Re: What it would take...

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: What it would take...
De : anw (at) *nospam* cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 12. May 2025, 23:38:10
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Not very much
Message-ID : <vvtt8i$1074k$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 12/05/2025 18:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I have tired to suggest that everyone simply stop replying to PO.  He
does not want to be right, he wants the attention and after a final
flurry of insulting posts he would probably go elsewhere.
I too have tried that suggestion.  But no, every obsessive poster
here seems to think that they have a killer argument that will finally
persuade Peter that he is wrong.  Repeated claims of stupidity, lying,
and so on does nothing to lower the temperature.  You would think that
bashing ones head against a brick wall 20+ times/day would eventually
lead to enlightenment, but no, it seems instead to lead to even greater
determination not to be the poster who simply stops.
Personally, I kf articles of more than 100 lines and some of the
most prolific posters, and also don't bother to read any article which
fails to grab my attention on the first screenful [kudos to RichardH for
being one of very few posters to snip appropriately].  That, at least,
makes the group readable.  I hope someone will wake me up if there is
ever any actual progress made.  Some hope!  Sadly, it seems more likely
that two or more posters will discover the joys of AI and set their
computer to auto-reply semi-intelligently to each and every post.
[For all I know, that's how PO already operates and he is not the
sad misguided attention-seeking person that most here seem to assume, but
is instead running a vast psychological experiment to see how far he can
push his LLM before anyone (other than our resident penguin) notices.]
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
    Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
    Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Schubert

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 May 25 * What it would take...143Richard Heathfield
10 May 25 +* Re: What it would take...10Richard Damon
10 May 25 i+* Re: What it would take...2Richard Damon
10 May 25 ii`- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
10 May 25 i`* Re: What it would take...7olcott
10 May 25 i +- Re: What it would take...1Fred. Zwarts
10 May 25 i `* Re: What it would take...5wij
10 May 25 i  `* Re: What it would take...4olcott
10 May 25 i   +* Re: What it would take...2olcott
10 May 25 i   i`- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
11 May 25 i   `- Re: What it would take...1Mikko
12 May 25 +* Re: What it would take...130Ben Bacarisse
12 May 25 i+* Re: What it would take...121Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 ii+* Re: What it would take...118Ben Bacarisse
13 May 25 iii+* Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?4olcott
13 May 25 iiii+- Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?1dbush
13 May 25 iiii+- Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii`- Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?1Mikko
13 May 25 iii+* Re: What it would take...16Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iiii`* How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met15olcott
13 May 25 iiii +* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met8Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iiii i`* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met7olcott
13 May 25 iiii i +- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1dbush
13 May 25 iiii i +- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iiii i +* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met3Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii i i`* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met2olcott
13 May 25 iiii i i `- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii i `- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Mikko
13 May 25 iiii +* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met5Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii i`* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met4olcott
13 May 25 iiii i `* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met3Richard Damon
14 May 25 iiii i  `* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met2olcott
14 May 25 iiii i   `- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii `- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Fred. Zwarts
13 May 25 iii`* Re: What it would take...97Mike Terry
13 May 25 iii +- Re: What it would take...1Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iii +* Re: What it would take...8olcott
13 May 25 iii i+* Re: What it would take...5Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iii ii+* Re: What it would take...2olcott
13 May 25 iii iii`- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii ii`* Re: What it would take...2olcott
13 May 25 iii ii `- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii i+- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii i`- Re: What it would take...1Mikko
13 May 25 iii `* Re: What it would take...87André G. Isaak
13 May 25 iii  `* Re: What it would take...86olcott
13 May 25 iii   `* Re: What it would take...85Fred. Zwarts
13 May 25 iii    `* Re: What it would take...84Mike Terry
13 May 25 iii     `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric83olcott
13 May 25 iii      +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric74dbush
13 May 25 iii      i+* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric52olcott
13 May 25 iii      ii+* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric50dbush
13 May 25 iii      iii`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP49olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP47dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP46olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP44dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP43olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP42dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i  `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP41olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i   `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP40dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i    `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP39olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i     `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP38dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i      `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP37olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i       `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP36dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i        `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP35olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP6dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP5olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP3Fred. Zwarts
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP2olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP28Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i          `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP27olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i           `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP26Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i            `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP25olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i             `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP24Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i              `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP23olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP21Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP20olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP18Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP17olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP11Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP10olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP8Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP7olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP6Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i  `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP5olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i   `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP4dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i    `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP3olcott
15 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i     `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP2Fred. Zwarts
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i      `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1dbush
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP5joes
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i  `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP4olcott
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i   `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP3Richard Damon
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i    `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP2olcott
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i     `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1Richard Damon
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1joes
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1joes
14 May 25 iii      iii i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1Richard Damon
14 May 25 iii      iii `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1Richard Damon
14 May 25 iii      ii`- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii      i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric21Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iii      +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric7olcott
13 May 25 iii      `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1Richard Damon
13 May 25 ii`* Re: What it would take...2Mike Terry
12 May 25 i`* Re: What it would take...8Andy Walker
12 May 25 `* Re: What it would take...2olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal