code: > >> > >> <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/Turing%20Brain.txt> > > > > C'mon, dude... you had 'grey matter' splattered all over the joint ;) > > I do have a rather insane number of global variables... but meant I did > not have to pass things to my 10,000 functions. You don't need to make them global, look at the image I posted earlier today to see how. > If you look right under there I have my settings... and you can see some > of the features other than just simple pairings: > --***************************************************** -- SETTINGS BEGIN > set bot_chances to 3 -- how many chances you are given before completely > ignored > set queue_size to 3 -- number of people to focus on at once: 3 > set myPatience to 10 -- if I do not speak for this many (non-bot) > postings, open a spot: 7 > set waitTime to 60 -- number of seconds allowed to be behind before > resetting queue and losing posts: 60 > set block_count to 3 -- number of possible bots to have on ignore at 1 time > set self_mem to 100 -- how many posts to remember, used for finding > dupes: 50 > set other_mem to 25 -- how many of others posts to remember, use for > dupes & reaction: 25 > set allow_dupes to 5 -- number of time I can duplicate the same set of > phrases (2nd posting is dupe 1): 2 > set dupe_me to true --allow repeated responses to my own name (only if > allow_dupes would allow): True > set doTypos to true --make some typos in my replies: True > set fastTypos to true --make some typos in my replies if I am catching > up (or more if doType is True): True > set logResponseText to true -- log categories I respond to: True > set logMeRespond to true -- log postings that I respond to: True > set logMyResponse to true -- log my responses: True > set logMeIgnore to true -- log postings that I do NOT respond to: True > set logRepeats to false -- log repeated comments: False > set logBots to false -- log postings from bots: False > set beBot to true -- if false then is only a bot blocker: True > set font_color to "#990066" -- 990066 = wine, 006600 = green, 000000 = > black, 0000FF = Blue, 990000 = Red, 9900CC = Purple > --***************************************************** -- SETTINGS END I would handle typos, errant capitalization, response delays, etc. (anything to make it more human) in a response module. The other things, which are essentially just counters, I'd break out into their own functions. Nothing here is an issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 21:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <foos6rFshkvU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455242 |
On 6/17/18 9:26 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 9:11:30 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/17/18 7:56 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:41:46 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> There are quite a few where mentionMe is not checked, >>> >>> As it can (and IMO, should) be checked on every input, and it's >>> trivial to include it, there are more reasons to do so than not >>> (it is part of a basic response, after all). >> >> The main reason not to is the need to add content if you are (or are >> not) mentioned. I already have a LOT of content... it would take more. >> And there are many times when it is not really relevant > > That doesn't happen here and it took me about 10 seconds to add > it because the code is organized. I just pop the object in, put > it's name in one location and it works. I get that you can pass the parameter in and out... but I am talking having relevant content. >> -- you do not >> need to recognize when someone mentions you in every statement they do. > > Look, whatever you're doing to check when it's relevant doesn't > require writing spaghetti to do it, that's the point you don't > seem to grasp. I'm using using the same kind of stuff you are, > I'm just doing so with organization. You are talking coding structure as I talk content... we are talking past each other. >>>> including some >>>> which have added complexity. For example, check out "osText" here: >>>> >>>> <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/TuringText.txt> >>>> >>>> Trying to do something like that in a universal function would be a >>>> challenge. It is not that many could not be done that way, but there are >>>> lots of topics where things have to be customized (or at least I found >>>> if they were the bot ran a lot better). >>> >>> I don't know what they are but I have no doubt they couldn't >>> be handled the way I previously mentioned. >> >> Did you even look at the function? > > No need. So you have no idea what the program is doing but you are confident your one function to rule them all can do it. Interesting. >>>> Not denying there are better ways to do things, but so far I have not >>>> see you or Sandman (both better programmers than I am) nor others (many >>>> of whom are better programmers than me -- this is a very low bar!) do >>>> better than I have. >>> >>> The output is based on the sentence and word pairings, which can >>> be done any old way, as you proved with spaghetti muscle. >> >> There is more than just "word pairings". > > You may be using phrases or whatever... this can do it. There is also a lot of WHAT sentences to use to respond to what input. There is a fair amount of decision making there and it is not the same for each function (though there are many it is similar for, and those could be combined). It might be possible to add other parameters to add to the one-function-to-rule-them-all, but given how you have not even looked at what decision making is being used you cannot say all the variables can reasonably be handled by one function. >>> The >>> point I'm making is, had you started like this, you would have >>> been able to put your time into more and better pairings, which >>> is what creates a more human-like bot. I get it, you're attached >>> to all the work you put in... but this is a better way to go. >> >> Again, not denying there are many which could be combined, but, again, >> have you even looked at the functions you say could be combined? > > I already know I can write them elsewhere if that is what's > called for... as I've shown 4 days ago. You are confident your program does the same as things you have not looked at? No. That does not really make sense. >>> Can you write stuff that'd do anything this would? Sure... but >>> I'd be writing more pairings in the mean time and you'd have to >>> catch up again. The bigger problem