Hi
I never wanted to use my block function, but I did. 66.57.25.123 just vandalized an article and posted a threat. Was that the correct response, or should that user be unblocked.
Danny
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 19:36, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Hi
I never wanted to use my block function, but I did. 66.57.25.123 just vandalized an article and posted a threat. Was that the correct response, or should that user be unblocked.
That is rdu57-25-123.nc.rr.com (you can type "nslookup 66.57.25.123" or "dig 66.57.25.123" to find this out), which is probably a cable modem user in the Raleigh-Durham area. He may have the same address for several months, or may get a new one tomorrow, depending on how often he reboots his computer.
I normally wait until the third offense to block someone, but I'm not going to fault you for blocking someone who wrote that.
phma
On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 19:36, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Hi
I never wanted to use my block function, but I did. 66.57.25.123 just vandalized an article and posted a threat. Was that the correct response, or should that user be unblocked.
I'm confused. If you never wanted to use your block function, then why did you? Admit that you wanted to use it.
And why, if you have questions about whether you did the right thing, did you do it before checking with others?
Don't be wishy-washy.
--tc
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
I'm confused. If you never wanted to use your block function, then why did you? Admit that you wanted to use it.
And why, if you have questions about whether you did the right thing, did you do it before checking with others?
Are we still looking for things on which you're the sole voice of dissent?
On 11/6/02 4:43 AM, "Gareth Owen" wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
I'm confused. If you never wanted to use your block function, then why did you? Admit that you wanted to use it.
And why, if you have questions about whether you did the right thing, did you do it before checking with others?
Are we still looking for things on which you're the sole voice of dissent?
Where's the dissent?
The Cunctator wrote:
Danny wrote:
I never wanted to use my block function, but I did. 66.57.25.123 just vandalized an article and posted a threat. Was that the correct response, or should that user be unblocked.
I'm confused. If you never wanted to use your block function, then why did you? Admit that you wanted to use it.
And why, if you have questions about whether you did the right thing, did you do it before checking with others?
Don't be wishy-washy.
And why, Cunctator, if you're such an asshole, do you continue to infect the world with your existence?
-- Toby
Now, now. Cunctator, Toby. Both of you have used the word "asshole". You're even now, so cut the crap.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 14:23, Tom Parmenter wrote:
Now, now. Cunctator, Toby. Both of you have used the word "asshole". You're even now, so cut the crap.
There's a slight difference in how we used the words. Toby called me an asshole. I asked him why.
If person A says "We should kill bunny rabbits" and person B says "We should not kill bunny rabbits", even though they both said "kill bunny rabbits", they're not even.
The Cunctator wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
And why, Cunctator, if you're such an asshole, do you continue to infect the world with your existence?
That's a leading question. Why do you assert I'm such an asshole?
I like how you copied down even the word "such". It contributes to the impression that you're a bot. (Eliza would have copied down the word "such" just like that. Actually, Eliza would have refused to talk about herself, but switch pronouns and then it works.)
Anyway, I didn't support the statement, because it was based directly on the content that I provided. And it's a subjective judgement, I can't argue for it rationally. (Also, I doubt that they would want to read such an argument.) Let each person that read that context make up their own mind.
Of course, if your subjective judgement is different from mine, then how can I expect you to answer my question? But I don't expect that at all; it was a rhetorical question. No response is required of you (the less the better, in fact).
-- Toby
Y'know what? I was just about to ask if Cunctator was a Turing device. His responses sound just like a bot parroting back questions. Zoe Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote: The Cunctator wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
And why, Cunctator, if you're such an asshole, do you continue to infect the world with your existence?
That's a leading question. Why do you assert I'm such an asshole?
I like how you copied down even the word "such". It contributes to the impression that you're a bot. (Eliza would have copied down the word "such" just like that. Actually, Eliza would have refused to talk about herself, but switch pronouns and then it works.)
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 17:16, Zoe wrote:
Y'know what? I was just about to ask if Cunctator was a Turing device. His responses sound just like a bot parroting back questions. Zoe
You're confusing [[Turing machine]] and [[Turing test]].
But to prove that I'm no mere program, let me say that my hair is shingled, and the longest strands are about nine inches long.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org