X-Received: by 2002:adf:d0c1:: with SMTP id z1mr77239306wrh.371.1582630847719; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 03:40:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: ...!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!144.76.237.92.MISMATCH!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Diesel Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: Re: Bot droppings Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:40:47 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 151 Message-ID: References: <8401e08c-30a1-45bf-b9e0-c656b574de8f@googlegroups.com> <_Gc4G.296005$zI7.21854@fx37.iad> Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:40:47 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="001a4617a3aa50aceb1e0b1977145f6c"; logging-data="5034"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9MEyWI3jTTekMOLZV+yrrU175ODs2Xso=" User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 Cancel-Lock: sha1:qxk+rBxAo9EyGTSvvx8aIOF6t1c= Bytes: 7958 Snit news:hbjcp6F4eckU1@mid.individual.net Tue, 25 Feb 2020 01:49:26 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: > OK, just checked and I see. And nospam is there. Curious. Not sure > what to make of it... but why move it before the public comment > from Diesel. There is almost surely something he is not saying > about this. No possible way he would just let ME off if it was me > -- hell, look at how he freaks out over the use of AppCleaner. Snit, I didn't know the bot moved. And, I would give you a pass if you're the individual responsible for it, based on what I've learned about you; most of which hasn't been by choice, it's from the 'held for review' samples I've gotten. So, it's not like I've been stalking you, or looking by hand (as in human effort here) for posts authored by you. > So he knows more than he has said. I don't think it would be advantageous for me to discuss things of what appear to be personal issues with you. You're already easily offended by me, very defensive, and have already made some assumptions about how you think I am, act, think, etc. Based on what I suspect is true about you, I'd give you a pass if you were the bot owner - It wouldn't be fair of me to do much of anything to you of a nefarious nature. You don't have the ability to initiate a defensive stance, let alone actually defend yourself if I did want to get low down and dirty with you. You can't even carry on a logical discussion with me without resorting to childish insults of various degree. >>> It certainly SEEMS like he found things and shared it with the >>> one behind the bot before he made that post. >> >> I don't get that impression. > > His comment: > ----- > Snit, if you're running the bot you have an easy way out > that won't cost you any respect, face, or anything else. > Just stop. That's it. Simple right? > ----- > > Made right AFTER it left? He was talking to the one running the > bot... and has agreed to not make it public. He would NEVER do > that for me. Not a chance. Do you think I have a personal issue of some kind with you Snit? I don't even know you, dude. You aren't even a tiny blip on my radar screen...I wrote that specifically to you, because, you're a script kiddie (you pose no threat, no challenge whatsoever, and you wouldn't be able to protect yourself if I did want to get frisky) and it's a long process. If I can avoid wasting the time, i'm all for it. That's your 'easy way' out, Snit. >>>>> Carroll and Diesel are doing exactly as I said -- working >>>>> together with their trolling. And Diesel figured out who is >>>>> running the bot, as he said he would. It was just not the >>>>> answer he was hoping for. >>>> >>>> None of that sounds plausible to me. >>> >>> Why else would the bot stop three hours before? >> >> It hasn't stopped. > > Fair enough: why stop here... and with that timing. It is very > suspect, at least. Hmm. Only to you, apparently. I wasn't aware of any bot movements. I don't keep track of it. That's not necessary for my purpose. >>> And why would Diesel suddenly given an "out" to the person >>> running the bot... >> >> Good question. I don't know, other than perhaps he doesn't want >> to spend much time on the task. > > He made it clear it would be easy for him to check for IP screwups > and to create something similar to what Sandman did with charting > posting times. No reason to think he did not do these things, esp. > with his comments now. I've never seen Sandmans work...or the results of it. What you're suggesting is a difficult task isn't.. I'm surprised that you haven't done this or something similiar, yourself, years ago. or that your detractor(s) haven't bothered. >>> no less talk about having access to the code? >> >> He's not said that. I believe he bases his assesment of the code >> from sample posts. > > The only thing we know of the code is the bit Carroll has shown, > and he denies that is even tied to the bot. Without knowing the > reasoning for the text it could just as easily be lorem ipsum. Who's we exactly here? I didn't claim I had any access to the floodbots code. You're putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about what you think I wrote, or meant. > I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to have the > bot break apart sentences and respond to keywords, but that is > more my thing that Carroll's (I do it with my chat bot). So if I > were to make such a bot, yes, I would want it to do that... but > does Carroll even want it to? I think the main purpose is Google > seeding... and it does that well. Christ, keyword hits aren't original by either of you. It's been done and done and done to death. I had an eliza bot on my first computer, and it was very limited compared to what anyone uses today. Nothing I've seen shown by either of you is original, or difficult to produce. It's all stuff I've seen before, some going back decades that's 'new' to the two of you, very old stuff to myself and many of the others here. > Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output > shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know > that. How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output (most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's being generated, what algorithms are likely in use. One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be sampled. Do you think when you disassemble something that you're provided the original source code that was compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're given looks nothing like the original source code, but it still tells you *everything* about the program. >>> There is certainly more going on than what he and Carroll have >>> let onto. >> >> If there is, I hope he (Diesel) tells me. I can speak his coded >> language. > > I suspect he will not... even though his comment makes it clear he > knows more than he has said. You aren't being logical. -- Useless Invention: Waterproof teabags.