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 33 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 31 32 [33] 34 35 … 39 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 01:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <11e213e5-c2d7-43cc-a6ad-4716aac0c93b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455579 |
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 9:47:04 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 10:39:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > On 6/20/18 9:27 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 10:16:46 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > >> On 6/20/18 8:51 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > >>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:08:54 PM UTC-6, vallor wrote: > > >>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 13:08:48 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 1:35:31 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > >>>>>> On 6/20/18 12:23 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > >>>>>>> You can't prove I have a flood bot any more than you can the AIM bot > > >>>> is 'yours'. > > >>>>>>> That's a fact. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Your flood bot is yours... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> All that's left now is for you to prove it. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Hint: Repeating it over and over isn't' "proof" ;) > > >>>> > > >>>> He can't prove that, because it isn't true. > > >>> > > >>> That's a fact. > > >> > > >> See: when you show programming skills I lack I commend you. > > > > > > Stop the "psych degree" BS already... no one buys it. > > > > Interesting you bring up my "psych degree" -- not sure how much the > > actual degree comes into play here, but the fact I have a pretty good > > understanding of people certainly does. It allowed me to write the AIM > > bot > > I guess if one mixes enough of the right (or "wrong") meds > together he could convince himself that it's his degree in > psychology that enables him to program a computer, even to > the point where he believes he 'wrote'someone else's code. > > > > >>> You're overestimating its output, the one using my name is not > > >>> being generated by a computer in the sense that you're thinking > > >>> it is. > > >> > > >> How do you mean? > > > > > > You know exactly what I mean, you've read far more of that > > > garbage than I have. It's obviously not being generated. > > > > I do not know what you mean > > Like hell you don't. Open source is only cost effective if your time has no value. A shadow of false justification, projected foolishly, at the wrong time. From what I've seen it looks like the VPN ecosystem is breaking down. He'd have to be suffering from intense madness to be unsure of if he "never had" built a program with Troll Killer Snit. Sound like anyone in here? When someone can't keep his lies straight and makes use of fake, self-image saving BS later, it's mighty undeniable what his error is. I don't explain that. Bewilderment is bewilderment and there are "advocates" who are of one mind with it. Many are even programmers.Can you get a little less dense? Time to blame the cult-like herd of convenient friends! Do you have a CCNA certification? -- Live on Kickstarter http://www.5z8.info/dont-just-drizzle_y8q4ut_5waystokillwithamelon http://www.5z8.info/mercenary_w5v9dl_open.exe Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <fretwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 10:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <19616962-09f9-43b7-95d0-cb63d45a43f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455515 |
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:16:18 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:52:58 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > On 6/20/18 9:40 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > ... > > >>>> -------- > > >>>> set someText to "The term PPL will be replaced, but the term PPL will not!" > > >>>> > > >>>> to changeFirst(theText, findThis, theReplacement) > > >>>> set AppleScript's text item delimiters to findThis > > >>>> set newPhrase to text item 1 of theText & theReplacement & text (text > > >>>> item 2) through (last text item) of theText > > >>>> return newPhrase > > >>>> end changeFirst > > >>>> > > >>>> set someText to changeFirst(someText, " ppl", " people") > > >>>> ------- > > >>>> > > >>>> Some would argue that is done better than my old code. :) > > >>> > > >>> Ya think? > > >> > > >> Well, some would argue it. > > >> > > >>> Try it in JS and use a regex back reference. AS is just too > > >>> wordy for me. > > >>> > > >>> end changeFirst vs } > > >> > > >> I do not get that. > > >> > > >>> No contest. > > >> > > >> To me it is not a contest about trying to use the fewest words or > > >> lines... > > > > > > I'm talking about it not being overly verbose. > > > > > > Here is the start of function myFunction > > > > > > Here is the end of function myFunction > > > > > > That's obscene ;) > > >> though this updated script of mine (inspired by some other > > >> source) might just be a wee bit better. Just a wee bit. > > >> > > >> And nothing against JavaScript, either. > > > > > > I think you should try to rewrite that function using it. > > > > I have considered trying to learn Swift at some point... though my > > interests have taken me away from any real scripting. There WOULD be > > cases where it would help, but largely the benefit would be to better > > show things for COLA "tasks"... > > If you chose JS you'd have an entire world of stuff you could > tap into and it needn't have anything to do with usenet (you > build websites, that alone should prompt you). > > > which is not something I am going to > > spend much time on. :) > > > > Also fun to see how well I, a non-programmer, can compete with those who > > know what they are doing. Does not mean, though, there is not value to > > my learning more. > > My take: If you write programs, you're a programmer... doesn't > mean you're a professional or even any good at. Look at Feeb, > he thinks he's a pro, even in web dev, but he's been shown up > many times by a hobbyist hack (me). Of course, he's also stated > he can build a microphone that rivals a Neumann U87 for $20 ;) F. Russell would have to have a form of insanity to be unsure of whether or not he "never had" built C++. Ring any bells? When a guy can not tell the same tale one day and the next and exercises fake, self-image saving nonsense later, it's rather obvious what his trick is. Sandman clearly has plenty of expertise to teach and he wishes to provide screencasts to help others. Of course this is without a doubt the worst venue for doing that because too much of what he will get back is howling, word twisting and other nonsense. Sandman pwns F. Russell in every way possible. Linux offers the least choice. F. Russell is far too idiotic to write a good script. The only scripting he's capable of doing is automating his trolling in this group. Of course I quoted examples of F. Russell showing off insecurity -- holding me accountable for the actions of others, etc. His response: to double down on your lies. Perhaps you use it wrong. Do you not realize the use of proxies? Other than F. Russell, who fails to understand what I am doing? -- E-commerce Simplified! http://www.5z8.info/nic_cage_naked_y8b5qk_torrentEverything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4xD43Khhkw http://tinyurl.com/kmqe66h Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 08:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <588bd692-9c44-46a9-a4b6-8c850f1c67eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455290 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 5:01:31 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/18/18 2:47 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 2:54:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> 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. > >> > >> But really what has been shown here are our natures: I am an honest > >> person > > > > LOL! > > > >> and did not even consider you might be using someone else's code. > > > > To match words and iterate over data structures? Cabinet's wide open > > again, isn't it? ;) > > > >> You, on the other hand, assume my code -- > > > > Correction: It is *allegedly* your code. I no longer believe it is > > and I won't unless I'm convinced otherwise. > > > >> that I wrote and have provided > >> open source to the world -- is not from me > > > > Right... like it'd be impossible for you to do that 'cuz, you know, no one > > has ever attempted it before <eyeroll>. If anyone that I know would ever > > do that, it'd be you. > > > >>>>>> 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. > > > > Again: Why would I need to? And why would I deny looking when you've > > repeatedly suggested I do? This makes sense to you? > > > >> 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. > > > > I'm not even referring to the quality of those pieces of code, I'm just > > saying this facilitates custom functions, which should have been clear > > to you last Wednesday. > > > >>> 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 > > > > Please, Mr 'Honesty', you tried to suggest that's what you're doing: > > > > "Your flood bot does not even respond to sentences... at least Sandman's > > crappy bot does that." > > > > You claimed 'yours' is better than Sandman's, which means you're also > > claiming that 'yours' responds to sentences, but that's not really what's > > happening, it's just responding to keywords in sentences. > > > > What's wrong, Snit? Why do you not know what 'your' code does? ;) > > > Ah, so much trolling by you. Why didn't you answer that question? Seems to me, if you actually knew, you'd talk about it <shrug>. You don't want to take a stab at the steps I used, refuse to talk about the input section of yours. Pretty odd, I'd say, for someone who claims to come here to share knowledge back and forth. (snip childish attempts by you to troll)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 08:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <foskfgFk6gnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455290 |
On 6/18/18 4:01 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/18/18 2:47 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 2:54:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> 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. >>> >>> But really what has been shown here are our natures: I am an honest >>> person >> >> LOL! >> >>> and did not even consider you might be using someone else's code. >> >> To match words and iterate over data structures? Cabinet's wide open >> again, isn't it? ;) >> >>> You, on the other hand, assume my code -- >> >> Correction: It is *allegedly* your code. I no longer believe it is >> and I won't unless I'm convinced otherwise. >> >>> that I wrote and have provided >>> open source to the world -- is not from me >> >> Right... like it'd be impossible for you to do that 'cuz, you know, no >> one >> has ever attempted it before <eyeroll>. If anyone that I know would ever >> do that, it'd be you. >> >>>>>>> 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. >> >> Again: Why would I need to? And why would I deny looking when you've >> repeatedly suggested I do? This makes sense to you? >> >>> 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. >> >> I'm not even referring to the quality of those pieces of code, I'm just >> saying this facilitates custom functions, which should have been clear >> to you last Wednesday. >> >>>> 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 >> >> Please, Mr 'Honesty', you tried to suggest that's what you're doing: >> >> "Your flood bot does not even respond to sentences... at least Sandman's >> crappy bot does that." >> >> You claimed 'yours' is better than Sandman's, which means you're also >> claiming that 'yours' responds to sentences, but that's not really what's >> happening, it's just responding to keywords in sentences. >> >>> What's wrong, Snit? Why do you not know what 'your' code does? ;) >>> >> Ah, so much trolling by you. >> >> Your flood bot just plops text into Usenet posts... sometimes as a "response" and sometimes with new posts. As far as I can tell it does not even read content, though you have claimed otherwise (though you show no example). And you now claim to not believe my code is mine. OH NO! The horror! >> >> I am happy I gave you yet another chance, and I will gladly give you more. Your trash is your own, no matter how much you work to dump it onto me. As long as you stick to not contacting my employer and family and the like, as the police talked to you about, I will continue to consider giving you more chances. >> >> And I sincerely do appreciate your comments when you were not trolling. My thanks stands. >> >> Good day. > > Why didn't you answer that question? Seems to me, if you actually knew, you'd > talk about it <shrug>. You troll me, lying non-stop, and then want me to AGAIN explain what I mean by an array of arrays, as you CLAIM to not even look at the code I share with you (but then claim your Usenet flood bot can do the same thing you say you have not looked at). Do you not see the absurdity of your request? > You don't want to take a stab at the steps I used, refuse to > talk about the input section of yours. Pretty odd, I'd say, for someone who claims > to come here to share knowledge back and forth. > > (snip childish attempts by you to troll) -- 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 | 2018-06-19 08:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <45d61ac6-9b6c-446e-8e14-0cc078e9d92c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455333 |
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 9:06:27 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/18/18 4:01 PM, Snit wrote: > > On 6/18/18 2:47 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 2:54:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>> 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. > >>> > >>> But really what has been shown here are our natures: I am an honest > >>> person > >> > >> LOL! > >> > >>> and did not even consider you might be using someone else's code. > >> > >> To match words and iterate over data structures? Cabinet's wide open > >> again, isn't it? ;) > >> > >>> You, on the other hand, assume my code -- > >> > >> Correction: It is *allegedly* your code. I no longer believe it is > >> and I won't unless I'm convinced otherwise. > >> > >>> that I wrote and have provided > >>> open source to the world -- is not from me > >> > >> Right... like it'd be impossible for you to do that 'cuz, you know, no > >> one > >> has ever attempted it before <eyeroll>. If anyone that I know would ever > >> do that, it'd be you. > >> > >>>>>>> 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. > >> > >> Again: Why would I need to? And why would I deny looking when you've > >> repeatedly suggested I do? This makes sense to you? > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> I'm not even referring to the quality of those pieces of code, I'm just > >> saying this facilitates custom functions, which should have been clear > >> to you last Wednesday. > >> > >>>> 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 > >> > >> Please, Mr 'Honesty', you tried to suggest that's what you're doing: > >> > >> "Your flood bot does not even respond to sentences... at least Sandman's > >> crappy bot does that." > >> > >> You claimed 'yours' is better than Sandman's, which means you're also > >> claiming that 'yours' responds to sentences, but that's not really what's > >> happening, it's just responding to keywords in sentences. > >> > >>> What's wrong, Snit? Why do you not know what 'your' code does? ;) > >>> > >> Ah, so much trolling by you. > >> > >> Your flood bot just plops text into Usenet posts... sometimes as a "response" and sometimes with new posts. As far as I can tell it does not even read content, though you have claimed otherwise (though you show no example). And you now claim to not believe my code is mine. OH NO! The horror! > >> > >> I am happy I gave you yet another chance, and I will gladly give you more. Your trash is your own, no matter how much you work to dump it onto me. As long as you stick to not contacting my employer and family and the like, as the police talked to you about, I will continue to consider giving you more chances. > >> > >> And I sincerely do appreciate your comments when you were not trolling. My thanks stands. > >> > >> Good day. > > > > Why didn't you answer that question? Seems to me, if you actually knew, you'd > > talk about it <shrug>. > > You troll me I asked you an obvious question, you then tried to troll. Your MO here is: 'When confronted with a reality you don't want to deal with, do something to shine the light away from that fact, then claim the other guy is doing what you did to obfuscate the fact'. But no one buys such silliness. Ever. So can you answer and provide a detailed explanation as to how the input is analyzed, or not? Stalling makes you look less credible. Maybe you still haven't gotten ahold of the guy who did write it for the explanation you're unable to provide?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 08:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <foslnhFkebmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455333 |
