# What's with the gibberish guys on usenet? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 19, 2001, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510 "2001-10-19T22:34:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![wombat18](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8e8cbc/32.png) [@wombat18](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wombat18)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/1 "2001-10-19T22:34:56Z")
A quick google usenet search using two semi-random words ‘wombat’ and ‘marmalade’ brings up (in addition to many genuine posts about how to marmalade your wombat) a succession of emails with text similar to the following: flutter Ferber weatherbeaten breve sicken inequality Wallace Seneca jure fry trench Ashley ahoy agreeable windsurf armful botulism rotten embolden decision told Pareto tyrannic pediatric external workplace Callaghan capo cinema Rensselaer terminate bereft chairman teaspoon disjunct indisposition showcase coltish marmalade Aubrey Jeffersonian etc. etc. I’ve noticed these on quite a few newsgroups, but I have no idea what’s with these guys. Do they just sit in front of the computer all day with their thesauruses (thesauri?) Is it some mysterious hacker thing? Is it a secret code? Are they trolls? Wouldn’t it wear really, really thin after a while? Any ideas? Anyone? ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/2 "2001-10-19T22:58:18Z")
It’s a hacker thing. There’s a guy out there who gets his jollies by substituting gibberish for message bodies. He’s been doing it for years. You can read about him here: [http://www.ganesha.org/ptb/hipcrime.html](http://www.ganesha.org/ptb/hipcrime.html) ---
**Author:** ![jmonster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@jmonster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmonster)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/3 "2001-10-19T23:25:36Z")
I think the real question here is: why are you searching for ‘wombat’ and ‘marmalade’ on google? ---
**Author:** ![wombat18](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8e8cbc/32.png) [@wombat18](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wombat18)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/4 "2001-10-19T23:34:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmonster \* > \*\*I think the real question here is: why are you searching for ‘wombat’ and ‘marmalade’ on google? \*\* Oh, just looking for a recipe. You know how it is when you’ve got a dinner party to prepare for and all you’ve got in the house are a couple of wombat steaks and a jar of marmalade. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/5 "2001-10-19T23:58:43Z")
Some kids also run scripts that post randomly generated stuff. Some of the more sophisticated scripts post replies to messages containing certain keywords, randomize the body of the original message, etc. Quite silly, really. ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/6 "2001-10-20T00:39:48Z")
Larry, most of the scripts aren’t that sophisticated, they’re usually a variant on the Chomsky-bot [http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chombot.htm](http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chombot.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/7 "2001-10-20T01:27:05Z")
That’s precisely the sort of script I was thinking of. I didn’t mean that the scripting itself was particularly sophisticated, only that the output was more sophisticated relative to the stuff referred to above. The Chomsky-bot produces stuff that people may actually spend some time trying to make sense of: > [@](#): > > Summarizing, then, we assume that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is not subject to a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Clearly, relational information delimits a parasitic gap construction. So far, any associated supporting element does not affect the structure of the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. You might read half of it before you realize that it is meaningless, because it’s recognizable as english based on the lexicon and grammatical rules.[sub]_Do_ colourless green ideas sleep furiously?\*[/sub] If you get of flood of messages like the ones refered to above, eg: > [@](#): > > Pnec ymk ev ydezm > eeebn fgr ybi iepap rluipe fjzn > mlu erp pqu cyh mmb fvf > ckp koe heo uylu ijnr ye > pta tnpr te zhtdo wdju? You’re not likely to spend a lot of time trying to decipher it. ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/8 "2001-10-20T03:06:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Larry Mudd \* > **That’s precisely the sort of script I was thinking of. I didn’t mean that the scripting itself was particularly sophisticated, only that the output was more sophisticated relative to the stuff referred to above. > The Chomsky-bot produces stuff that people may actually spend some time trying to make sense of…** Yeah, in some attacks, they load the bot with snippets of common jargon from the messages in the newsgroup, names of prominent posters, etc. It sometimes looks very real. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/9 "2001-10-20T03:21:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Summarizing, then, we assume that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is not subject to a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Clearly, relational information delimits a parasitic gap construction. So far, any associated supporting element does not affect the structure of the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. To be honest, that sounds like about half the stuff I have to edit. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/10 "2001-10-20T04:42:05Z")
The interesting thing is that Chomsky’s writings make no more sense than the output produced by the Chomsky-bot. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/11 "2001-10-20T07:57:27Z")
I disagree. His semiotic texts in particular are stunning. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/12 "2001-10-20T15:20:12Z")
First, Chomsky never wrote anything about semiotics. His writings in linguistics are about syntax, semantics, child language development, and the history of linguistics. Second, he’s frequently a terrible writer. I was a grad student in linguistics and had to read several of his books. Third, his poor argumentation has been a bad influence on linguistics. Read _The Linguistics Wars_ by Randy Allen Harris and _Western Linguistics: An Historical Introduction_ by Pieter A. M. Seuren for a discussion of how badly he acted during the generative semantics/generative syntax battles. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/13 "2001-10-20T21:00:00Z")
