Dammit, I never win these things.
He must mean Eddie Hitler.
You got me, here. I read between half and two thirds of the OP thinking you were serious, searching for hints that Steophan was a bot in the quotes you posted. :smack:
Can we create a list of tests of botness?
I think only a bot would defend itself in a pit thread accusing it of being a bot.
I just clicked on the Controversial Encounters thread to find, at the very top of the page, one of the most flamboyantly wrong assertions I’ve ever seen.
“It’s not reasonable to eat a pound of chocolate in one sitting, so it can’t be less reasonable to stand on your hands naked in the middle of the freeway.”
“It’s not reasonable to prefer punk music over rock, so it can’t be less reasonable to take a shotgun to church and kill as many as you can.”
The bot has appeared in this thread pleading that it is human. At this point, it’s best hope to convince Dopers that it’s sentient is to assert that the above quote was produced by a kitten crawling on the keyboard.
I’ll ask Dopers to respond to a Poll question: The above quote is [pick one]
[ul][li] A brilliant new discovery in axiology and epistomology. It makes Aristotle’s Excluded Middle look wishy-washy.[/li][li] Clear proof that the bot is programmed rather than human. Its logic has a certain smug satisfaction, but fundamental facts known to any human are missing from its program. The same bot might produce an intelligent-sounding post about gravitation, while missing that that force is attractive instead of repulsive.[/li][li] Some sort of typographical error. By inserting some “nots’s” in the sentence and rearranging the words it may be possible to construct a grammatically valid coherent thought.[/li][li] While a stark demonstration of inability to understand the concept of “shades of gray,” not proof that Steophan is a bot. In Texas one can find stranger thoughts in any revival tent or drunk tank.[/li][li] Perhaps the stupidest thing ever posted on this message board.[/li][li] Other: ______________________________________________[/li][/ul]
Can someone help the bot’s programmers by naming the fallacy missing from their logic model? The term “slippery slope” might come to mind, but only if the slope is a long 90º fall, like at the Grand Canyon.
Perhaps Siemens was a poor choice for the bot contract.
This is definitely the best 'bot posting in this thread so far!
I remember a bot posting about some national BBQ event or selling grilling equipment or something like that. It must have thought this was a barbecue forum.