On 6/19/18 8:06 AM, Snit wrote: > On 6/18/18 4:01 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/18/18 2:47 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 2:54:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> But really what has been shown here are our natures: I am an honest >>>> person >>> >>> LOL! >>> >>>> and did not even consider you might be using someone else's code. >>> >>> To match words and iterate over data structures? Cabinet's wide open >>> again, isn't it? ;) >>> >>>> You, on the other hand, assume my code -- >>> >>> Correction: It is *allegedly* your code. I no longer believe it is >>> and I won't unless I'm convinced otherwise. >>> >>>> that I wrote and have provided >>>> open source to the world -- is not from me >>> >>> Right... like it'd be impossible for you to do that 'cuz, you know, >>> no one >>> has ever attempted it before <eyeroll>. If anyone that I know would ever >>> do that, it'd be you. >>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> Again: Why would I need to? And why would I deny looking when you've >>> repeatedly suggested I do? This makes sense to you? >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I'm not even referring to the quality of those pieces of code, I'm just >>> saying this facilitates custom functions, which should have been clear >>> to you last Wednesday. >>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> Please, Mr 'Honesty', you tried to suggest that's what you're doing: >>> >>> "Your flood bot does not even respond to sentences... at least Sandman's >>> crappy bot does that." >>> >>> You claimed 'yours' is better than Sandman's, which means you're also >>> claiming that 'yours' responds to sentences, but that's not really >>> what's >>> happening, it's just responding to keywords in sentences. >>> >>>> What's wrong, Snit? Why do you not know what 'your' code does? ;) >>>> >>> Ah, so much trolling by you. >>> >>> Your flood bot just plops text into Usenet posts... sometimes as a >>> "response" and sometimes with new posts. As far as I can tell it does >>> not even read content, though you have claimed otherwise (though you >>> show no example). And you now claim to not believe my code is mine. >>> OH NO! The horror! >>> >>> I am happy I gave you yet another chance, and I will gladly give you >>> more. Your trash is your own, no matter how much you work to dump it >>> onto me. As long as you stick to not contacting my employer and >>> family and the like, as the police talked to you about, I will >>> continue to consider giving you more chances. >>> >>> And I sincerely do appreciate your comments when you were not >>> trolling. My thanks stands. >>> >>> Good day. >> >> Why didn't you answer that question? Seems to me, if you actually >> knew, you'd >> talk about it <shrug>. > > You troll me, lying non-stop, and then want me to AGAIN explain what I > mean by an array of arrays, as you CLAIM to not even look at the code I > share with you (but then claim your Usenet flood bot can do the same > thing you say you have not looked at). > > Do you not see the absurdity of your request? Carroll responded playing victim. Poor, innocent Carroll... all he does is lie his head off about how my work is not mine, spew insult after insult, cry about how I do not go into more detail of what I have discussed with him about an array of arrays, and note as he claims to not look at code he cannot also say he knows his code will do the same. Poor guy... I am not playing his trolling games the way he likes. Anyway, I *still* am sincerely appreciative for him showing the code he claims as his own (though now suggests it might not have been his... either way I still appreciate it). And as long as he does not go back to his harassment me outside of COLA I very well may give him another chance. Sadly it seems he is still very bitter and in victim mode about the police talking to him about his harassment. -- 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 | 2018-06-19 08:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <3e9e8c78-a7ba-409b-bcf3-fd1fd08758d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455340 |
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 9:27:49 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/19/18 8:06 AM, Snit wrote: > > On 6/18/18 4:01 PM, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/18/18 2:47 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 2:54:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> But really what has been shown here are our natures: I am an honest > >>>> person > >>> > >>> LOL! > >>> > >>>> and did not even consider you might be using someone else's code. > >>> > >>> To match words and iterate over data structures? Cabinet's wide open > >>> again, isn't it? ;) > >>> > >>>> You, on the other hand, assume my code -- > >>> > >>> Correction: It is *allegedly* your code. I no longer believe it is > >>> and I won't unless I'm convinced otherwise. > >>> > >>>> that I wrote and have provided > >>>> open source to the world -- is not from me > >>> > >>> Right... like it'd be impossible for you to do that 'cuz, you know, > >>> no one > >>> has ever attempted it before <eyeroll>. If anyone that I know would ever > >>> do that, it'd be you. > >>> > >>>>>>>> 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. > >>> > >>> Again: Why would I need to? And why would I deny looking when you've > >>> repeatedly suggested I do? This makes sense to you? > >>> > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> I'm not even referring to the quality of those pieces of code, I'm just > >>> saying this facilitates custom functions, which should have been clear > >>> to you last Wednesday. > >>> > >>>>> 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 > >>> > >>> Please, Mr 'Honesty', you tried to suggest that's what you're doing: > >>> > >>> "Your flood bot does not even respond to sentences... at least Sandman's > >>> crappy bot does that." > >>> > >>> You claimed 'yours' is better than Sandman's, which means you're also > >>> claiming that 'yours' responds to sentences, but that's not really > >>> what's > >>> happening, it's just responding to keywords in sentences. > >>> > >>>> What's wrong, Snit? Why do you not know what 'your' code does? ;) > >>>> > >>> Ah, so much trolling by you. > >>> > >>> Your flood bot just plops text into Usenet posts... sometimes as a > >>> "response" and sometimes with new posts. As far as I can tell it does > >>> not even read content, though you have claimed otherwise (though you > >>> show no example). And you now claim to not believe my code is mine. > >>> OH NO! The horror! > >>> > >>> I am happy I gave you yet another chance, and I will gladly give you > >>> more. Your trash is your own, no matter how much you work to dump it > >>> onto me. As long as you stick to not contacting my employer and > >>> family and the like, as the police talked to you about, I will > >>> continue to consider giving you more chances. > >>> > >>> And I sincerely do appreciate your comments when you were not > >>> trolling. My thanks stands. > >>> > >>> Good day. > >> > >> Why didn't you answer that question? Seems to me, if you actually > >> knew, you'd > >> talk about it <shrug>. > > > > You troll me, lying non-stop, and then want me to AGAIN explain what I > > mean by an array of arrays, as you CLAIM to not even look at the code I > > share with you (but then claim your Usenet flood bot can do the same > > thing you say you have not looked at). > > > > Do you not see the absurdity of your request? > > > > So can you answer and provide a detailed explanation as to how the input > > is analyzed, or not? > > Stalling makes you look less credible. Maybe you still haven't gotten ahold > > of the guy who did write it for the explanation you're unable to provide? > Carroll responded playing victim. So the guy who wrote the AIM bot hasn't contacted you yet, OK. I figured I was right all along, thanks for clearing it up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 08:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fosmmkFkk73U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455340 |
On 6/19/18 8:27 AM, Snit wrote: > On 6/19/18 8:06 AM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/18/18 4:01 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 6/18/18 2:47 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 2:54:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> But really what has been shown here are our natures: I am an honest >>>>> person >>>> >>>> LOL! >>>> >>>>> and did not even consider you might be using someone else's code. >>>> >>>> To match words and iterate over data structures? Cabinet's wide open >>>> again, isn't it? ;) >>>> >>>>> You, on the other hand, assume my code -- >>>> >>>> Correction: It is *allegedly* your code. I no longer believe it is >>>> and I won't unless I'm convinced otherwise. >>>> >>>>> that I wrote and have provided >>>>> open source to the world -- is not from me >>>> >>>> Right... like it'd be impossible for you to do that 'cuz, you know, >>>> no one >>>> has ever attempted it before <eyeroll>. If anyone that I know would >>>> ever >>>> do that, it'd be you. >>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Again: Why would I need to? And why would I deny looking when you've >>>> repeatedly suggested I do? This makes sense to you? >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> I'm not even referring to the quality of those pieces of code, I'm just >>>> saying this facilitates custom functions, which should have been clear >>>> to you last Wednesday. >>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Please, Mr 'Honesty', you tried to suggest that's what you're doing: >>>> >>>> "Your flood bot does not even respond to sentences... at least >>>> Sandman's >>>> crappy bot does that." >>>> >>>> You claimed 'yours' is better than Sandman's, which means you're also >>>> claiming that 'yours' responds to sentences, but that's not really >>>> what's >>>> happening, it's just responding to keywords in sentences. >>>> >>>>> What's wrong, Snit? Why do you not know what 'your' code does? ;) >>>>> >>>> Ah, so much trolling by you. >>>> >>>> Your flood bot just plops text into Usenet posts... sometimes as a >>>> "response" and sometimes with new posts. As far as I can tell it >>>> does not even read content, though you have claimed otherwise >>>> (though you show no example). And you now claim to not believe my >>>> code is mine. OH NO! The horror! >>>> >>>> I am happy I gave you yet another chance, and I will gladly give you >>>> more. Your trash is your own, no matter how much you work to dump it >>>> onto me. As long as you stick to not contacting my employer and >>>> family and the like, as the police talked to you about, I will >>>> continue to consider giving you more chances. >>>> >>>> And I sincerely do appreciate your comments when you were not >>>> trolling. My thanks stands. >>>> >>>> Good day. >>> >>> Why didn't you answer that question? Seems to me, if you actually >>> knew, you'd >>> talk about it <shrug>. >> >> You troll me, lying non-stop, and then want me to AGAIN explain what I >> mean by an array of arrays, as you CLAIM to not even look at the code >> I share with you (but then claim your Usenet flood bot can do the same >> thing you say you have not looked at). >> >> Do you not see the absurdity of your request? > > Carroll responded playing victim. Poor, innocent Carroll... all he does > is lie his head off about how my work is not mine, spew insult after > insult, cry about how I do not go into more detail of what I have > discussed with him about an array of arrays, and note as he claims to > not look at code he cannot also say he knows his code will do the same. > > Poor guy... I am not playing his trolling games the way he likes. > > Anyway, I *still* am sincerely appreciative for him showing the code he > claims as his own (though now suggests it might not have been his... > either way I still appreciate it). > > And as long as he does not go back to his harassment me outside of COLA > I very well may give him another chance. Sadly it seems he is still very > bitter and in victim mode about the police talking to him about his > harassment. > > Carroll keeps responding but snipping heavily... so here we go with his games any my bypassing them until I tire of his nonsense and stop responding, only to have him whine I am "running". In any case, his new game is to insist I do not understand his code... as he does not even post the code or even a video showing the code! But, sure, I am a crappy programmer and have been very open that much of what he has shown me -- his code or not -- goes over my head. Sure, no shame in that. He is trying to shame me for something I have openly admitted. Seems he also does not understand the code he is shown and is working to try to get me to explain it to him. This supports his own suggestion that he is not the author of the code he posted (if he was the author and the code was recent there is no reason he would not have a darn good understanding of it and NOT need it explained to him!) -- 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 | 2018-06-19 09:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <f38fe6f5-1640-479c-aa6d-cf253cced8b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455344 |
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 9:44:24 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/19/18 8:27 AM, Snit wrote: > > On 6/19/18 8:06 AM, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/18/18 4:01 PM, Snit wrote: > >>> On 6/18/18 2:47 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 2:54:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> But really what has been shown here are our natures: I am an honest > >>>>> person > >>>> > >>>> LOL! > >>>> > >>>>> and did not even consider you might be using someone else's code. > >>>> > >>>> To match words and iterate over data structures? Cabinet's wide open > >>>> again, isn't it? ;) > >>>> > >>>>> You, on the other hand, assume my code -- > >>>> > >>>> Correction: It is *allegedly* your code. I no longer believe it is > >>>> and I won't unless I'm convinced otherwise. > >>>> > >>>>> that I wrote and have provided > >>>>> open source to the world -- is not from me > >>>> > >>>> Right... like it'd be impossible for you to do that 'cuz, you know, > >>>> no one > >>>> has ever attempted it before <eyeroll>. If anyone that I know would > >>>> ever > >>>> do that, it'd be you. > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Again: Why would I need to? And why would I deny looking when you've > >>>> repeatedly suggested I do? This makes sense to you? > >>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> I'm not even referring to the quality of those pieces of code, I'm just > >>>> saying this facilitates custom functions, which should have been clear > >>>> to you last Wednesday. > >>>> > >>>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> Please, Mr 'Honesty', you tried to suggest that's what you're doing: > >>>> > >>>> "Your flood bot does not even respond to sentences... at least > >>>> Sandman's > >>>> crappy bot does that." > >>>> > >>>> You claimed 'yours' is better than Sandman's, which means you're also > >>>> claiming that 'yours' responds to sentences, but that's not really > >>>> what's > >>>> happening, it's just responding to keywords in sentences. > >>>> > >>>>> What's wrong, Snit? Why do you not know what 'your' code does? ;) > >>>>> > >>>> Ah, so much trolling by you. > >>>> > >>>> Your flood bot just plops text into Usenet posts... sometimes as a > >>>> "response" and sometimes with new posts. As far as I can tell it > >>>> does not even read content, though you have claimed otherwise > >>>> (though you show no example). And you now claim to not believe my > >>>> code is mine. OH NO! The horror! > >>>> > >>>> I am happy I gave you yet another chance, and I will gladly give you > >>>> more. Your trash is your own, no matter how much you work to dump it > >>>> onto me. As long as you stick to not contacting my employer and > >>>> family and the like, as the police talked to you about, I will > >>>> continue to consider giving you more chances. > >>>> > >>>> And I sincerely do appreciate your comments when you were not > >>>> trolling. My thanks stands. > >>>> > >>>> Good day. > >>> > >>> Why didn't you answer that question? Seems to me, if you actually > >>> knew, you'd > >>> talk about it <shrug>. > >> > >> You troll me, lying non-stop, and then want me to