is it wouldn't be linear on >>> subsequent attempts so, at some point, you wouldn't be able to >>> keep up. Do you understand why this would be the case? >> >> I understand you can add more, but that does not mean you can add BETTER >> replies. > > LOL! > > You're missing it... *whatever* you're doing, this can do, > with *your* replies. So you say as you admit you have not even looked. I get that you can have it write any sentence, but I doubt you can get it to use the same logic to get there. > The point is, you could've spent the > time writing *them* instead of all that duplication that > didn't add to the variation of responses. The point is it DOES lead to such variations... at least at time. > If you were to > have spent the time to vary phrases, as well as words, > you would have had 1000 times more variation than you do > right now... and I say that without even knowing what you > have because I don't need to. Again you are focused on quantity over quality of response. > Think about why this would > be the case. It's because coding takes time.. the less time > you spend on it, the more you can spend on output. I don't > know how to make this any more clear to you: There is no > 'magical power' you get from writing spaghetti ;) Who said anything about magic? At this point you have admitted you have not even looked at the code you are talking about. You have no idea what it does but are not only sure you can replicate it but that you HAVE. And that is silly. But, hey, why not get your flood bot to respond to sentences and see how it does. Just looked now and you have not been running it for a few days... maybe you are doing that now? >> But, sure, being able to streamline how many of the functions are done, >> combining them, is a benefit. >> >>>> I am going to guess it has something to do with: >>>> >>>> 1) The time I put into something so useless. It was fun for me and I put >>>> in FAR more time than I "should" have. >>> >>> As you learned along the way I wouldn't call that useless, not >>> by a long stretch. >> >> Fair enough... and it was enjoyable. > > It's lot of fun if you're into these geeky things. It was a whole lot of fun for me, for the geeky and the human side. And it amused my then-girlfriend and now wife. :) >>>> 2) Understanding the human side of it. I am NOT a good programmer, but I >>>> have a pretty good understanding of humans. That is important for such a >>>> program. >> >> This is a part I am not sure you get. You see content as quantity but >> there are places where quality might be sacrificed. Again, NOT saying >> you are wrong to think in terms of combining (I would say you are right) >> but there would be a fair number of "special" cases. > > Trust me, I get it! There is no phrase you can generate that > this can't. There are no variations of that phrase or sentence > you can create that this can't. There is no analyzation you're > doing that this can't. Let this sink in. You're focusing on the > wrong things as you try to compare them. Would love to see you show that you can do the same type of data processing based on the variables I do. >>>>> These are currently in the response function, I put 'em in because they >>>>> were so small for the outcomes required to show it can be easily done. >>>>> I'd probably break them out into their own functions if there was a ton >>>>> of stuff going on with them (and I mean other than text responses), if >>>>> not, I'd just expand the number of outputs for 'bot' and leave it. >>>> >>>> If I understand you correctly there, you are noting you might need to >>>> break things out into their own functions sometimes... but the goal >>>> would be to do that as rarely as reasonably possible. If so that makes >>>> sense to me. >>> >>> Yes, you get as many things as are a 'normal' part of the response >>> sequence dealt with. >> >> So above we might be using different terms but largely agreeing -- >> combine when you can and when you cannot it is OK to use "one off" >> functions. > > Beats stuffing everything into one. Above it seems like you are pushing the one-function-to-rule-them-all idea, but here you seem to accept the idea there may be "one off" functions. >>>>> In case >>>>> you're wondering, it's really not a lot of code: >>>>> >>>>> <https://imgur.com/a/fFGU2b3> >>>>> >>>>> IOW, not counting blank lines, there are less than 20 lines blurred... >>>>> you're only that many lines away from giving your bot a new brain ;) >>>> >>>> Well, that would leave out a lot, but, sure there are ways to make it >>>> much better than it is. >>>> >>>> My bot also tracked whom it was talking to (no more than five at a time, >>>> and if someone did not talk for some time they were bumped from the list >>>> to give someone else a chance... or if "mentionMe" was true someone >>>> could be added to the list, etc.), and all sorts of other things. >>> >>> You're just writing functions so you couldn't come up with >>> an example that wouldn't be able to be handled the way I >>> mentioned stated. No matter how you twirl 'em, spaghetti >>> functions are still just functions ;) >> >> Of course they are functions... but if one function did everything >> possible you could just that one function for everything. :) > > I don't like writing giant functions. Nor is it a good idea to do so, at least in general. >> But I think we are mostly in agreement -- combined where you can but >> understand there may be some one-off examples. > > As I showed you this 4 days ago, yeah, I still agree with it ;) We have agreed for some time... but you seem to want to keep debating it and belaboring the point. Not sure why. >>>> The "brain" was actually not THAT much longer than your code: >>>> >>>> <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/Turing%20Brain.txt> >>> >>> C'mon, dude... you had 'grey matter' splattered all over the joint ;) >> >> I do have a rather insane number of global variables... but meant I did >> not have to pass things to my 10,000 functions. > > You don't need to make them global, look at the image I posted > earlier today to see how. Not digging it up again but I am sure there were better ways. :) >> If you look right under there I have my settings... and you can see some >> of the features other than just simple pairings: >> --***************************************************** -- SETTINGS BEGIN >> set bot_chances to 3 -- how many chances you are given before completely >> ignored >> set queue_size to 3 -- number of people to focus on at once: 3 >> set myPatience to 10 -- if I do not