IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Hey, just post it after every comment he makes.
Same text, and link back to this comment.

Maybe someday you'll get a rise out of him, and he'll actually do more than a hit and run, but somehow I doubt it...
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
New Re: The case against it being human ...

Has so far failed to ever respond to a direct challenge that pointed out blatant contradictions in its logic.

Part of my case against it is the it has done more to drive the consensus here against Bush & republicans than any other poster, yet its goal is clearly to promote them.

This point leads me to the 'Tar Baby' theory. We all keep hitting the Marlowe tar baby because of its silence (intelligent replys to direct challenges) is so insulting & infutiating. This is a classic 'bot' pattern as happened with the last known bot (in IWE).

When most of us here accuse someone of something we will at least try to justify the accusation & will usually respond to the accused - Marlowe makes an accusation & when asked what statement or line prompted the accusation never replies, (because usually there is no logical reply it can give).

Marlowe rarely answers to the *specific point* another poster raises. Its responses tend to be very very generalised.

So my actions at the moment are (I confess) smacking the 'tar baby' with a 10 x 4 (and predictably getting no response).

Cheers

Doug

New That is not true
At least not in past fun and games. Read these threads:

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=30593|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=30593]
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=30810|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=30810]

While Marlowe made his share of blunders, and had trouble admitting to being wrong, he demonstrated that he isn't a bot.

Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
New I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that
-drl
New Case proven, but..
Of late -

Recall that Steve O'Conner (Oz) launched N.I.C.E. and Jerry ___?
The bot is not its author. So I don't doubt there is an intelligence out there, but his/its current game is mere stimulus/response; nothing like debate. The Hotentott Rule?

(But from your link - throughout a variety of propositions the dead-Certainty of opinion remained intact. EZ target that certainty stuff, especially about humans and their 'motives'.)



Ashton

Besides I recognize my Gramma - feed her boilerplate into 32-bit Eliza and Voila! ;-)
New Re: Yup Ben - gotta agree

Those threads add 10 points back to Marlowe not being a N.I.C.E. bot

<grin>

Cheers

Doug
     Repos Withheld NK Nuke Info Until After Iraq Vote - (deSitter) - (9)
         Re: The next bit of shit to hit the fan is that Pakistan ... - (dmarker) - (7)
             Ah, the Turing Test for Marlowe. :) - (a6l6e6x) - (6)
                 Hey, just post it after every comment he makes. - (inthane-chan) - (5)
                     Re: The case against it being human ... - (dmarker) - (4)
                         That is not true - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                             I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that -NT - (deSitter)
                             Case proven, but.. - (Ashton)
                             Re: Yup Ben - gotta agree - (dmarker2)
         *giggle* - (Brandioch)

Powered by sporks.
82 ms