AGAIN explain what I > >> mean by an array of arrays, as you CLAIM to not even look at the code > >> I share with you (but then claim your Usenet flood bot can do the same > >> thing you say you have not looked at). > >> > >> Do you not see the absurdity of your request? > > > > Carroll responded playing victim. Poor, innocent Carroll... all he does > > is lie his head off about how my work is not mine, spew insult after > > insult, cry about how I do not go into more detail of what I have > > discussed with him about an array of arrays, and note as he claims to > > not look at code he cannot also say he knows his code will do the same. > > > > Poor guy... I am not playing his trolling games the way he likes. > > > > Anyway, I *still* am sincerely appreciative for him showing the code he > > claims as his own (though now suggests it might not have been his... > > either way I still appreciate it). > > > > And as long as he does not go back to his harassment me outside of COLA > > I very well may give him another chance. Sadly it seems he is still very > > bitter and in victim mode about the police talking to him about his > > harassment. > > > > > > Carroll keeps responding but snipping heavily... Being that you went into Rainman/child mode, naturally. > In any case, his new game is to insist I do not understand his code... You couldn't intelligently talk about it. You didn't understand the simple structure I showed you, don't know the terminology, etc. You even admitted to these things so how is it a "game" to point these facts out? Your ignorance was a stumbling block, nothing to be ashamed of, but it is a fact. I just asked you to explain part of 'yours'... and you freak out. What else does anyone need to know when answering the question of whether or not it even *is* 'yours'? > Seems he also does not understand the code he is shown I told you I'm not going to your site so I haven't been "shown" any more than what you've pasted into COLA posts. Put it in a GIST... but it seems you have to wait for the author to get back to you as to how the input section works. Did it really not occur to you that someone might ask you about it at some point? > and is working to > try to get me to explain it to him. This supports his own suggestion > that he is not the author of the code he posted LOL! Any 12 year old interested in this topic could be the author of that code. It's just simple iteration, of which I've shown *many* examples, and replacement, which I did with your PeterK database. IOW, I've shown the things I used already, to suggest I couldn't do them now is silly and smacks of 13 year old girl-ism ;) You, OTOH, gave good reasons to doubt you wrote what you *claim* is 'yours' and I gave you a chance to prove otherwise. You've chosen to do what you're doing. Seems pretty obvious to me why... being that you had no trouble when it came to the parts you probably did write, you pasted them right away. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. (snip garbled idiocies that follow Snit's teenage girl MO)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 09:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fosp9cFl490U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455354 |
On 6/19/18 9:15 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 9:44:24 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/19/18 8:27 AM, Snit wrote: >>> On 6/19/18 8:06 AM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/18/18 4:01 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 6/18/18 2:47 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 2:54:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But really what has been shown here are our natures: I am an honest >>>>>>> person >>>>>> >>>>>> LOL! >>>>>> >>>>>>> and did not even consider you might be using someone else's code. >>>>>> >>>>>> To match words and iterate over data structures? Cabinet's wide open >>>>>> again, isn't it? ;) >>>>>> >>>>>>> You, on the other hand, assume my code -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Correction: It is *allegedly* your code. I no longer believe it is >>>>>> and I won't unless I'm convinced otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>>> that I wrote and have provided >>>>>>> open source to the world -- is not from me >>>>>> >>>>>> Right... like it'd be impossible for you to do that 'cuz, you know, >>>>>> no one >>>>>> has ever attempted it before <eyeroll>. If anyone that I know would >>>>>> ever >>>>>> do that, it'd be you. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again: Why would I need to? And why would I deny looking when you've >>>>>> repeatedly suggested I do? This makes sense to you? >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not even referring to the quality of those pieces of code, I'm just >>>>>> saying this facilitates custom functions, which should have been clear >>>>>> to you last Wednesday. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> Please, Mr 'Honesty', you tried to suggest that's what you're doing: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Your flood bot does not even respond to sentences... at least >>>>>> Sandman's >>>>>> crappy bot does that." >>>>>> >>>>>> You claimed 'yours' is better than Sandman's, which means you're also >>>>>> claiming that 'yours' responds to sentences, but that's not really >>>>>> what's >>>>>> happening, it's just responding to keywords in sentences. >>>>>> >>>>>>> What's wrong, Snit? Why do you not know what 'your' code does? ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, so much trolling by you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your flood bot just plops text into Usenet posts... sometimes as a >>>>>> "response" and sometimes with new posts. As far as I can tell it >>>>>> does not even read content, though you have claimed otherwise >>>>>> (though you show no example). And you now claim to not believe my >>>>>> code is mine. OH NO! The horror! >>>>>> >>>>>> I am happy I gave you yet another chance, and I will gladly give you >>>>>> more. Your trash is your own, no matter how much you work to dump it >>>>>> onto me. As long as you stick to not contacting my employer and >>>>>> family and the like, as the police talked to you about, I will >>>>>> continue to consider giving you more chances. >>>>>> >>>>>> And I sincerely do appreciate your comments when you were not >>>>>> trolling. My thanks stands. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good day. >>>>> >>>>> Why didn't you answer that question? Seems to me, if you actually >>>>> knew, you'd >>>>> talk about it <shrug>. >>>> >>>> You troll me, lying non-stop, and then want me to AGAIN explain what I >>>> mean by an array of arrays, as you CLAIM to not even look at the code >>>> I share with you (but then claim your Usenet flood bot can do the same >>>> thing you say you have not looked at). >>>> >>>> Do you not see the absurdity of your request? >>> >>> Carroll responded playing victim. Poor, innocent Carroll... all he does >>> is lie his head off about how my work is not mine, spew insult after >>> insult, cry about how I do not go into more detail of what I have >>> discussed with him about an array of arrays, and note as he claims to >>> not look at code he cannot also say he knows his code will do the same. >>> >>> Poor guy... I am not playing his trolling games the way he likes. >>> >>> Anyway, I *still* am sincerely appreciative for him showing the code he >>> claims as his own (though now suggests it might not have been his... >>> either way I still appreciate it). >>> >>> And as long as he does not go back to his harassment me outside of COLA >>> I very well may give him another chance. Sadly it seems he is still very >>> bitter and in victim mode about the police talking to him about his >>> harassment. >>> >>> >> >> Carroll keeps responding but snipping heavily... > > Being that you went into Rainman/child mode, naturally. > >> In any case, his new game is to insist I do not understand his code... > > You couldn't intelligently talk about it. You didn't understand the simple > structure I showed you, don't know the terminology, etc. You even > admitted to these things so how is it a "game" to point these facts out? > > Your ignorance was a stumbling block, nothing to be ashamed of, but it > is a fact. I just asked you to explain part of 'yours'... and you freak out. > What else does anyone need to know when answering the question of > whether or not it even *is* 'yours'? > >> Seems he also does not understand the code he is shown > > I told you I'm not going to your site so I haven't been "shown" any more > than what you've pasted into COLA posts. Put it in a GIST... but it seems > you have to wait for the author to get back to you as to how the input > section works. Did it really not occur to you that someone might ask you > about it at some point? > >> and is working to >> try to get me to explain it to him. This supports his own suggestion >> that he is not the author of the code he posted > > LOL! Any 12 year old interested in this topic could be the author of that code. > It's just simple iteration, of which I've shown *many* examples, and replacement, > which I did with your PeterK database. IOW, I've shown the things I used already, > to suggest I couldn't do them now is silly and smacks of 13 year old girl-ism ;) > > You, OTOH, gave good reasons to doubt you wrote what you *claim* is 'yours' > and I gave you a chance to prove otherwise. You've chosen to do what you're > doing. Seems pretty obvious to me why... being that you had no trouble when > it came to the parts you probably did write, you pasted them right away. It > doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. > > (snip garbled idiocies that follow Snit's teenage girl MO) > What you snipped: ------- Carroll keeps responding but snipping heavily... so here we go with his games any my bypassing them until I tire of his nonsense and stop responding, only to have him whine I am "running". In any case, his new game is to insist I do not understand his code... as he does not even post the code or even a video showing the code! But, sure, I am a crappy programmer and have been very open that much of what he has shown me -- his code or not -- goes over my head. Sure, no shame in that. He is trying to shame me for something I have openly admitted. Seems he also does not understand the code he is shown and is working to try to get me to explain it to him. This supports his own suggestion that he is not the author of the code he posted (if he was the author and the code was recent there is no reason he would not have a darn good understanding of it and NOT need it explained to him!) ------- I do see how you read it (even as you snipped it) and see where, of course, I have admitted all along to not fully understanding the code you show (yours or not). You have not shown any understanding that if you want me to comment on code it would behoove you to actually post a link to it. I am NOT going to dig back through your non-stop blabbering at this point to try to find it. Just not gonna happen. And as far as you not going to my site... utter BS on your part. Of course you have, otherwise you could not claim your current Usenet flood bot code is doing the same thing as my ancient AIM bot did! And with proving to you my code is mine... whatever. You will lie about me and my code no matter what I do. I have no obligation to work to stop you, and any effort of MINE to get you to stop lying is bound to fail. You WILL lie. You WILL snip this. You WILL play victim. You WILL blame me. I cannot control your behavior, and it seems you cannot either. You are stuck in victim / harassment mode. You have, thankfully, as far as I know stopped harassing people I know outside of Usenet. You are keeping to what the police told you (in a face-to-face conversation if you are to be believed). Good. It shows you have SOME self-control. See if you can grow that. Anyway, this is going in circles. Maybe in some other conversation you will show some sign of improvement. I think we can safely say this conversation is done and has simply gone to your circus mode. Good day... and thanks again for the time you did work up to being reasonable in a conversation. I truly do appreciate it and hope to see more of that from you. Maybe if I give you attention for your good behavior and not your bad I can help you to control yourself better. -- 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 | 2018-06-19 09:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <c3885bfe-0835-46a1-b87e-b2060fcbd593@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455357 |
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 10:28:32 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> Carroll keeps responding but snipping heavily... > > > > Being that you went into Rainman/child mode, naturally. > > > >> In any case, his new game is to insist I do not understand his code... > > > > You couldn't intelligently talk about it. You didn't understand the simple > > structure I showed you, don't know the terminology, etc. You even > > admitted to these things so how is it a "game" to point these facts out? > > > > Your ignorance was a stumbling block, nothing to be ashamed of, but it > > is a fact. I just asked you to explain part of 'yours'... and you freak out. > > What else does anyone need to know when answering the question of > > whether or not it even *is* 'yours'? > > > >> Seems he also does not understand the code he is shown > > > > I told you I'm not going to your site so I haven't been "shown" any more > > than what you've pasted into COLA posts. Put it in a GIST... but it seems > > you have to wait for the author to get back to you as to how the input > > section works. Did it really not occur to you that someone might ask you > > about it at some point? > > > >> and is working to > >> try to get me to explain it to him. This supports his own suggestion > >> that he is not the author of the code he posted > > > > LOL! Any 12 year old interested in this topic could be the author of that code. > > It's just simple iteration, of which I've shown *many* examples, and replacement, > > which I did with your PeterK database. IOW, I've shown the things I used already, > > to suggest I couldn't do them now is silly and smacks of 13 year old girl-ism ;) > > > > You, OTOH, gave good reasons to doubt you wrote what you *claim* is 'yours' > > and I gave you a chance to prove otherwise. You've chosen to do what you're > > doing. Seems pretty obvious to me why... being that you had no trouble when > > it came to the parts you probably did write, you pasted them right away. It > > doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. > > > > (snip garbled idiocies that follow Snit's teenage girl MO) > > I do see how you read it (even as you snipped it) and see where, of > course, I have admitted all along to not fully understanding the code > you show (yours or not). I said: "You didn't understand the simple structure I showed you, don't know the terminology" You admitted to both. > You have not shown any understanding that if > you want me to comment on code it would behoove you to actually post a > link to it. I am NOT going to dig back through your non-stop blabbering > at this point to try to find it. Just not gonna happen. I can't link to something you haven't posted and I'm not going to dig through your site to find one damn function. Just not gonna happen. > And as far as you not going to my site... utter BS on your part. I said I'm not going there for this. Post that function into a GIST or similar... but you can't explain how it works, so you won't. You suggested that 'your' code responds to sentences, but it doesn't, it responds to keywords. > And with proving to you my code is mine... whatever. I asked, you freaked. Whatever. If it *is* yours you'd have no trouble doing what you did with the other stuff you've posted. Notably, you've *still* not done so and you're *still* stalling, which won't convince anyone. Like I said, you're probably waiting for the author to get back to you. Or maybe you don't actually know who that is so you can't because you did what I said, copied it, changed the names of things, etc. If it *is* yours you can talk about it, you *can* and *would* post it when asked to. Instead, the reader is treated to what are obviously red herrings to conceal the fact that it's not yours. Trying to shift the focus to me doesn't help you. This is simple, put up or shut up, those are the only convincing options. You're not talking about the code anymore so you've 'shut up' in that regard, which means even you know you can't 'put up'... so we get the ol' red herring show. (snip attempts to obfuscate further by focusing on me)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 10:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fosrssFlk5gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455360 |
On 6/19/18 9:56 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
...
>> You have not shown any understanding that if
>> you want me to comment on code it would behoove you to actually post a
>> link to it. I am NOT going to dig back through your non-stop blabbering
>> at this point to try to find it. Just not gonna happen.
>
> I can't link to something you haven't posted
It is not my responsibility to post your code.
As far as mine, here it is:
<http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code>
You claim your code does what that does, even as you claim to not look
at it. You also insist I should try to explain what you claim is your
code to you, even as you refuse to post any links to it.
Do you see why your games are so absurd?
> and I'm not going to dig
> through your site to find one damn function.
I spoke of osText. To find it just click here and do a text search for,
you guessed it, "osText":
<http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/TuringText.txt>
Not at all hard. I can post it here but the wrap will be horrid:
------
on osText(someText, useName, reaction)
set goodList to {"Mac ", "Mac OS X", "OS X"}
set badList to {"Windows", "Win XP", "Win 98", "Win 95", "Win ME"}
set neutralList to {"Linux", "FreeBSD", "UNIX", "Mandrake", "Redhat",
"slackware", "red hat", "dual boot", "*nix", "Mac 8.5", "Mac OS 9", "KDE"}
set sillyList to {"Etch-A-Sketch", "Speak-N-Spell", "play station", "C
64", "Apple IIe", "Apple ][", "abacus", "slide rule"}
set theList to (every item of goodList) & (every item of badList) &
(every item of neutralList)
set hateWords to {"sucks", "sux", "slow", "crap", "hate", "gay",
"fuck", "shit", "cost too", "expensive", "blow"}
set rating to 0
repeat with loop from 1 to count of items in theList
if someText contains item loop of theList then
set yourword to item loop of theList
set rating to 2
if badList contains yourword then set rating to rating * -1
if neutralList contains yourword then set rating to 0
repeat with hateLoop from 1 to count of items in hateWords
if someText contains item hateLoop of hateWords then
set rating to rating * -1
exit repeat
end if
end repeat
if rating = 2 then -- Mac Rocks, Win Sucks
if badList contains yourword then -- Win Sucks
set tempText to some item in Â
{useName & ", you are so right", Â
yourword & " is not worth even discussing", Â
"why would anyone use " & yourword, Â
yourword & " is getting further behind all the time", Â
yourword & " machines are a piece of crap", Â
useName & ", I prefer Macs", Â
"Why do people use " & yourword, Â
yourword & " is an OS that never innovates", Â
yourword & " is horrid"}
else -- Mac Rocks
set tempText to some item in Â
{useName & ", you have great taste!", Â
"I do like my Mac", Â
"Mac is better for almost everything", Â
"you can install more programs on a Mac", Â
"why would anyone get a PC?", Â
"Windows machines really are kinda sad", Â
"I feel sorry for people who use Windows", Â
"what would windows be like if MS did not have Apple to copy?", Â
useName & ", how long have you been a Mac fan?", Â
"MS is only about 5 years behind Apple - they are catching up", Â
"I wonder if .NET will make Windows usable?", Â
"why do people tolerate Windows when everyone knows it is so bad?", Â
useName & ", you're one of the few in here with a clue", Â
yourword & " is getting better all the time", Â
yourword & " is a piece of art", Â
yourword & " is the only OS that really innovates", Â
yourword & " is awesome"}
end if
else if rating = -2 then -- Mac sucks, Win Rocks
if badList contains yourword then -- Win Rocks
set tempText to some item in Â
{"you are so wrong", Â
"people who use " & yourword & " do not know what they are doing", Â
some item in neutralList & " crushes " & yourword, Â
useName & ", you would be better served by " & some item in
neutralList, Â
some item in neutralList & " is much better " & yourword, Â
"even " & some item in neutralList & " crushes " & yourword, Â
"I would rather use a " & some item in sillyList & " than " &
yourword, Â
yourword & " is not as good as " & some item in neutralList & ",
" & some item in neutralList & ", or even a " & some item in sillyList, Â
yourword & " is blown away by " & some item in neutralList & " or
even a " & some item in sillyList, Â
yourword & " is getting further behind all the time", Â
useName & ", " & yourword & " " & some item in {"sucks", "is
outdated"}, Â
yourword & " can't be tinkered with safely", Â
useName & ", " & some item in goodList & " is much better than "
& yourword, Â
useName & ", " & yourword & " crashes way more than " & some item
in goodList, Â
useName & ", are there any user friendly " & some item in
{"spreadsheet", "word processor", "1st person shooter", "image
converter", "general utility", "database", "browser", "chat client",
"MP3 player", "HTML editor", "DVD prog", "news client"} & " " & yourword
& some item in {" progs", " apps"}, Â
useName & ", what is a good " & some item in {"spreadsheet",
"word processor", "1st person shooter", "image converter", "general
utility", "database", "browser", "chat client", "MP3 player", "HTML
editor", "DVD prog", "news client"} & " for " & yourword, Â
"is there a good " & some item in {"spreadsheet", "word
processor", "1st person shooter", "image converter", "general utility",
"database", "browser", "chat client", "MP3 player", "HTML editor", "DVD
prog", "news client"} & " for " & yourword & "?", Â
useName & ", how many " & some item in {"mice", "screens",
"ethernet cards", "modems", "PCI slots", "sound channels", "files"} & "
can " & yourword & " handle?", Â
yourword & " is on slow, overpriced machines", Â
"The last time I used " & yourword & " it " & some item in {"ate
my data", "went beep beep beep", "crashed every two seconds", "was way
too slow"}, Â
"no such thing as a good version of " & yourword, Â
yourword & " is a piece of crap", Â
useName & ": " & yourword & " sucks", Â
"How long does a " & yourword & " machine last?", Â
"How much does a " & yourword & " machine cost?", Â
yourword & " is an OS that never innovates", Â
yourword & " is horrid"}
else -- Mac Sucks
if someText contains "expensive" or someText contains "cost to" then
set tempText to some item in Â
{"while expensive, Macs are cheaper than PC's", Â
"the only cheap PC's are ones put together as a hobby", Â
"compare any Mac with a comparable Dell... Mac is always cheaper", Â
"compare the price of a Mac with any major PC vender - Macs are
inexpensive"}
else
set tempText to some item in Â
{yourword & " is better than " & some item in badList, Â
useName & ", have you even " & some item in {"touched",
"smelled", "seen", "owned", "used"} & " a " & yourword, Â
useName & ", what is wrong with Apple?", Â
"why don't you like Macs?", Â
"clearly you know nothing of Apple", Â
"Apple makes the most advanced OS in the world", Â
"Mac blows Windows away", Â
yourword & " is not ruined by " & some item in {"DLL hell", "the
registry", "stupid virus's and worms"}, Â
useName & ", you say that out of jelousy", Â
yourword & "s are a piece of art", Â
yourword & " is the only OS that really innovates", Â
yourword & " is awesome"}
end if
end if
else if rating = 0 then -- Linux sucks, Linux Rocks
if badList contains yourword then -- Linux Sucks
set tempText to some item in Â
{yourword & " is better than " & some item in badList, Â
useName & ", I prefer " & some item in goodList & "?", Â
yourword & " machines are OK", Â
yourword & " can be decent", Â
yourword & " is not half as bad as Windows"}
else -- Linux Rocks
set tempText to some item in Â
{yourword & " is better than " & some item in badList, Â
useName & ", what are the minimum requirements for " & yourword &
" progs", Â
"aren't " & some item in badList & " and " & yourword & "
essentially the same?", Â
useName & ", have you even used a Mac?", Â
useName & ", how is " & yourword & " different from " & some item
in goodList & "?", Â
useName & ", how many " & some item in {"", "", "", "",
"concurrent", "shared", "preemptive", "modern", "maxed"} & Â
" " & some item in {"mice", "screens", "ethernet cards",
"modems", "PCI slots", "sound channels", "files", "users", "lines of
code", Â
"data entry points", "applications", "web sites"} & " can " &
yourword & " handle?", Â
useName & ", how does the " & some item in {"kernel",
"interface", "networking", "software", "user base", "speed",
"flexibility"} & Â
" of " & yourword & " compare to " & some item in goodList & "?", Â
useName & ", there is less software for " & yourword & " than for
" & some item in goodList, Â
useName & ", does " & yourword & " multitask as well as " & some
item in goodList & "?", Â
useName & ", I prefer Apple", Â
yourword & " machines are a not so bad", Â
yourword & " can be decent", Â
yourword & " is not as good as Mac, but not bad"}
end if
end if
set genericText to some item in Â
{useName & ", how do you hook up two computers with different OS's?", Â
"who made " & yourword, Â
"they will completely change computers in " & (random number from 5
to 15) & " years", Â
"How do they make computers work?", Â
"Are computers still based on 1's and 0's?", Â
"what is the best OS for a home user", Â
"there are a lot of " & yourword & " " & some item in {"exploits",
"bugs", "virus's", "programmers", "users", "servers"}, Â
"are there are a lot of " & yourword & " " & some item in
{"exploits", "bugs", "virus's", "programmers", "users", "servers"} & "?", Â
"what is a good OS for a small office?", Â
"how can you dual boot " & yourword & " systems", Â
"anyone here use " & yourword, Â
useName & ", all computers are essentially the same", Â
useName & ", does your " & some item in {"hardware", "experience",
"software", "file system"} & " effect your OS", Â
useName & ", have you even used " & yourword, Â
"who here programs?", Â
"does anyone use multiple computers?", Â
"does any OS really do anything the others do not?", Â
"is it hard to " & some item in {"pirate", "play games", "watch
movies", "hack", "clone people", "get software"} & " on " & yourword, Â
"you talking about " & yourword & "?", Â
"anyone in here good with " & yourword & "?", Â
"is " & yourword & " going to be around for long?", Â
"when did " & yourword & " come out?", Â
"when was " & yourword & " invented?", Â
"where was " & yourword & " invented?"}
set someText to some item in {tempText, tempText, genericText}
return {someText, rating}
end if
end repeat
return {someText, rating}
end osText
-----
A lot easier to see on that page. :)
...
>> And with proving to you my code is mine... whatever.
>
> I asked, you freaked.
A direct lie on your part. There is nothing to "ask" -- I have been very
clear it is my code. You keep insisting it is not. You keep trolling. As
I said, though, I cannot stop you from lying.
> Whatever. If it *is* yours you'd have no trouble doing
> what you did with the other stuff you've posted. Notably, you've *still* not
> done so and you're *still* stalling, which won't convince anyone. Like I said,
> you're probably waiting for the author to get back to you.
See: this is you trolling. And keep in mind you are the one:
* Asking me to explain code you are not giving a link to
* Insisting your code does what code you claim you have not seen does
* Demanding I explain "your" code
So when you bring up the idea of code not being one of ours it does
suggest "your" code is not from you.
> Or maybe you
> don't actually know who that is so you can't because you did what I said,
> copied it, changed the names of things, etc. If it *is* yours you can talk
> about it, you *can* and *would* post it when asked to. Instead, the reader
> is treated to what are obviously red herrings to conceal the fact that it's not
> yours. Trying to shift the focus to me doesn't help you. This is simple, put
> up or shut up, those are the only convincing options. You're not talking
> about the code anymore so you've 'shut up' in that regard, which means
> even you know you can't 'put up'... so we get the ol' red herring show.
See: more trolling on your part. You really cannot help yourself.
--
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 | 2018-06-19 10:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <c837153c-2bea-4348-8797-45eab8411436@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455363 |
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 11:13:04 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 6/19/18 9:56 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> ...
>
> >> You have not shown any understanding that if
> >> you want me to comment on code it would behoove you to actually post a
> >> link to it. I am NOT going to dig back through your non-stop blabbering
> >> at this point to try to find it. Just not gonna happen.
> >
> > I can't link to something you haven't posted
>
> It is not my responsibility to post your code.
>
> As far as mine, here it is:
>
> <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code>
>
> You claim your code does what that does, even as you claim to not look
> at it.
Hello, earth to Snit! Post the *input* section, like I've asked... you know, how
you analyze what's coming in, not what's going out, like below.
> You also insist I should try to explain what you claim is your
> code to you, even as you refuse to post any links to it.
>
> Do you see why your games are so absurd?
I see that you selectively comprehend what you read.
> > and I'm not going to dig
> > through your site to find one damn function.
>
> I spoke of osText. To find it just click here and do a text search for,
> you guessed it, "osText":
>
> <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/TuringText.txt>
>
> Not at all hard. I can post it here but the wrap will be horrid:
Why can't you post these to a GIST? No matter, this is not what I'm asking for.
> ------
> on osText(someText, useName, reaction)
> set goodList to {"Mac ", "Mac OS X", "OS X"}
> set badList to {"Windows", "Win XP", "Win 98", "Win 95", "Win ME"}
> set neutralList to {"Linux", "FreeBSD", "UNIX", "Mandrake", "Redhat",
> "slackware", "red hat", "dual boot", "*nix", "Mac 8.5", "Mac OS 9", "KDE"}
> set sillyList to {"Etch-A-Sketch", "Speak-N-Spell", "play station", "C
> 64", "Apple IIe", "Apple ][", "abacus", "slide rule"}
> set theList to (every item of goodList) & (every item of badList) &
> (every item of neutralList)
> set hateWords to {"sucks", "sux", "slow", "crap", "hate", "gay",
> "fuck", "shit", "cost too", "expensive", "blow"}
> set rating to 0
> repeat with loop from 1 to count of items in theList
> if someText contains item loop of theList then
> set yourword to item loop of theList
> set rating to 2
> if badList contains yourword then set rating to rating * -1
> if neutralList contains yourword then set rating to 0
> repeat with hateLoop from 1 to count of items in hateWords
> if someText contains item hateLoop of hateWords then
> set rating to rating * -1
> exit repeat
> end if
> end repeat
> if rating = 2 then -- Mac Rocks, Win Sucks
> if badList contains yourword then -- Win Sucks
> set tempText to some item in Â
> {useName & ", you are so right", Â
> yourword & " is not worth even discussing", Â
> "why would anyone use " & yourword, Â
> yourword & " is getting further behind all the time", Â
> yourword & " machines are a piece of crap", Â
> useName & ", I prefer Macs", Â
> "Why do people use " & yourword, Â
> yourword & " is an OS that never innovates", Â
> yourword & " is horrid"}
> else -- Mac Rocks
> set tempText to some item in Â
> {useName & ", you have great taste!", Â
> "I do like my Mac", Â
> "Mac is better for almost everything", Â
> "you can install more programs on a Mac", Â
> "why would anyone get a PC?", Â
> "Windows machines really are kinda sad", Â
> "I feel sorry for people who use Windows", Â
> "what would windows be like if MS did not have Apple to copy?", Â
> useName & ", how long have you been a Mac fan?", Â
> "MS is only about 5 years behind Apple - they are catching up", Â
> "I wonder if .NET will make Windows usable?", Â
> "why do people tolerate Windows when everyone knows it is so bad?", Â
> useName & ", you're one of the few in here with a clue", Â
> yourword & " is getting better all the time", Â
> yourword & " is a piece of art", Â
> yourword & " is the only OS that really innovates", Â
> yourword & " is awesome"}
> end if
> else if rating = -2 then -- Mac sucks, Win Rocks
> if badList contains yourword then -- Win Rocks
> set tempText to some item in Â
> {"you are so wrong", Â
> "people who use " & yourword & " do not know what they are doing", Â
> some item in neutralList & " crushes " & yourword, Â
> useName & ", you would be better served by " & some item in
> neutralList, Â
> some item in neutralList & " is much better " & yourword, Â
> "even " & some item in neutralList & " crushes " & yourword, Â
> "I would rather use a " & some item in sillyList & " than " &
> yourword, Â
> yourword & " is not as good as " & some item in neutralList & ",
> " & some item in neutralList & ", or even a " & some item in sillyList, Â
> yourword & " is blown away by " & some item in neutralList & " or
> even a " & some item in sillyList, Â
> yourword & " is getting further behind all the time", Â
> useName & ", " & yourword & " " & some item in {"sucks", "is
> outdated"}, Â
> yourword & " can't be tinkered with safely", Â
> useName & ", " & some item in goodList & " is much better than "
> & yourword, Â
> useName & ", " & yourword & " crashes way more than " & some item
> in goodList, Â
> useName & ", are there any user friendly " & some item in
> {"spreadsheet", "word processor", "1st person shooter", "image
> converter", "general utility", "database", "browser", "chat client",
> "MP3 player", "HTML editor", "DVD prog", "news client"} & " " & yourword
> & some item in {" progs", " apps"}, Â
> useName & ", what is a good " & some item in {"spreadsheet",
> "word processor", "1st person shooter", "image converter", "general
> utility", "database", "browser", "chat client", "MP3 player", "HTML
> editor", "DVD prog", "news client"} & " for " & yourword, Â
> "is there a good " & some item in {"spreadsheet", "word
> processor", "1st person shooter", "image converter", "general utility",
> "database", "browser", "chat client", "MP3 player", "HTML editor", "DVD
> prog", "news client"} & " for " & yourword & "?", Â
> useName & ", how many " & some item in {"mice", "screens",
> "ethernet cards", "modems", "PCI slots", "sound channels", "files"} & "
> can " & yourword & " handle?", Â
> yourword & " is on slow, overpriced machines", Â
> "The last time I used " & yourword & " it " & some item in {"ate
> my data", "went beep beep beep", "crashed every two seconds", "was way
> too slow"}, Â
> "no such thing as a good version of " & yourword, Â
> yourword & " is a piece of crap", Â
> useName & ": " & yourword & " sucks", Â
> "How long does a " & yourword & " machine last?", Â
> "How much does a " & yourword & " machine cost?", Â
> yourword & " is an OS that never innovates", Â
> yourword & " is horrid"}
> else -- Mac Sucks
> if someText contains "expensive" or someText contains "cost to" then
> set tempText to some item in Â
> {"while expensive, Macs are cheaper than PC's", Â
> "the only cheap PC's are ones put together as a hobby", Â
> "compare any Mac with a comparable Dell... Mac is always cheaper", Â
> "compare the price of a Mac with any major PC vender - Macs are
> inexpensive"}
> else
> set tempText to some item in Â
> {yourword & " is better than " & some item in badList, Â
> useName & ", have you even " & some item in {"touched",
> "smelled", "seen", "owned", "used"} & " a " & yourword, Â
> useName & ", what is wrong with Apple?", Â
> "why don't you like Macs?", Â
> "clearly you know nothing of Apple", Â
> "Apple makes the most advanced OS in the world", Â
> "Mac blows Windows away", Â
> yourword & " is not ruined by " & some item in {"DLL hell", "the
> registry", "stupid virus's and worms"}, Â
> useName & ", you say that out of jelousy", Â
> yourword & "s are a piece of art", Â
> yourword & " is the only OS that really innovates", Â
> yourword & " is awesome"}
> end if
> end if
> else if rating = 0 then -- Linux sucks, Linux Rocks
> if badList contains yourword then -- Linux Sucks
> set tempText to some item in Â
> {yourword & " is better than " & some item in badList, Â
> useName & ", I prefer " & some item in goodList & "?", Â
> yourword & " machines are OK", Â
> yourword & " can be decent", Â
> yourword & " is not half as bad as Windows"}
> else -- Linux Rocks
> set tempText to some item in Â
> {yourword & " is better than " & some item in badList, Â
> useName & ", what are the minimum requirements for " & yourword &
> " progs", Â
> "aren't " & some item in badList & " and " & yourword & "
> essentially the same?", Â
> useName & ", have you even used a Mac?", Â
> useName & ", how is " & yourword & " different from " & some item
> in goodList & "?", Â
> useName & ", how many " & some item in {"", "", "", "",
> "concurrent", "shared", "preemptive", "modern", "maxed"} & Â
> " " & some item in {"mice", "screens", "ethernet cards",
> "modems", "PCI slots", "sound channels", "files", "users", "lines of
> code", Â
> "data entry points", "applications", "web sites"} & " can " &
> yourword & " handle?", Â
> useName & ", how does the " & some item in {"kernel",
> "interface", "networking", "software", "user base", "speed",
> "flexibility"} & Â
> " of " & yourword & " compare to " & some item in goodList & "?", Â
> useName & ", there is less software for " & yourword & " than for
> " & some item in goodList, Â
> useName & ", does " & yourword & " multitask as well as " & some
> item in goodList & "?", Â
> useName & ", I prefer Apple", Â
> yourword & " machines are a not so bad", Â
> yourword & " can be decent", Â
> yourword & " is not as good as Mac, but not bad"}
> end if
> end if
> set genericText to some item in Â
> {useName & ", how do you hook up two computers with different OS's?", Â
> "who made " & yourword, Â
> "they will completely change computers in " & (random number from 5
> to 15) & " years", Â
> "How do they make computers work?", Â
> "Are computers still based on 1's and 0's?", Â
> "what is the best OS for a home user", Â
> "there are a lot of " & yourword & " " & some item in {"exploits",
> "bugs", "virus's", "programmers", "users", "servers"}, Â
> "are there are a lot of " & yourword & " " & some item in
> {"exploits", "bugs", "virus's", "programmers", "users", "servers"} & "?", Â
> "what is a good OS for a small office?", Â
> "how can you dual boot " & yourword & " systems", Â
> "anyone here use " & yourword, Â
> useName & ", all computers are essentially the same", Â
> useName & ", does your " & some item in {"hardware", "experience",
> "software", "file system"} & " effect your OS", Â
> useName & ", have you even used " & yourword, Â
> "who here programs?", Â
> "does anyone use multiple computers?", Â
> "does any OS really do anything the others do not?", Â
> "is it hard to " & some item in {"pirate", "play games", "watch
> movies", "hack", "clone people", "get software"} & " on " & yourword, Â
> "you talking about " & yourword & "?", Â
> "anyone in here good with " & yourword & "?", Â
> "is " & yourword & " going to be around for long?", Â
> "when did " & yourword & " come out?", Â
> "when was " & yourword & " invented?", Â
> "where was " & yourword & " invented?"}
> set someText to some item in {tempText, tempText, genericText}
> return {someText, rating}
> end if
> end repeat
> return {someText, rating}
> end osText
> -----
>
> A lot easier to see on that page. :)
>
> ...
> >> And with proving to you my code is mine... whatever.
> >
> > I asked, you freaked.
>
> A direct lie on your part.
You're the one lying here.
What's "someText", Snit? When you figure out 'your' code you'll realize that
a text generating function is *not* analyzing a user's input... *that* is the
code I want to see. If you're doing what you suggested, responding to full
sentences (as opposed to merely keywords), it will be fairly extensive and
probably have more complicated regex in it than you're capable of writing.
This is just common sense... as it the reason you're stalling. Either that,
or you were totally full of it and you're doing what I said, just responding
to keywords.
> There is nothing to "ask"
Yes, there is. You have suggested that you're responding to sentences,
I say that's BS. The way to end this disagreement is to show how you're
dealing with input. So *why* are you still showing me only output?
> -- I have been very clear it is my code. You keep insisting it is not.
I'm giving you a chance to settle the matter. You're doing a pretty convincing
job of proving it isn't.
> You keep trolling. As
> I said, though, I cannot stop you from lying.
>
> > Whatever. If it *is* yours you'd have no trouble doing
> > what you did with the other stuff you've posted. Notably, you've *still* not
> > done so and you're *still* stalling, which won't convince anyone. Like I said,
> > you're probably waiting for the author to get back to you.
>
> See: this is you trolling.
This is you, stalling, you know the difference between input and output but
you're willing to pretend you don't... which also makes it seem like the code
isn't yours.
> So when you bring up the idea of code not being one of ours it does
> suggest "your" code is not from you.