speak for this many (non-bot) >> postings, open a spot: 7 >> set waitTime to 60 -- number of seconds allowed to be behind before >> resetting queue and losing posts: 60 >> set block_count to 3 -- number of possible bots to have on ignore at 1 time >> set self_mem to 100 -- how many posts to remember, used for finding >> dupes: 50 >> set other_mem to 25 -- how many of others posts to remember, use for >> dupes & reaction: 25 >> set allow_dupes to 5 -- number of time I can duplicate the same set of >> phrases (2nd posting is dupe 1): 2 >> set dupe_me to true --allow repeated responses to my own name (only if >> allow_dupes would allow): True >> set doTypos to true --make some typos in my replies: True >> set fastTypos to true --make some typos in my replies if I am catching >> up (or more if doType is True): True >> set logResponseText to true -- log categories I respond to: True >> set logMeRespond to true -- log postings that I respond to: True >> set logMyResponse to true -- log my responses: True >> set logMeIgnore to true -- log postings that I do NOT respond to: True >> set logRepeats to false -- log repeated comments: False >> set logBots to false -- log postings from bots: False >> set beBot to true -- if false then is only a bot blocker: True >> set font_color to "#990066" -- 990066 = wine, 006600 = green, 000000 = >> black, 0000FF = Blue, 990000 = Red, 9900CC = Purple >> --***************************************************** -- SETTINGS END > > I would handle typos, errant capitalization, response delays, > etc. (anything to make it more human) in a response module. > The other things, which are essentially just counters, I'd > break out into their own functions. Nothing here is an issue. But it does add more the brain has to call... or they have to be called somewhere. :) -- 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 22:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <e73d05dd-2ec3-4a15-8894-0ce207137a2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455243 |
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:53:51 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > I get that you can pass the parameter in and out... but I am talking > having relevant content. So am I, but that has nothing to do how you get that content. You understand that, right? Sure doesn't seem like it... > > You may be using phrases or whatever... this can do it. > > There is also a lot of WHAT sentences to use to respond to what input. LOL! No, Snit you're *not* analyzing *entire* sentences. > > You're missing it... *whatever* you're doing, this can do, > > with *your* replies. > > So you say as you admit you have not even looked. I get that you can > have it write any sentence, but I doubt you can get it to use the same > logic to get there. I could use *exactly* what you're using if I wanted to... or I could send it to *many* more variations. This is essentially Mad Libs, Snit, you act like you've written Shakespearean sonnets ;) > > The point is, you could've spent the > > time writing *them* instead of all that duplication that > > didn't add to the variation of responses. > > The point is it DOES lead to such variations... at least at time. Which is why this could blow yours out of the water for the same amount of overall time spent writing. You'd be writing code while I wrote content, the more I wrote, it'd become increasingly more difficult for you to catch up. This is obvious. > > If you were to > > have spent the time to vary phrases, as well as words, > > you would have had 1000 times more variation than you do > > right now... and I say that without even knowing what you > > have because I don't need to. > > Again you are focused on quantity over quality of response. No, just like you, the quality relies on how much time I'd put into the content. Any 5th grader can put content like this together, there's nothing special about it (and most of them could be taught branching logic in minutes). > > Think about why this would > > be the case. It's because coding takes time.. the less time > > you spend on it, the more you can spend on output. I don't > > know how to make this any more clear to you: There is no > > 'magical power' you get from writing spaghetti ;) > > Who said anything about magic? > > At this point you have admitted you have not even looked As I can run *your* functions if I choose, I don't need to look. > Would love to see you show that you can do the same type of data > processing based on the variables I do. The data is irrelevant here, if you're merely talking about that you're no longer talking about the program. You want to grab a bunch of 5th graders and see how we compare? I think you'll find they can work it out ;) > >>>>> These are currently in the response function, I put 'em in because they > >>>>> were so small for the outcomes required to show it can be easily done. > >>>>> I'd probably break them out into their own functions if there was a ton > >>>>> of stuff going on with them (and I mean other than text responses), if > >>>>> not, I'd just expand the number of outputs for 'bot' and leave it. > >>>> > >>>> If I understand you correctly there, you are noting you might need to > >>>> break things out into their own functions sometimes... but the goal > >>>> would be to do that as rarely as reasonably possible. If so that makes > >>>> sense to me. > >>> > >>> Yes, you get as many things as are a 'normal' part of the response > >>> sequence dealt with. > >> > >> So above we might be using different terms but largely agreeing -- > >> combine when you can and when you cannot it is OK to use "one off" > >> functions. > > > > Beats stuffing everything into one. > > Above it seems like you are pushing the one-function-to-rule-them-all > idea, but here you seem to accept the idea there may be "one off" functions. A post from last Wednesday, that you obviously didn't understand, proves you're wrong. > But it does add more the brain has to call... or they have to be called > somewhere. :) Of course... as I said, no magic, just functions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 22:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <foovf9Ft3n0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455244 |
On 6/17/18 10:35 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:53:51 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> I get that you can pass the parameter in and out... but I am talking >> having relevant content. The function has to do with how you PROCESS the data. And different functions can process it in different ways. When they process it in very much the same way they can be combined, but when they do not you might need different functions. Given how you have admitted you have not even looked at the functions being discussed you do not know if yours can handle the same type of processing. Really, this is not a hard concept. <snip repetition> ... >> The point is it DOES lead to such variations... at least at time. > > Which is why this could blow yours out of the water for the > same amount of overall time spent writing. You'd be writing > code while I wrote content, the more I wrote, it'd become > increasingly more difficult for you to catch up. This is > obvious. More quantity is not the same as higher quality, but why not show it in your flood bot, but just for a short time (if you have retired it that is even better, but I doubt you have). ... >> At this point you have admitted you have not even looked > > As I can run *your* functions if I choose, I don't need to look. Your software can run functions it has no access to and you have not looked at. I will say, that is impressive. LOL! ... >> But it does add more the brain has to call... or they have to be called >> somewhere. :) > > Of course... as I said, no magic, just functions. You are the one who brought up the idea of magic. -- 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 23:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <d2fa2203-9f97-4540-8b45-0b7bb83898cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455245 |
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:49:32 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/17/18 10:35 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:53:51 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > > >> I get that you can pass the parameter in and out... but I am talking > >> having relevant content. > > The function has to do with how you PROCESS the data. Said the guy who duplicated a bunch of crap to the guy who was able to do it dynamically in minutes. You really need to get a grip. > And different functions can process it in different ways. Gee, I never thought about using a function to do "different" kinds of work <eyeroll>. > ... > >> At this point you have admitted you have not even looked > > > > As I can run *your* functions if I choose, I don't need to look. > > Your software can run functions it has no access to and you have not > looked at. LOL! Why are you now adding "access to" when the context was 'looking at'? If I can look at it... I have access to it. "Really, this is not a hard concept" ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 05:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fopmjcF2ts3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455246 |
On 6/17/18 11:11 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:49:32 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/17/18 10:35 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:53:51 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> I get that you can pass the parameter in and out... but I am talking >>>> having relevant content. >> >> The function has to do with how you PROCESS the data. > > Said the guy who duplicated a bunch of crap to the guy who > was able to do it dynamically in minutes. You really need > to get a grip. So show it. Do what I do in various functions (including some of the ones I have talked about as being "different" such as doMath and osText. I suspect you cannot. You suspect you can. Would love to see it. >> And different functions can process it in different ways. > > Gee, I never thought about using a function to do "different" > kinds of work <eyeroll>. A function should generally be focused on a specific task... not doing different kinds of work. >> ... >>>> At this point you have admitted you have not even looked >>> >>> As I can run *your* functions if I choose, I don't need to look. >> >> Your software can run functions it has no access to and you have not >> looked at. > > LOL! Why are you now adding "access to" when the context was > 'looking at'? If I can look at it... I have access to it. If your program has truly been given access to my code and is running it or basing its operation on my code then that is sorta cheating. I mean, sure, if you have a function that is designed to use my work to do your processing or something then your function can do all that my program can! > "Really, this is not a hard concept" ;) What is not a hard concept is you will not take me up on my challenge for you to back your claim. You will not show your function doing what my "doMath" and "osText" functions do. -- 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 | 2018-06-18 08:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <f85f270c-0555-408f-b511-9a4f5b6ff7e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455255 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:24:15 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/17/18 11:11 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:49:32 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/17/18 10:35 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:53:51 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>> > >>>> I get that you can pass the parameter in and out... but I am talking > >>>> having relevant content. > >> > >> The function has to do with how you PROCESS the data. > > > > Said the guy who duplicated a bunch of crap to the guy who > > was able to do it dynamically in minutes. You really need > > to get a grip. > > So show it. Dynamically is *how* I generated the output in that last screencast, fool. > Do what I do in various functions (including some of the > ones I have talked about as being "different" such as doMath and osText. > I suspect you cannot. You suspect you can. I know I can. That you can look at the data structure I provided and not see how only proves I've been right all along, you simply *don't* know what you've been looking at. > Would love to see it. Your arms broke? I've handed you the keys to the dynamic kingdom. What's the holdup? Too lazy? Oh yeah, you have no time <eyeroll>. I have about 30 minutes into all I've shown you, I probably spent more time writing replies. It'd take you more than 30 'cuz you don't know JS but you'd get there with a little effort. Of course, that won't happen because you'd rather yammer on about something you can show no output for or even prove you wrote the 'brain' of. You obviously wrote some of the content (it's that rigid), but given your tenuous grasp of even basic things you've cast doubt in my eyes as to the programming being yours. Even as you admit you're clueless you're puffing your chest ;) So we're back to you proving you even wrote it... more now, than ever. > >> And different functions can process it in different ways. > > > > Gee, I never thought about using a function to do "different" > > kinds of work <eyeroll>. > > A function should generally be focused on a specific task... not doing > different kinds of work. LOL! OK, clown... show me your simplest function that isn't doing two "different" kinds of work. Hint: define a var and log it to the console. Looks like it's time to strap on your floppy shoes again ;) > >> ... > >>>> At this point you have admitted you have not even looked > >>> > >>> As I can run *your* functions if I choose, I don't need to look. > >> > >> Your software can run functions it has no access to and you have not > >> looked at. > > > > LOL! Why are you now adding "access to" when the context was > > 'looking at'? If I can look at it... I have access to it. > > If your program has truly been given access to my code and is running it > or basing its operation on my code then that is sorta cheating. LOL! How is it "cheating" when the *goal* was to convert to JS? > I mean, > sure, if you have a function that is designed to use my work to do your > processing or something then your function can do all that my program can! > > > "Really, this is not a hard concept" ;) > > What is not a hard concept is you will not take me up on my challenge > for you to back your claim. You will not show your function doing what > my "doMath" and "osText" functions do. One day, when I was a kid, it was raining heavily... and it just wouldn't let up. Someone pulled out Mad Libs and we had fun with it back then ... when I was about 9 ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 09:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <foq548F5pb3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455261 |
On 6/18/18 8:42 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:24:15 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/17/18 11:11 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:49:32 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/17/18 10:35 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:53:51 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I get that you can pass the parameter in and out... but I am talking >>>>>> having relevant content. >>>> >>>> The function has to do with how you PROCESS the data. >>> >>> Said the guy who duplicated a bunch of crap to the guy who >>> was able to do it dynamically in minutes. You really need >>> to get a grip. >> >> So show it. > > Dynamically is *how* I generated the output in that last screencast, fool. Why not how something akin to what my doMath and osText scripts do? The fact you will not suggests your script cannot do that. Fair enough. I am not going to say that means you could not write scripts to do that, of course, but no evidence the one you have can. ... >>>> And different functions can process it in different ways. >>> >>> Gee, I never thought about using a function to do "different" >>> kinds of work <eyeroll>. >> >> A function should generally be focused on a specific task... not doing >> different kinds of work. > > LOL! OK, clown... show me your simplest function that isn't doing two > "different" kinds of work. Hint: define a var and log it to the console. You are a good enough programmer to know a function should be focused on a specific task. You are debating to debate. Got it. ... >>> LOL! Why are you now adding "access to" when the context was >>> 'looking at'? If I can look at it... I have access to it. >> >> If your program has truly been given access to my code and is running it >> or basing its operation on my code then that is sorta cheating. > > LOL! How is it "cheating" when the *goal* was to convert to JS? So if your script is merely running my program than, sure, it does what my program can. Gee, how amazing. But that is not what it was doing. Now you are just playing games. ... >> What is not a hard concept is you will not take me up on my challenge >> for you to back your claim. You will not show your function doing what >> my "doMath" and "osText" functions do. > > One day, when I was a kid, it was raining heavily... and it just wouldn't > let up. Someone pulled out Mad Libs and we had fun with it back then > .... when I was about 9 ;) Elsewhere you imply your script does what those do... here you imply it does not (and, of course, it almost surely does not). But you are playing games. Got 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 | 2018-06-18 10:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <7f133f18-a36a-4484-815e-6e1a6c811418@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455262 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 10:32:11 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/18/18 8:42 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:24:15 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/17/18 11:11 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:49:32 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> On 6/17/18 10:35 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:53:51 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I get that you can pass the parameter in and out... but I am talking > >>>>>> having relevant content. > >>>> > >>>> The function has to do with how you PROCESS the data. > >>> > >>> Said the guy who duplicated a bunch of crap to the guy who > >>> was able to do it dynamically in minutes. You really need > >>> to get a grip. > >> > >> So show it. > > > > Dynamically is *how* I generated the output in that last screencast, fool. > > Why not how something akin to what my doMath and osText scripts do? Because I have even less interest in doing so than you do in porting 'your' code. > The fact you will not suggests your script cannot do that. To you, but then, you've already proven you don't know squat about the data structure I showed you or what I'm doing in general, despite me having handed it to you. But aren't you getting ahead of yourself? Why don't you prove this is even 'your' code? That's where I'm at with you at this point. Maybe you'll explain the value of looping virtually everything in your functions for starters. This made sense to you? Or did the guy you got the script from not have an example like you needed so you began cooking and this spaghetti