Path: ...!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!apd.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Apd" Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: Re: FORGERY Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:26:18 +0100 Organization: ad hoc Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:26:19 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4c2d7561cf7f2ea826bac3b303bc7e28"; logging-data="28284"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/R18WIdlPfULRjjaAOoY7R" Cancel-Lock: sha1:efBu6H5oMrMnP0yF6tE8Uci3N9g= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Bytes: 2743 "Snit" wrote: > On 6/17/20 2:40 PM, Apd wrote: >> "Snit" wrote: [...] > I *would* like to hear from Diesel and you and others on any RELEVANT > analysis of Carroll's bot code. What can we tell from it (I have > written some about that). I haven't done any, other than to note the text is copied from other posts usually with name changes, and probably wont. >> I don't believe he misunderstood. > > Fair enough. I have said my piece. We can disagree. I'll leave it at that. > But if you agree "someone" has those goals -- fine. If you think the > goals are otherwise, that is also fine. I am curious as to what you > think the goals are and how well you think the bot meets those goals. I see no point to it apart from annoying people who use Google Groups, like Carroll does. That's something that makes you a suspect. It doesn't really meet that goal since he is able to work around it. Most people can't filter in GG. >>> Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else. >> >> Yep, but he addressed your point about needing to see the code. How >> well he addressed it is another matter. > > Right: I think he has been clear he does not have the code. I accept > there is no evidence he does (if the misunderstanding I speak of above > is true, or something akin to it, his comments in relation to it are > not evidence of him having the code). I've snipped most of your comprehensive reply where you've explained why the context appeared different to you and other matters. I won't argue about it but there's enough there for Diesel to get his teeth into if he wishes.