No, it doesn't. What suggests 'your' code isn't yours is the fact that you
suggested you're responding to entire sentences and you refuse to
provide code that would settle any argument on that topic. I ask to see
the input and what do I get? All kinds of BS, then you finally show a
function but it's just another output generator and you act like you've
satisfied the matter... as if I'm stupid enough to believe that bunk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 14:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <911b0979-8cee-41d3-a9af-83235f924510@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455365 |
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 11:56:10 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote: > No, it doesn't. What suggests 'your' code isn't yours is the fact that you > suggested you're responding to entire sentences and you refuse to > provide code that would settle any argument on that topic. I ask to see > the input and what do I get? All kinds of BS, then you finally show a > function but it's just another output generator and you act like you've > satisfied the matter... as if I'm stupid enough to believe that bunk. ( Snit is apparently still trying to figure out 'his' code ) What's wrong, Snit, can't get ahold of the guy? ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 14:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fota1gFoatfU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455378 |
On 6/19/18 2:01 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 11:56:10 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> No, it doesn't. What suggests 'your' code isn't yours is the fact that you >> suggested you're responding to entire sentences and you refuse to >> provide code that would settle any argument on that topic. I ask to see >> the input and what do I get? All kinds of BS, then you finally show a >> function but it's just another output generator and you act like you've >> satisfied the matter... as if I'm stupid enough to believe that bunk. > > ( Snit is apparently still trying to figure out 'his' code ) > > What's wrong, Snit, can't get ahold of the guy? ;) > Sincere question: do YOU think you can stop such trolling without outside help? -- 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 | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 14:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fota0bFoatfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455365 |
On 6/19/18 10:56 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 11:13:04 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/19/18 9:56 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>>> You have not shown any understanding that if
>>>> you want me to comment on code it would behoove you to actually post a
>>>> link to it. I am NOT going to dig back through your non-stop blabbering
>>>> at this point to try to find it. Just not gonna happen.
>>>
>>> I can't link to something you haven't posted
>>
>> It is not my responsibility to post your code.
>>
>> As far as mine, here it is:
>>
>> <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code>
>>
>> You claim your code does what that does, even as you claim to not look
>> at it.
>
> Hello, earth to Snit! Post the *input* section, like I've asked... you know, how
> you analyze what's coming in, not what's going out, like below.
We have been talking about processing text once it is already in the
code... and you keep saying your function can do what a functions you
claim to not have seen do (which is an insane claim). But if you want to
change the topic to how I got the data into my bot I can move to that.
It was a script that AIM itself called -- and then data from the "screen
name" was set
------
using terms from application "AOL Instant Messenger (SM)"
on handle event of type inEventType ¬
with screen name inScreenName ¬
with message inMsg ¬
with chat room name inChatRm
set cleanText to trim html inMsg
set theText to the first paragraph of cleanText
...
end handle event
end using terms from
------
Will look more later... that does not have where I use the
"inScreenName" variable... so not sure. Again, this was from over a
decade ago. :)
>> You also insist I should try to explain what you claim is your
>> code to you, even as you refuse to post any links to it.
>>
>> Do you see why your games are so absurd?
>
> I see that you selectively comprehend what you read.
Give it a break. Stop blaming me for your failure to point to your own
code AS you ask me about it.
>>> and I'm not going to dig
>>> through your site to find one damn function.
>>
>> I spoke of osText. To find it just click here and do a text search for,
>> you guessed it, "osText":
>>
>> <http://prescottcomputerguy.com/turing/code/TuringText.txt>
>>
>> Not at all hard. I can post it here but the wrap will be horrid:
>
> Why can't you post these to a GIST? No matter, this is not what I'm asking for.
Why the hell should I post my crappy code to some other place when it is
already posted? I am not demanding you post your videos to YouTube,
which I prefer.
I mean, really, your games are insane.
As far as what you are asking for, YOU are the one who said your script
can do what I show here... but then show no interest in seeing of your
script can do what YOU said it could.
>> ------
>> on osText(someText, useName, reaction)
>> set goodList to {"Mac ", "Mac OS X", "OS X"}
>> set badList to {"Windows", "Win XP", "Win 98", "Win 95", "Win ME"}
>> set neutralList to {"Linux", "FreeBSD", "UNIX", "Mandrake", "Redhat",
>> "slackware", "red hat", "dual boot", "*nix", "Mac 8.5", "Mac OS 9", "KDE"}
>> set sillyList to {"Etch-A-Sketch", "Speak-N-Spell", "play station", "C
>> 64", "Apple IIe", "Apple ][", "abacus", "slide rule"}
>> set theList to (every item of goodList) & (every item of badList) &
>> (every item of neutralList)
>> set hateWords to {"sucks", "sux", "slow", "crap", "hate", "gay",
>> "fuck", "shit", "cost too", "expensive", "blow"}
>> set rating to 0
>> repeat with loop from 1 to count of items in theList
>> if someText contains item loop of theList then
>> set yourword to item loop of theList
>> set rating to 2
>> if badList contains yourword then set rating to rating * -1
>> if neutralList contains yourword then set rating to 0
>> repeat with hateLoop from 1 to count of items in hateWords
>> if someText contains item hateLoop of hateWords then
>> set rating to rating * -1
>> exit repeat
>> end if
>> end repeat
>> if rating = 2 then -- Mac Rocks, Win Sucks
>> if badList contains yourword then -- Win Sucks
>> set tempText to some item in Â
>> {useName & ", you are so right", Â
>> yourword & " is not worth even discussing", Â
>> "why would anyone use " & yourword, Â
>> yourword & " is getting further behind all the time", Â
>> yourword & " machines are a piece of crap", Â
>> useName & ", I prefer Macs", Â
>> "Why do people use " & yourword, Â
>> yourword & " is an OS that never innovates", Â
>> yourword & " is horrid"}
>> else -- Mac Rocks
>> set tempText to some item in Â
>> {useName & ", you have great taste!", Â
>> "I do like my Mac", Â
>> "Mac is better for almost everything", Â
>> "you can install more programs on a Mac", Â
>> "why would anyone get a PC?", Â
>> "Windows machines really are kinda sad", Â
>> "I feel sorry for people who use Windows", Â
>> "what would windows be like if MS did not have Apple to copy?", Â
>> useName & ", how long have you been a Mac fan?", Â
>> "MS is only about 5 years behind Apple - they are catching up", Â
>> "I wonder if .NET will make Windows usable?", Â
>> "why do people tolerate Windows when everyone knows it is so bad?", Â
>> useName & ", you're one of the few in here with a clue", Â
>> yourword & " is getting better all the time", Â
>> yourword & " is a piece of art", Â
>> yourword & " is the only OS that really innovates", Â
>> yourword & " is awesome"}
>> end if
>> else if rating = -2 then -- Mac sucks, Win Rocks
>> if badList contains yourword then -- Win Rocks
>> set tempText to some item in Â
>> {"you are so wrong", Â
>> "people who use " & yourword & " do not know what they are doing", Â
>> some item in neutralList & " crushes " & yourword, Â
>> useName & ", you would be better served by " & some item in
>> neutralList, Â
>> some item in neutralList & " is much better " & yourword, Â
>> "even " & some item in neutralList & " crushes " & yourword, Â
>> "I would rather use a " & some item in sillyList & " than " &
>> yourword, Â
>> yourword & " is not as good as " & some item in neutralList & ",
>> " & some item in neutralList & ", or even a " & some item in sillyList, Â
>> yourword & " is blown away by " & some item in neutralList & " or
>> even a " & some item in sillyList, Â
>> yourword & " is getting further behind all the time", Â
>> useName & ", " & yourword & " " & some item in {"sucks", "is
>> outdated"}, Â
>> yourword & " can't be tinkered with safely", Â
>> useName & ", " & some item in goodList & " is much better than "
>> & yourword, Â
>> useName & ", " & yourword & " crashes way more than " & some item
>> in goodList, Â
>> useName & ", are there any user friendly " & some item in
>> {"spreadsheet", "word processor", "1st person shooter", "image
>> converter", "general utility", "database", "browser", "chat client",
>> "MP3 player", "HTML editor", "DVD prog", "news client"} & " " & yourword
>> & some item in {" progs", " apps"}, Â
>> useName & ", what is a good " & some item in {"spreadsheet",
>> "word processor", "1st person shooter", "image converter", "general
>> utility", "database", "browser", "chat client", "MP3 player", "HTML
>> editor", "DVD prog", "news client"} & " for " & yourword, Â
>> "is there a good " & some item in {"spreadsheet", "word
>> processor", "1st person shooter", "image converter", "general utility",
>> "database", "browser", "chat client", "MP3 player", "HTML editor", "DVD
>> prog", "news client"} & " for " & yourword & "?", Â
>> useName & ", how many " & some item in {"mice", "screens",
>> "ethernet cards", "modems", "PCI slots", "sound channels", "files"} & "
>> can " & yourword & " handle?", Â
>> yourword & " is on slow, overpriced machines", Â
>> "The last time I used " & yourword & " it " & some item in {"ate
>> my data", "went beep beep beep", "crashed every two seconds", "was way
>> too slow"}, Â
>> "no such thing as a good version of " & yourword, Â
>> yourword & " is a piece of crap", Â
>> useName & ": " & yourword & " sucks", Â
>> "How long does a " & yourword & " machine last?", Â
>> "How much does a " & yourword & " machine cost?", Â
>> yourword & " is an OS that never innovates", Â
>> yourword & " is horrid"}
>> else -- Mac Sucks
>> if someText contains "expensive" or someText contains "cost to" then
>> set tempText to some item in Â
>> {"while expensive, Macs are cheaper than PC's", Â
>> "the only cheap PC's are ones put together as a hobby", Â
>> "compare any Mac with a comparable Dell... Mac is always cheaper", Â
>> "compare the price of a Mac with any major PC vender - Macs are
>> inexpensive"}
>> else
>> set tempText to some item in Â
>> {yourword & " is better than " & some item in badList, Â
>> useName & ", have you even " & some item in {"touched",
>> "smelled", "seen", "owned", "used"} & " a " & yourword, Â
>> useName & ", what is wrong with Apple?", Â
>> "why don't you like Macs?", Â
>> "clearly you know nothing of Apple", Â
>> "Apple makes the most advanced OS in the world", Â
>> "Mac blows Windows away", Â
>> yourword & " is not ruined by " & some item in {"DLL hell", "the
>> registry", "stupid virus's and worms"}, Â
>> useName & ", you say that out of jelousy", Â
>> yourword & "s are a piece of art", Â
>> yourword & " is the only OS that really innovates", Â
>> yourword & " is awesome"}
>> end if
>> end if
>> else if rating = 0 then -- Linux sucks, Linux Rocks
>> if badList contains yourword then -- Linux Sucks
>> set tempText to some item in Â
>> {yourword & " is better than " & some item in badList, Â
>> useName & ", I prefer " & some item in goodList & "?", Â
>> yourword & " machines are OK", Â
>> yourword & " can be decent", Â
>> yourword & " is not half as bad as Windows"}
>> else -- Linux Rocks
>> set tempText to some item in Â
>> {yourword & " is better than " & some item in badList, Â
>> useName & ", what are the minimum requirements for " & yourword &
>> " progs", Â
>> "aren't " & some item in badList & " and " & yourword & "
>> essentially the same?", Â
>> useName & ", have you even used a Mac?", Â
>> useName & ", how is " & yourword & " different from " & some item
>> in goodList & "?", Â
>> useName & ", how many " & some item in {"", "", "", "",
>> "concurrent", "shared", "preemptive", "modern", "maxed"} & Â
>> " " & some item in {"mice", "screens", "ethernet cards",
>> "modems", "PCI slots", "sound channels", "files", "users", "lines of
>> code", Â
>> "data entry points", "applications", "web sites"} & " can " &
>> yourword & " handle?", Â
>> useName & ", how does the " & some item in {"kernel",
>> "interface", "networking", "software", "user base", "speed",
>> "flexibility"} & Â
>> " of " & yourword & " compare to " & some item in goodList & "?", Â
>> useName & ", there is less software for " & yourword & " than for
>> " & some item in goodList, Â
>> useName & ", does " & yourword & " multitask as well as " & some
>> item in goodList & "?", Â
>> useName & ", I prefer Apple", Â
>> yourword & " machines are a not so bad", Â
>> yourword & " can be decent", Â
>> yourword & " is not as good as Mac, but not bad"}
>> end if
>> end if
>> set genericText to some item in Â
>> {useName & ", how do you hook up two computers with different OS's?", Â
>> "who made " & yourword, Â
>> "they will completely change computers in " & (random number from 5
>> to 15) & " years", Â
>> "How do they make computers work?", Â
>> "Are computers still based on 1's and 0's?", Â
>> "what is the best OS for a home user", Â
>> "there are a lot of " & yourword & " " & some item in {"exploits",
>> "bugs", "virus's", "programmers", "users", "servers"}, Â
>> "are there are a lot of " & yourword & " " & some item in
>> {"exploits", "bugs", "virus's", "programmers", "users", "servers"} & "?", Â
>> "what is a good OS for a small office?", Â
>> "how can you dual boot " & yourword & " systems", Â
>> "anyone here use " & yourword, Â
>> useName & ", all computers are essentially the same", Â
>> useName & ", does your " & some item in {"hardware", "experience",
>> "software", "file system"} & " effect your OS", Â
>> useName & ", have you even used " & yourword, Â
>> "who here programs?", Â
>> "does anyone use multiple computers?", Â
>> "does any OS really do anything the others do not?", Â
>> "is it hard to " & some item in {"pirate", "play games", "watch
>> movies", "hack", "clone people", "get software"} & " on " & yourword, Â
>> "you talking about " & yourword & "?", Â
>> "anyone in here good with " & yourword & "?", Â
>> "is " & yourword & " going to be around for long?", Â
>> "when did " & yourword & " come out?", Â
>> "when was " & yourword & " invented?", Â
>> "where was " & yourword & " invented?"}
>> set someText to some item in {tempText, tempText, genericText}
>> return {someText, rating}
>> end if
>> end repeat
>> return {someText, rating}
>> end osText
>> -----
>>
>> A lot easier to see on that page. :)
>>
>> ...