stuck to the wall? > ... > >>>> And different functions can process it in different ways. > >>> > >>> Gee, I never thought about using a function to do "different" > >>> kinds of work <eyeroll>. > >> > >> A function should generally be focused on a specific task... not doing > >> different kinds of work. > > > > LOL! OK, clown... show me your simplest function that isn't doing two > > "different" kinds of work. Hint: define a var and log it to the console. > > You are a good enough programmer to know a function should be focused on > a specific task. You are debating to debate. Got it. LOL! When confronted, do something and claim the other guy is doing it. > ... > >>> LOL! Why are you now adding "access to" when the context was > >>> 'looking at'? If I can look at it... I have access to it. > >> > >> If your program has truly been given access to my code and is running it > >> or basing its operation on my code then that is sorta cheating. > > > > LOL! How is it "cheating" when the *goal* was to convert to JS? > > So if your script is merely running my program than, sure, it does what > my program can. Gee, how amazing. Gee, that was the entire point of doing this. If I wanted to do something of my own I could go much further than you have, easily. Look at your 'theList' for animetext, it has ~30 items in it. If you weren't so clueless you could use the code I gave you elsewhere for grabbing data from web pages and quickly flesh it out... say, from a page like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anime_distributed_in_the_United_States> Meanwhile, as you grappled with that lame ass sh*t (which is less lame than the lame ass sh*t you're currently using) I'd be yanking data out of something like this and be able to respond to all data from a call: <http://anilist-api.readthedocs.io/en/latest/introduction.html> And I could do that on any topic there is an API available for (a lot). As I previously stated, I'd also generate permutations via functions. IOW, despite me being a hobbyist, you're *way* outta your league here, you're just too clueless to even realize how far out ;) (cue up some goofy BS from you about quantity not being quality because you're laboring under some delusion you've written 'magical' sentences) > ... > >> What is not a hard concept is you will not take me up on my challenge > >> for you to back your claim. You will not show your function doing what > >> my "doMath" and "osText" functions do. > > > > One day, when I was a kid, it was raining heavily... and it just wouldn't > > let up. Someone pulled out Mad Libs and we had fun with it back then > > .... when I was about 9 ;) > > Elsewhere you imply your script does what those do... Learn to read, I said they can be done easily, not that they currently are. > .here you imply it > does not (and, of course, it almost surely does not). But you are > playing games. Got it. Your white flag needs cleaning ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 17:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <foq9jeF6l4dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455264 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 10:32:11 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/18/18 8:42 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:24:15 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/17/18 11:11 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:49:32 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 6/17/18 10:35 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:53:51 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I get that you can pass the parameter in and out... but I am talking >>>>>>>> having relevant content. >>>>>> >>>>>> The function has to do with how you PROCESS the data. >>>>> >>>>> Said the guy who duplicated a bunch of crap to the guy who >>>>> was able to do it dynamically in minutes. You really need >>>>> to get a grip. >>>> >>>> So show it. >>> >>> Dynamically is *how* I generated the output in that last screencast, fool. >> >> Why not how something akin to what my doMath and osText scripts do? > > Because I have even less interest in doing so than you do in porting 'your' > code. > >> The fact you will not suggests your script cannot do that. > > To you, but then, you've already proven you don't know squat about > the data structure I showed you or what I'm doing in general, despite > me having handed it to you. But aren't you getting ahead of yourself? > Why don't you prove this is even 'your' code? That's where I'm at with > you at this point. Maybe you'll explain the value of looping virtually > everything in your functions for starters. This made sense to you? > Or did the guy you got the script from not have an example like you > needed so you began cooking and this spaghetti stuck to the wall? > >> ... >>>>>> And different functions can process it in different ways. >>>>> >>>>> Gee, I never thought about using a function to do "different" >>>>> kinds of work <eyeroll>. >>>> >>>> A function should generally be focused on a specific task... not doing >>>> different kinds of work. >>> >>> LOL! OK, clown... show me your simplest function that isn't doing two >>> "different" kinds of work. Hint: define a var and log it to the console. >> >> You are a good enough programmer to know a function should be focused on >> a specific task. You are debating to debate. Got it. > > LOL! When confronted, do something and claim the other guy is doing it. > >> ... >>>>> LOL! Why are you now adding "access to" when the context was >>>>> 'looking at'? If I can look at it... I have access to it. >>>> >>>> If your program has truly been given access to my code and is running it >>>> or basing its operation on my code then that is sorta cheating. >>> >>> LOL! How is it "cheating" when the *goal* was to convert to JS? >> >> So if your script is merely running my program than, sure, it does what >> my program can. Gee, how amazing. > > Gee, that was the entire point of doing this. If I wanted to do something > of my own I could go much further than you have, easily. Look at your > 'theList' for animetext, it has ~30 items in it. If you weren't so clueless > you could use the code I gave you elsewhere for grabbing data from > web pages and quickly flesh it out... say, from a page like this: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anime_distributed_in_the_United_States> > > Meanwhile, as you grappled with that lame ass sh*t (which is less lame > than the lame ass sh*t you're currently using) I'd be yanking data