Whoops. The impressive book I was thinking of was _Sign, Symbol, Code,_ ny Umberto Eco. Funny I should should confuse them. Well, maybe not so funny. Have only read Chomsky, Benjamin Lee Whorf, & Eco. Tried to read Korzybski but found it too obtuse. Thanks for the refs… They sound juicy. [sub]Is this off-topic, or not?[/sub] 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/14 "2001-10-20T21:37:06Z")
Noam Chomsky, Umberto Eco, and Benjamin Lee Whorf are all reasonably important authors, although perhaps controversial ones. There are those who don’t much like them (I don’t like Chomsky’s writings, for instance), but they’re generally considered worth reading. On the other hand, most experts on language think that Alfred Korzybski isn’t worth the trouble to read. ---
**Author:** ![Boris\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/fbc32d/32.png) [@Boris\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boris_B)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/15 "2001-10-20T22:21:00Z")
Those are interesting references, but I would have trouble taking a book seriously with a title that included the phrase “An Historical”. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Boris\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/fbc32d/32.png) [@Boris\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boris_B)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/16 "2001-10-20T22:40:39Z")
Chas.E’s link to the Chomsky-bot had a link to Eliza on it. I’ve always been amused by the idea of Eliza, so I went there and decided to play along. [http://www.parnasse.com/drwww.shtml](http://www.parnasse.com/drwww.shtml) It was awesome. First I started complaining about my job, and the computer responded “There is no such thing as the perfect job.” We chatted about that for a while, and then I started joking about how I really need a transorbital lobotomy. I don’t think Eliza was laughing. Finally, I said, “I am starting to think that you are just a simple computer program” just for laughs. The reply: > [@](#): > > I’m not a computer! I’m a real WWW psychiatrist. > > Let’s not talk about me. That is about the loudest I’ve laughed in a week. ---
**Author:** ![Boris\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/fbc32d/32.png) [@Boris\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boris_B)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/17 "2001-10-20T22:47:16Z")
Okay, so I’m easily amused. I started copying Chomskybot phrases into Eliza. I tried > [@](#): > > By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is, apparently, determined by a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Eliza’s response was > [@](#): > > Pets can produce complex emotional attachments. Tell me more about your cat. More big laughs. So said > [@](#): > > Wait a minute! Why do you think I have a cat? At that point the big E fell back to her “Let’s not talk about me” standby, which is when I lost interest. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2001, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/18 "2001-10-21T05:25:53Z")
Boris B writes: \> Those are interesting references, but I would have \> trouble taking a book seriously with a title that \> included the phrase “An Historical”. Check a dictionary. It’s acceptable (although not the most common usage) to put “an” before “historical”. It seems to be more common in British than in American English. ---
**Author:** ![DaveW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DaveW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaveW)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2001, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/19 "2001-10-21T05:46:05Z")
Now the weird stuff I’ve seen is like nothing described in this thread so far. Normal, everyday-type sentences, in random-length paragraphs. And those posts got _replies_ in the same almost-but-not-quite sensible language. Making some up: > [@](#): > > Sarah led the giraffe down to the red lake. It was quiet, but the juniper bush fizzled softly. Suddenly, an orange bat with federal tax forms jumped the kraken. This went on for hundreds of lines at times. Googling around for a few minutes, I failed to find anything similar to what I’ve seen, but I only saw it in newsgroups I never frequented, so I don’t remember _where_ I saw this kind of thing. However, a look at [alt.flame.net-abuse](http://groups.google.com/groups?group=alt.flame.net-abuse) shows a whole slew of messages on July 25, 2001, which look sorta like what I’m talking about, except they’ve all got encryption headers on them, and are full of obviously “techie” words. So, were the older messages I’d seen also encrypted, or were they something else? By the way, the Chomskybot could get a boost from an old program I wrote, called Garble, which I’ve since seen in a couple of different forms on the Web, but have lost my links to. It took a text, created a huge database of all the word triplets, and randomly generated an output text based on the triplets. It kept track of the original punctuation, too, so it could toss in commas and quotes and suchlike. Anyway, feed the program Chomsky, and what would come out would _read_ like Chomsky, but would be decidely random. Feed it Shakespeare, and you’d get garbled Shakespeare. Actually, the last time I ran into this stuff on the Web, someone had a form in which you could specify two authors from a list, and you’d get a page of text which “garbled” the two together. Dang, now I’ve gotta go find my old source code… ---
**Author:** ![labradorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3ec8ea/32.png) [@labradorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/labradorian)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2001, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510/20 "2001-10-21T18:05:42Z")
Is this possibly the scientology sporgeries? [http://www.modemac.com/cos/cos6.html](http://www.modemac.com/cos/cos6.html) What types of newsgroups was google returning these gibberish messages from? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-gibberish-guys-on-usenet/88510.md?page=2)