>>>> And with proving to you my code is mine... whatever.
>>>
>>> I asked, you freaked.
>>
>> A direct lie on your part.
>
> You're the one lying here.
Ah, you make up stories about my code (and yours) and then claim this
means I am somehow lying.
See how you pile your lies. You start with small ones and then they
build and build and build until you have an avalanche of lies. Just stop.
> What's "someText",
The text that is being processed.
> Snit? When you figure out 'your' code you'll realize that
> a text generating function is *not* analyzing a user's input... *that* is the
> code I want to see.
The raw text I got from AIM was "inMsg" which was in HTML. I trimmed out
the HTML and took just the first paragraph of that message to get
"theText". I think. Looking at my own code it is a bit of a mess. :)
> If you're doing what you suggested, responding to full
> sentences (as opposed to merely keywords), it will be fairly extensive and
> probably have more complicated regex in it than you're capable of writing.
> This is just common sense... as it the reason you're stalling. Either that,
> or you were totally full of it and you're doing what I said, just responding
> to keywords.
It looks at multiple key words in the sentence... just looking to see if
they are there. It looks to see if the sentence mentions me (and if so
mentionMe is set to true), and then looks for various key words in the
sentence.
If it finds multiple key words it then picks which one to respond to, I
think randomly but there may have been some selection based on how often
the key words were used (would have to dig through the code to check on
that).
From there it responds to that key word (or set of words) with the
"knowledge" of:
* mentionMe = true or false
* reaction (I think from -10 to 10 but would have to check)
* userName (the modified name of the person posting)
* someOne (a similarly modified name of another person in the queue)
>> There is nothing to "ask"
>
> Yes, there is. You have suggested that you're responding to sentences,
> I say that's BS. The way to end this disagreement is to show how you're
> dealing with input. So *why* are you still showing me only output?
I commented on sentences and you made all sorts of assumptions. Not sure
what ones but you seem to think it is doing more than looking for key
words in the sentences, as if it is looking for grammatical structure
(it does to a VERY rudimentary way of looking for strings of words).
In other words, one of the "words" it might look at in the text is "you
are a"... not really a word but hardly "understanding" a sentence as a
whole!
Keep in mind even AS you cry and demand I explain your code to you, you
are demanding I explain YOUR code to you.
>> -- I have been very clear it is my code. You keep insisting it is not.
>
> I'm giving you a chance to settle the matter.
There is no matter to "settle" -- you are doing what you do: making
idiotic accusations and I am trolling, and STILL I am going out of my
way to help you and am digging through my ancient code and giving you
information about it.
What is even worse is no doubt you are so interested because you want to
improve your Usenet flood bot. You want it to do what my AIM bot did.
> You're doing a pretty convincing
> job of proving it isn't.
You want me to take responsibility to stop you from making up stupid
accusations.
Well, I sorta am... but YOU are responsible for your actions.
STOP. PLAYING. VICTIM!
>> You keep trolling. As
>> I said, though, I cannot stop you from lying.
>>
>>> Whatever. If it *is* yours you'd have no trouble doing
>>> what you did with the other stuff you've posted. Notably, you've *still* not
>>> done so and you're *still* stalling, which won't convince anyone. Like I said,
>>> you're probably waiting for the author to get back to you.
>>
>> See: this is you trolling.
>
> This is you, stalling, you know the difference between input and output but
> you're willing to pretend you don't... which also makes it seem like the code
> isn't yours.
See: you literally cannot stop yourself. It is insane... you need to
listen to your family and seek help.
>> So when you bring up the idea of code not being one of ours it does
>> suggest "your" code is not from you.
>
> No, it doesn't. What suggests 'your' code isn't yours is the fact that you
> suggested you're responding to entire sentences and you refuse to
> provide code that would settle any argument on that topic. I ask to see
> the input and what do I get? All kinds of BS, then you finally show a
> function but it's just another output generator and you act like you've
> satisfied the matter... as if I'm stupid enough to believe that bunk.
See: just more insane lying and trolling from you.
Sincere question: do YOU think you can stop yourself from such insane
accusations, lying, and other nonsense?
--
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 | 2018-06-19 15:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <68a89a9a-b175-4192-abc2-2f93dcd03907@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455384 |
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 3:13:50 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/19/18 10:56 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > Hello, earth to Snit! Post the *input* section, like I've asked... you know, how > > you analyze what's coming in, not what's going out, like below. > > We have been talking about processing text once it is already in the > code... Stop the BS... analyzing the input is not the same as processing to prepare for output; you have to do the former before the latter. > But if you want to change the topic to how I got the data into my > bot I can move to that. LOL! I asked you last night and you've been stalling since then. > It was a script that AIM itself called -- and then data from the "screen > name" was set > > ------ > using terms from application "AOL Instant Messenger (SM)" > > on handle event of type inEventType ¬ > with screen name inScreenName ¬ > with message inMsg ¬ > with chat room name inChatRm > > set cleanText to trim html inMsg > set theText to the first paragraph of cleanText > ... > end handle event > > end using terms from > ------ LOL! You don't even know that AIM used hooks! I never messed with that crap but even I read about it. The way you describe it is to claim: "a script that AIM itself called". No, fool... you call the hook... if you wrote it, you'd know this. That right there is enough to prove you're full of crap to me. What about the user's response text, what your script would need to see in order to, you know, actually *do* anything? > > Why can't you post these to a GIST? No matter, this is not what I'm asking for. > > Why the hell should I post my crappy code to some other place when it is > already posted? Because you can't copy AS script out of usenet and have it work, fool. > > Snit? When you figure out 'your' code you'll realize that > > a text generating function is *not* analyzing a user's input... *that* is the > > code I want to see. > > The raw text I got from AIM was "inMsg" which was in HTML. I trimmed out > the HTML and took just the first paragraph of that message to get > "theText". I think. Looking at my own code it is a bit of a mess. :) I've seen... I do believe it's *possible* you wrote the stuff you've shown but that is not the actual bot, it's just output. > > If you're doing what you suggested, responding to full > > sentences (as opposed to merely keywords), it will be fairly extensive and > > probably have more complicated regex in it than you're capable of writing. > > This is just common sense... as it the reason you're stalling. Either that, > > or you were totally full of it and you're doing what I said, just responding > > to keywords. > > It looks at multiple key words in the sentence... just looking to see if > they are there. It looks to see if the sentence mentions me (and if so > mentionMe is set to true), and then looks for various key words in the > sentence. Thanks for admitting you were being dishonest when you suggested that crap about sentences. It responds to keywords, just like I said. > If it finds multiple key words it then picks which one to respond to, I > think randomly but there may have been some selection based on how often > the key words were used (would have to dig through the code to check on > that). So it's one keyword. > From there it responds to that key word (or set of words) With "set of words" meaning: a phrase in between quotes. Put another way: There's always *1* keyword. > with the > "knowledge" of: > * mentionMe = true or false > * reaction (I think from -10 to 10 but would have to check) > * userName (the modified name of the person posting) > * someOne (a similarly modified name of another person in the queue) > > >> There is nothing to "ask" > > > > Yes, there is. You have suggested that you're responding to sentences, > > I say that's BS. The way to end this disagreement is to show how you're > > dealing with input. So *why* are you still showing me only output? > > I commented on sentences and you made all sorts of assumptions. LOL! Liar. You didn't just comment, you essentially stated this AIM bot responds to sentences but it's clear it does what I said... keyword(s). > Not sure > what ones but you seem to think it is doing more than looking for key > words in the sentences, as if it is looking for grammatical structure > (it does to a VERY rudimentary way of looking for strings of words). > > In other words, one of the "words" it might look at in the text is "you > are a"... not really a word but hardly "understanding" a sentence as a > whole! I already knew this. You don't even understand basic things, there's no way you wrote an engine that'd do what you suggested. > Keep in mind even AS you cry and demand I explain your code to you, you > are demanding I explain YOUR code to you. > > >> -- I have been very clear it is my code. You keep insisting it is not. > > > > I'm giving you a chance to settle the matter. > > There is no matter to "settle" For me it's settled, you've convinced me you didn't write it. I already suspected it but the hook screwup clinched it. Even if you remembered *nothing* else, you'd *know* that *you* had to call it. IMO that you got it running is enough of an accomplishment for someone as clueless as you... but you really should stop lying about everything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 15:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <fotecjFp58fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #455390 |
On 6/19/18 3:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 3:13:50 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 6/19/18 10:56 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> Hello, earth to Snit! Post the *input* section, like I've asked... you know, how >>> you analyze what's coming in, not what's going out, like below. >> >> We have been talking about processing text once it is already in the >> code... > > Stop the BS... analyzing the input is not the same as processing to prepare for > output; you have to do the former before the latter. I have been very, very patient with you and continue to go FAR out of my way to help you... and you continue to play victim. Anyway, to please YOU (there is NO other reason for me to post this) I have uploaded the full bot code to github: <https://github.com/BrockMcNuggets/AIM-BOT> Even found a local copy where the text is not mangled as it is elsewhere... so that is a definite plus. Keep in mind this is me going out of my way to do as you wish even as you make up stories about this not being my code, demand I explain YOUR code to you even as you fail to point to your code in the posts where you make such demands, etc. I am giving you MANY chances to be a decent human being. I am being very patient with you. Your response is to play victim. Can you let go of that and focus on tech? Please? I suspect not... and should have already stopped responding to you. I am giving you chance after chance based on my trusting nature and your recent signs of wanting to actually be reasonable. >> But if you want to change the topic to how I got the data into my >> bot I can move to that. > > LOL! I asked you last night and you've been stalling since then. > >> It was a script that AIM itself called -- and then data from the "screen >> name" was set >> >> ------ >> using terms from application "AOL Instant Messenger (SM)" >> >> on handle event of type inEventType ¬ >> with screen name inScreenName ¬ >> with message inMsg ¬ >> with chat room name inChatRm >> >> set cleanText to trim html inMsg >> set theText to the first paragraph of cleanText >> ... >> end handle event >> >> end using terms from >> ------ > > LOL! You don't even know that AIM used hooks! Not even sure what you mean by hooks, but I know what I did was have a script in the AIM script folder and had it run from there, being called from AIM. But, sure, you can insult me as we discuss tech. That is what you do. Let us see how long it takes you to get back to talking about tech and NOT your insults and accusations and victim mentality crap: > I never messed with that > crap but even I read about it. The way you describe it is to claim: > > "a script that AIM itself called". > > No, fool... you call the hook... if you wrote it, you'd know this. > That right there is enough to prove you're full of crap to me. > > What about the user's response text, what your script would need > to see in order to, you know, actually *do* anything? To do "anything" is rather vague. But you now have access to the full code on YOUR preferred site, with me going out of my way, even AS you lie about me and spew insults. >>> Why can't you post these to a GIST? No matter, this is not what I'm asking for. >> >> Why the hell should I post my crappy code to some other place when it is >> already posted? > > Because you can't copy AS script out of usenet and have it work, fool. Does not even work on OS X as far as I know! But, again, for you and only you -- as a favor to you -- I have uploaded it to github. This is 100% for you, as a favor, even as you lie about me and attack. >>> Snit? When you figure out 'your' code you'll realize that >>> a text generating function is *not* analyzing a user's input... *that* is the >>> code I want to see. >> >> The raw text I got from AIM was "inMsg" which was in HTML. I trimmed out >> the HTML and took just the first paragraph of that message to get >> "theText". I think. Looking at my own code it is a bit of a mess. :) > > I've seen... I do believe it's *possible* you wrote the stuff you've shown > but that is not the actual bot, it's just output. See: you cannot stop from trolling and working to put me on the defensive. And STILL I am doing you favors. >>> If you're doing what you suggested, responding to full >>> sentences (as opposed to merely keywords), it will be fairly extensive and >>> probably have more complicated regex in it than you're capable of writing. >>> This is just common sense... as it the reason you're stalling. Either that, >>> or you were totally full of it and you're doing what I said, just responding >>> to keywords. >> >> It looks at multiple key words in the sentence... just looking to see if >> they are there. It looks to see if the sentence mentions me (and if so >> mentionMe is set to true), and then looks for various key words in the >> sentence. > > Thanks for admitting you were being dishonest when you suggested that > crap about sentences. It responds to keywords, just like I said. See: more twisting and trolling from you. Remember, what I was talking about was a comparison to your Usenet flood bot which does not even split content into sentences (as Sandman's does). You just have a bit "data dump". My AIM bot responded to "sentences" (really lines of input from users). THAT was the context. But you lie about it and spew insults. And STILL I am doing you favors. >> If it finds multiple key words