Subject: Re: Sarcarm and intimidation

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:41:49 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>

    > Hallam-Baker is active in anti-spam issues.

Wow. I've just had a major "cognition", as Scientology members would say. I
assume everyone's read "Parry meets The Doctor"? Nuff' said.

Anyway, I hereby propose the IETF Corollary to Godwin's Law: whenever any
IETF thread migrates to the subject of spam, it's time to end the thread.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:22:24 -0400 (EDT)

> assume everyone's read "Parry meets The Doctor"? Nuff' said.

Probably not everyone gets "Parry meets the Doctor"

I couldn't find the article by Vint Cerf online [Cerf, Vinton, "PARRY
meets THE DOCTOR", DATAMATION, pages 62-64, July, 1973.] [BTW, The Doctor
is the Eliza program]

Excerpt from 
http://www2.mit.bme.hu/services/vimm3241/tanul/beadott/regi/BenkoKatona/extra_eng.html
does it pretty well:

=======================================

Parry meets the Doctor

There are many other programs that cannot communicate so sophisticated
like SHRDLU. The Doctor was created to simulate the "non-controlled
therapy" of psychiatrists and Parry's task is to simulate a paranoid's
misthoughts. A confrontation of these two programs was arranged on a
computer network.  This is the a short part of the conversation log:

Parry: I don't understand your motivations. Doctor: Why don't you 
understand my motiwations? P: Shall I understand? D: Now why do you say 
this? P: Because it's exactly the way it isn't. D: Let's suppose it's 
exactly not that way. P: And? D: I guess I don't really understand you. P: 
You're stuck at the same question. D: What consequence do you make of this 
similarity? P: I really can't see where you're intending to get into. D: 
You want me to get into something? P: It's time to show a little bit of 
interest in direction of my feelings. D: Oh! Have I shown interest of your 
feelings?

These programs were designed to have conversations width real people and 
so they are expecting that the living "partners" are going to give much 
useless information which is not really meaningful in the context. And 
there it was: the Doctor rose the illusion that "he" really understood the 
conversational partners - the people who talked with the Doctor said this. 

=======================================

If you have no interest in spam, why do you keep making such posts?

> IETF thread migrates to the subject of spam, it's time to end the thread.

Does this mean that you think the IETF should disband the ASRG, drop all
current I-D's relating to spam, and quit working on spam issues?  I rather
doubt that Chiappa genuinely doesn't want the IETF to work on spam issues,
[at least that's not my perception of his comments] but instead means only
to disparage the current discussion. But if Chiappa genuinely thinks the
IETF should stop spam work, he should say so directly, so as to be clearly
understood.

But if the IETF is going to work on spam, then occasionally the main IETF
list will have to discuss the issue, and also discuss the administrative
issues that arise from the discussions.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:01:34 -0700

> Probably not everyone gets "Parry meets the Doctor"

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc439.txt

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:35:40 +0200

...
> current I-D's relating to spam, and quit working on spam issues?  

What I think is that if you change the subject, you should change
the Subject:, so that people who might be interested in "Sarcarm
and intimidation" but aren't interested in "Spam" don't waste their
time.

    Brian

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:22:45 -0400 (EDT)

> > current I-D's relating to spam, and quit working on spam issues?

Yes.  The last time I checked, the IETF was about manifesting genius level
ideas into functional standards, and not letting lots of whining users who
ccan't figure out how to operate a simple packet filter dictate our work.

> and intimidation" but aren't interested in "Spam" don't waste their

That too.

>     Brian

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/