out of > something like this and be able to respond to all data from a call: > > <http://anilist-api.readthedocs.io/en/latest/introduction.html> > > And I could do that on any topic there is an API available for (a lot). > As I previously stated, I'd also generate permutations via functions. > IOW, despite me being a hobbyist, you're *way* outta your league > here, you're just too clueless to even realize how far out ;) > > (cue up some goofy BS from you about quantity not being quality because > you're laboring under some delusion you've written 'magical' sentences) > >> ... >>>> What is not a hard concept is you will not take me up on my challenge >>>> for you to back your claim. You will not show your function doing what >>>> my "doMath" and "osText" functions do. >>> >>> One day, when I was a kid, it was raining heavily... and it just wouldn't >>> let up. Someone pulled out Mad Libs and we had fun with it back then >>> .... when I was about 9 ;) >> >> Elsewhere you imply your script does what those do... > > Learn to read, I said they can be done easily, not that they currently are. > >> .here you imply it >> does not (and, of course, it almost surely does not). But you are >> playing games. Got it. > > > Your white flag needs cleaning ;) > I do not fully understand your code. You do not fully understand my code and even deny looking at it. That is fine. Then you claim your code can do what mine does even as you admit you do not know what it does (which is absurd) and then you talk about ways to get extra text into the code which would likely harm the output (making the bot seem more like an encyclopedia of view information and less like a person) as you point to sources that might not have even existed when I made my code. Even when you clearly have areas of knowledge I do not and I give you tons of kudos you cannot help but have your insecurities and victim mode spring to the fore. A shame — you really do have some good tech skills. Explains, though, why even with your skills you have no site to show for your efforts, not any work for clients, nor anything else but your flood bot. And your flood bot does not work as well as my ancient AIM not. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 12:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <ab4bd6af-bbe3-49f6-98a7-933693e1ae1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455265 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:48:34 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > I do not fully understand your code. And, patient as I was with you, you really never bothered to try. > You do not fully understand my code and even deny looking at it. You haven't proven it even *is* your code. After talking to you a little more in depth, I think what's more likely is, you wrote the content and someone else wrote the code and explained it to you so you could add content. > Then you claim your code can do what mine does even as you admit you do not > know what it does (which is absurd) and then you talk about ways to get > extra text into the code which would likely harm the output LOL! It would have *way* more to choose from and, like you, I could still cull what I didn't like. > (making the bot > seem more like an encyclopedia of view information and less like a person) Face facts, even most 5th graders are "more like an encyclopedia" than the output you're limited to. I wouldn't just spit out facts, I'd do it in a natural sounding way... but that's the easy part. > as you point to sources that might not have even existed when I made my > code. Irrelevant. You couldn't access them then and you can't now, either. > Even when you clearly have areas of knowledge I do not and I give you tons > of kudos you cannot help but have your insecurities and victim mode spring > to the fore. LOL! You were doing all the chest puffing here. I just woke you with a little needed dose of reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 12:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <foqfitF7qi7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455271 |
On 6/18/18 12:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:48:34 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> I do not fully understand your code. > > And, patient as I was with you, you really never bothered to try. > >> You do not fully understand my code and even deny looking at it. > > You haven't proven it even *is* your code. After talking to you a little more > in depth, I think what's more likely is, you wrote the content and someone > else wrote the code and explained it to you so you could add content. Ah, more of your nonsense... it is ripping you apart that my AIM bot is far, far better than your Usenet flooder (in output, not coding). >> Then you claim your code can do what mine does even as you admit you do not >> know what it does (which is absurd) and then you talk about ways to get >> extra text into the code which would likely harm the output > > LOL! It would have *way* more to choose from and, like you, I could still > cull what I didn't like. Are you still claiming to not have looked at the code? >> (making the bot >> seem more like an encyclopedia of view information and less like a person) > > Face facts, even most 5th graders are "more like an encyclopedia" than > the output you're limited to. I wouldn't just spit out facts, I'd do it in a > natural sounding way... but that's the easy part. Your flood bot fails at that. >> as you point to sources that might not have even existed when I made my >> code. > > Irrelevant. You couldn't access them then and you can't now, either. I can go to Wikipedia any time I want. >> Even when you clearly have areas of knowledge I do not and I give you tons >> of kudos you cannot help but have your insecurities and victim mode spring >> to the fore. > > LOL! You were doing all the chest puffing here. I just woke you with a little > needed dose of reality. Your flood bot does not even respond to sentences... at least Sandman's crappy bot does 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 | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 13:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <adbcc345-019a-4931-940c-2fcfb6f40d63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455272 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/18/18 12:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:48:34 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > > >> I do not fully understand your code. > > > > And, patient as I was with you, you really never bothered to try. > > > >> You do not fully understand my code and even deny looking at it. > > > > You haven't proven it even *is* your code. After talking to you a little more > > in depth, I think what's more likely is, you wrote the content and someone > > else wrote the code and explained it to you so you could add content. > > Ah, more of your nonsense... it is ripping you apart that my AIM bot is > far, far better than your Usenet flooder (in output, not coding). I'm dead serious, when you pasted up animetext I thought it was possible that you wrote it; after talking with you I'm less convinced. > >> Then you claim your code can do what mine does even as you admit you do not > >> know what it does (which is absurd) and then you talk about ways to get > >> extra text into the code which would likely harm the output > > > > LOL! It would have *way* more to choose from and, like you, I could still > > cull what I didn't like. > > Are you still claiming to not have looked at the code? I've only looked at the code you posted to usenet. You know what cinched it for me? As an exercise, with no coding, try to explain the steps you'd need to take to do what I've shown dynamically. Only then can you even *begin* to understand the issues involved. I've already given most of them to you, all you have to do is explain how they work together (or write it out in pseudo code). And stop pretending that whomever's AIM bot this is it responds to sentences when it's targeting keywords... no one buys that bunk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 13:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <foqkgfF8nu7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455276 |
On 6/18/18 1:38 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/18/18 12:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:48:34 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> I do not fully understand your code. >>> >>> And, patient as I was with you, you really never bothered to try. >>> >>>> You do not fully understand my code and even deny looking at it. >>> >>> You haven't proven it even *is* your code. After talking to you a little more >>> in depth, I think what's more likely is, you wrote the content and someone >>> else wrote the code and explained it to you so you could add content. >> >> Ah, more of your nonsense... it is ripping you apart that my AIM bot is >> far, far better than your Usenet flooder (in output, not coding). > > I'm dead serious, when you pasted up animetext I thought it was possible > that you wrote it; after talking with you I'm less convinced. In this discussion you have made it clear (again) that the flood bot is yours and you do not even think I would be able to make one comparable. Fair enough. LOL! But really what has been shown here are our natures: I am an honest person and did not even consider you might be using someone else's code. Now that YOU bring up that idea, of course, it does put it into question. You, on the other hand, assume my code -- that I wrote and have provided open source to the world -- is not from me (which is rather silly if you think about it, one cannot GENERALLY license someone else's code like). You are dishonest and assume others are. >>>> Then you claim your code can do what mine does even as you admit you do not >>>> know what it does (which is absurd) and then you talk about ways to get >>>> extra text into the code which would likely harm the output >>> >>> LOL! It would have *way* more to choose from and, like you, I could still >>> cull what I didn't like. >> >> Are you still claiming to not have looked at the code? > > I've only looked at the code you posted to usenet. You know what > cinched it for me? So you are still making claims about code you have not looked at AT ALL. Or, really, CLAIM to not have looked at. Quite funny. And we are not talking about looking at the results and saying you can infer poor coding or whatever... you are just making things up. Reminds me of when Peter, even with full access to the code, insisted the output was not something the code would produce. :) > As an exercise, with no coding, try to explain the steps you'd need > to take to do what I've shown dynamically. Only then can you even > *begin* to understand the issues involved. I've already given most > of them to you, all you have to do is explain how they work together > (or write it out in pseudo code). > > And stop pretending that whomever's AIM bot this is it responds > to sentences when it's targeting keywords... no one buys that bunk. See: you assume dishonesty as a reflection on yourself, much as my starting assumption is honesty as a reflection of myself. Your response will inevitably be filled with excuses and attacks and other such nonsense. THAT I have sen in you long enough to be able to predict. :) -- 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 | Whistle Blower <wbedward@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 21:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <pg97ts$914$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #455278 |
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:54:38 -0700, Snit wrote: > In this discussion you have made it clear (again) that the flood bot is > yours and you do not even think I would be able to make one comparable. > Fair enough. LOL! And specifically WHERE do you see this? MSGID please because I am not seeing this at all. See snit, this is what you do. You make a completely false statement and then you will run with that statement for weeks, months, and even years, pretending it is true. So where does Steve "make it clear that the floodbot is his" ? And here is some food for thought, why would Steve drag his family, and real names that can be found via a simple Google, into this for the purpose of discrediting them? That makes no sense at all. Your comments appear to be yet another instance of where you read the same posts as everyone else but your drugged mind twists them to fit your agenda. So prove your points. I doubt you will. You still aven't proven that the police visited Steve and asked him to stop harassing you via USENET. Oh and BTW, when a person, you in this case, initiates a complaint with the police you will also be asked to refrain from any contact with the person you filed a complaint against. Common law snit. So once again you have been shown to be lying. What else is new?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 39 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web