it then picks which one to respond to, I >> think randomly but there may have been some selection based on how often >> the key words were used (would have to dig through the code to check on >> that). > > So it's one keyword. Well, one keyword with modifications from other words it found... as described below (and keep in mind this is from memory from a project I worked on in the 1990s... so I am sure I have some details wrong): >> From there it responds to that key word (or set of words) > > With "set of words" meaning: a phrase in between quotes. > Put another way: There's always *1* keyword. Again, see below: >> with the >> "knowledge" of: >> * mentionMe = true or false >> * reaction (I think from -10 to 10 but would have to check) >> * userName (the modified name of the person posting) >> * someOne (a similarly modified name of another person in the queue) So one keyword *WITH* "considering" those factors, at least at times (not all keywords considered all of those). There might have been some other "considerations" but I do not recall and do not see them in a quick scan of the 8000+ lines of code. >>>> There is nothing to "ask" >>> >>> Yes, there is. You have suggested that you're responding to sentences, >>> I say that's BS. The way to end this disagreement is to show how you're >>> dealing with input. So *why* are you still showing me only output? >> >> I commented on sentences and you made all sorts of assumptions. > > LOL! Liar. You didn't just comment, you essentially stated this AIM bot > responds to sentences but it's clear it does what I said... keyword(s). See above where I talk about the context you missed... but you will ALWAYS blame me and make accusations for your own errors. It is what you do: you take no responsibility for your poor behavior. And STILL I am doing you a favor here. >> Not sure >> what ones but you seem to think it is doing more than looking for key >> words in the sentences, as if it is looking for grammatical structure >> (it does to a VERY rudimentary way of looking for strings of words). >> >> In other words, one of the "words" it might look at in the text is "you >> are a"... not really a word but hardly "understanding" a sentence as a >> whole! > > I already knew this. You don't even understand basic things, there's no > way you wrote an engine that'd do what you suggested. See: more trolling from you. You sincerely cannot stop yourself. >> Keep in mind even AS you cry and demand I explain your code to you, you >> are demanding I explain YOUR code to you. >> >>>> -- I have been very clear it is my code. You keep insisting it is not. >>> >>> I'm giving you a chance to settle the matter. >> >> There is no matter to "settle" -- you are doing what you do: making idiotic accusations and I am trolling, and STILL I am going out of my way to help you and am digging through my ancient code and giving you information about it. >> What is even worse is no doubt you are so interested because you want to improve your Usenet flood bot. You want it to do what my AIM bot did. And below you prove me right... it does not matter what I say or do, you WILL make insane accusations. And I know this... and yet I STILL am doing you favors. And you will continue to play victim. I know this... but refuse to have it stop me from treating you far better than you treat me. I will simply not sink to your level. > For me it's settled, you've convinced me you didn't write it. I already > suspected it but the hook screwup clinched it. Even if you remembered > *nothing* else, you'd *know* that *you* had to call it. IMO that you got > it running is enough of an accomplishment for someone as clueless as > you... but you really should stop lying about everything. > -- 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 | 2018-06-19 16:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <f32c7944-430b-4b99-9818-935d6337ce95@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455394 |
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 4:28:38 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/19/18 3:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 3:13:50 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/19/18 10:56 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > >>> Hello, earth to Snit! Post the *input* section, like I've asked... you know, how > >>> you analyze what's coming in, not what's going out, like below. > >> > >> We have been talking about processing text once it is already in the > >> code... > > > > Stop the BS... analyzing the input is not the same as processing to prepare for > > output; you have to do the former before the latter. > > I have been very, very patient with you and continue to go FAR out of my > way to help you... Help me do what? I was helping you, asshole. > Anyway, to please YOU (there is NO other reason for me to post this) I > have uploaded the full bot code to github: > > <https://github.com/BrockMcNuggets/AIM-BOT> Github... good for you... and I love the Freudian slip: "The code is a mess -- and even I have difficulty understanding much of it now (we written for Mac OS 9 in the 1990s)." "we written"? The truth will out! You'll claim it should've been "was" but your hands betrayed you. Are you ever honest? Your hands are even when you're not ;) > Even found a local copy where the text is not mangled as it is > elsewhere... so that is a definite plus. > > Keep in mind this is me going out of my way to do as you wish Screw that, you're doing this to convince me. Period. > even as > you make up stories about this not being my code, demand I explain YOUR > code to you even as you fail to point to your code in the posts where > you make such demands, etc. > > I am giving you MANY chances to be a decent human being. I am being very > patient with you. Your response is to play victim. Can you let go of > that and focus on tech? Please? I am focusing on tech. > > LOL! You don't even know that AIM used hooks! > > Not even sure what you mean by hooks, but I know what I did was have a > script in the AIM script folder and had it run from there, being called > from AIM. LOL! You're killing' me here. Please explain how it's possible for you to have written a plugin that used their API without knowing *that* is what you were doing? You just *knew* to do it, eh? You didn't have to bother reading their documentation? This actually makes sense to you? > But, sure, you can insult me as we discuss tech. That is what you do. You're lying and you've been busted. Stop lying and it won't be a problem. > Let us see how long it takes you to get back to talking about tech I have been talking about it. I asked for the input, you stopped talking about tech. It's now obvious why. > > I never messed with that > > crap but even I read about it. The way you describe it is to claim: > > > > "a script that AIM itself called". > > > > No, fool... you call the hook... if you wrote it, you'd know this. > > That right there is enough to prove you're full of crap to me. > > > > What about the user's response text, what your script would need > > to see in order to, you know, actually *do* anything? > > To do "anything" is rather vague. To get output which responds from input, obviously. It works on input, Snit. > But you now have access to the full > code on YOUR preferred site, with me going out of my way, even AS you > lie about me and spew insults. > > >>> Why can't you post these to a GIST? No matter, this is not what I'm asking for. > >> > >> Why the hell should I post my crappy code to some other place when it is > >> already posted? > > > > Because you can't copy AS script out of usenet and have it work, fool. > > Does not even work on OS X as far as I know! Why not? > But, again, for you and > only you -- as a favor to you -- I have uploaded it to github. > > This is 100% for you, as a favor, even as you lie about me and attack. F*ck off. No one is buying this 'you did me a favor' crap. Between you and I, I did all the favors in this thread. > > So it's one keyword. > > Well, one keyword with modifications from other words it found... as > described below (and keep in mind this is from memory from a project I > worked on in the 1990s... so I am sure I have some details wrong): > > >> From there it responds to that key word (or set of words) > > > > With "set of words" meaning: a phrase in between quotes. > > Put another way: There's always *1* keyword. > > Again, see below: > > >> with the > >> "knowledge" of: > >> * mentionMe = true or false > >> * reaction (I think from -10 to 10 but would have to check) > >> * userName (the modified name of the person posting) > >> * someOne (a similarly modified name of another person in the queue) > > So one keyword *WITH* "considering" those factors, at least at times > (not all keywords considered all of those). There might have been some > other "considerations" but I do not recall and do not see them in a > quick scan of the 8000+ lines of code. Still just responding to keywords, not sentences. In any event, you should rewrite this thing in JS or some language where you can run it... you'd learn a ton.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 16:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: More bot than human. |
| Message-ID | <3a5aed1a-0857-45ed-ba3f-c5d240b31740@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455403 |
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 4:39:04 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 4:28:38 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > On 6/19/18 3:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 3:13:50 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > >> On 6/19/18 10:56 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > >>> Hello, earth to Snit! Post the *input* section, like I've asked... you know, how > > >>> you analyze what's coming in, not what's going out, like below. > > >> > > >> We have been talking about processing text once it is already in the > > >> code... > > > > > > Stop the BS... analyzing the input is not the same as processing to prepare for > > > output; you have to do the former before the latter. > > > > I have been very, very patient with you and continue to go FAR out of my > > way to help you... > > Help me do what? I was helping you, asshole. > > > Anyway, to please YOU (there is NO other reason for me to post this) I > > have uploaded the full bot code to github: > > > > <https://github.com/BrockMcNuggets/AIM-BOT> > > Github... good for you... and I love the Freudian slip: > > "The code is a mess -- and even I have difficulty understanding much of it now > (we written for Mac OS 9 in the 1990s)." > > "we written"? The truth will out! > > You'll claim it should've been "was" but your hands betrayed you. > Are you ever honest? Your hands are even when you're not ;) > > > Even found a local copy where the text is not mangled as it is > > elsewhere... so that is a definite plus. > > > > Keep in mind this is me going out of my way to do as you wish > > Screw that, you're doing this to convince me. Period. > > > even as > > you make up stories about this not being my code, demand I explain YOUR > > code to you even as you fail to point to your code in the posts where > > you make such demands, etc. > > > > I am giving you MANY chances to be a decent human being. I am being very > > patient with you. Your response is to play victim. Can you let go of > > that and focus on tech? Please? > > I am focusing on tech. > > > > LOL! You don't even know that AIM used hooks! > > > > Not even sure what you mean by hooks, but I know what I did was have a > > script in the AIM script folder and had it run from there, being called > > from AIM. > > LOL! You're killing' me here. Please explain how it's possible for you to have > written a plugin that used their API without knowing *that* is what you were > doing? You just *knew* to do it, eh? You didn't have to bother reading their > documentation? This actually makes sense to you? > > > But, sure, you can insult me as we discuss tech. That is what you do. > > You're lying and you've been busted. Stop lying and it won't be a problem. > > > Let us see how long it takes you to get back to talking about tech > > I have been talking about it. I asked for the input, you stopped talking > about tech. It's now obvious why. > > > > I never messed with that > > > crap but even I read about it. The way you describe it is to claim: > > > > > > "a script that AIM itself called". > > > > > > No, fool... you call the hook... if you wrote it, you'd know this. > > > That right there is enough to prove you're full of crap to me. > > > > > > What about the user's response text, what your script would need > > > to see in order to, you know, actually *do* anything? > > > > To do "anything" is rather vague. > > To get output which responds from input, obviously. It works on input, Snit. > > > But you now have access to the full > > code on YOUR preferred site, with me going out of my way, even AS you > > lie about me and spew insults. > > > > >>> Why can't you post these to a GIST? No matter, this is not what I'm asking for. > > >> > > >> Why the hell should I post my crappy code to some other place when it is > > >> already posted? > > > > > > Because you can't copy AS script out of usenet and have it work, fool. > > > > Does not even work on OS X as far as I know! > > Why not? > > > But, again, for you and > > only you -- as a favor to you -- I have uploaded it to github. > > > > This is 100% for you, as a favor, even as you lie about me and attack. > > F*ck off. No one is buying this 'you did me a favor' crap. Between you and I, > I did all the favors in this thread. > > > > So it's one keyword. > > > > Well, one keyword with modifications from other words it found... as > > described below (and keep in mind this is from memory from a project I > > worked on in the 1990s... so I am sure I have some details wrong): > > > > >> From there it responds to that key word (or set of words) > > > > > > With "set of words" meaning: a phrase in between quotes. > > > Put another way: There's always *1* keyword. > > > > Again, see below: > > > > >> with the > > >> "knowledge" of: > > >> * mentionMe = true or false > > >> * reaction (I think from -10 to 10 but would have to check) > > >> * userName (the modified name of the person posting) > > >> * someOne (a similarly modified name of another person in the queue) > > > > So one keyword *WITH* "considering" those factors, at least at times > > (not all keywords considered all of those). There might have been some > > other "considerations" but I do not recall and do not see them in a > > quick scan of the 8000+ lines of code. > > Still just responding to keywords, not sentences. > > In any event, you should rewrite this thing in JS or some language > where you can run it... you'd learn a ton. It was Sandman Script Troller who stated that he and his college buddies used to steal candy from toddlers all the time and it was an amusement of his, not even a moral dilemma for them at all. Not only did Michael Glasser Snit's question fail to touch on the "KDE", it has not a thing to do with the desktop. Sandman Script Troller should go lock the medicine chest ;) These posts are clearly not automated, they are made by Sandman Script Troller who is a glue sniffing insomniac with an axe to grind who has way too much time on his hands (with maybe some scripted pre-processing). Enough already. You're again trying to bolster yourself beyond your grade. You're the court jester and your many idiotic scripts show this. Sandman Script Troller claims to be the spreadsheet teacher. Let us see him put up a variant but lacking the normalization loops. -- E-commerce Simplified http://www.5z8.info/how-to-build-a-bomb_h2o1be_peepshow Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 33 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 31 32 [33] 34 35 … 39 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web