The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => The Lounge => Topic started by: Trekky0623 on January 15, 2008, 08:42:36 PM
-
Discuss.
-
Discuss.
He's not a bot. He's a mask account for the other mods when they want to post something that they fear might embaress them.
-
Nope. He is a Perl Script.
Midnight - Winning since 1978, with calculated precision.
-
No way... Python tops. Perl is far to elegant.
-
There are tremendous minds behind the scenes.
-
Saddam concurs with Mids. Bishop is too sophisticated to be a bot, but he is definitely not a person.
The proof is: Bishop will not post in this thread. Any normal person would be eager to debunk the claim that they are a robot. That's how we know that Dick Cheney is a robot.
-
The actions are self explanatory.
-
Tom Bishop is neither an automaton nor a collaboration, he's one person.
-
Perhaps, but he has the intelligence of some scripts I've seen.
-
Tom Bishop is neither an automaton nor a collaboration, he's one person.
You're not an admin, so naturally you wouldn't be in on in it.
-
Tom Bishop is neither an automaton nor a collaboration, he's one person.
You're not an admin, so naturally you wouldn't be in on in it.
I love conspiracy theories.
-
You're not an admin, so naturally you wouldn't be in on in it.
I wasn't guessing, I know that he's a person.
-
What, you know him personally? :o
-
No.
-
No.
Then how would you know? Scripts could write messages. Or the creator could pose as him for a while.
-
He asked me where I live :o
-
Bishop did?
-
Yeah
-
Pretty wacky. He lives in California, he's admitted as much on this site.
-
Or he's led you to believe he lives in California
-
Maybe he's right behind you
-
Pretty wacky. He lives in California, he's admitted as much on this site.
So a bot saying it lives somewhere is proof? Yes there is a Tom Bishop in California.
-
How do we know Daniel didn't make him as a joke?
-
So a bot saying it lives somewhere is proof? Yes there is a Tom Bishop in California.
Perhaps his name isn't Tom Bishop
-
He said his name wasn't Tom Bishop
-
I love the tail chasing of this thread.
-
So a bot saying it lives somewhere is proof? Yes there is a Tom Bishop in California.
Perhaps his name isn't Tom Bishop
Still proof of being someone on the internet is hard. You claim to "know" he is a real person. We claim that there is a real person behind a bot.
Still waiting for an explanation of how you could tell a person controlling a bot from a person typing.
-
To be fair, while Tom has the intelligence of some bots, he passes the Turing test, if you ask me. Either a human assists the script, or he's a very very dumb human. I'd bet on the latter.
-
To be fair, while Tom has the intelligence of some bots, he passes the Turing test, if you ask me. Either a human assists the script, or he's a very very dumb human. I'd bet on the latter.
He really passes the turring test? Most of what he says is copy pasted. This could be a simple defense mechanism against gaps in his logic.
-
I have no doubt that "Tom Bishop" is an actual person who believes the Earth is flat reguardless of whether that is his real name. For the record, if Bishop had merely been the creation of an administrator (and he was not), it would have been Erasmus who is more skilled at arguing technical flat Earth arguments than Daniel. In spite of what he does for a living, the engineer is a bit of a retard compared to a shut-in like Erasmus who has nothing better to do all day than looking into these things, and even the Eng would be a better candidate than Daniel for this, but Erasmus is the only one who would come remotely close to pulling something off as sophisticated as creating "Tom Bishop," but he's not quite that good. Whatever his actual name, "Tom Bishop" is for real, guys.
Speaking of the devil, it appears that Erasmus has taken at least a temporary leave from the forums. Sucker. I was here before him, and I'm still here after he's gone.
-
I beg to differ. Ladies, Gentleman... I present... Tom Bishop: the Mark V. Shaney text-generating robot
Simply run this Python script after running any simple forum search bot. After you have your txt files generated. Run them through Tom Bishop here.
import sys
import rand
import string
def run(filename=''):
if filename=='':
file = open( raw_input('Enter name of a textfile to read: '), 'r')
else:
file = open( filename, 'r')
text = file.read()
file.close()
words = string.split(text)
end_sentence = []
dict = {}
prev1 = ''
prev2 = ''
for word in words:
if prev1 != '' and prev2 != '':
key = (prev2, prev1)
if dict.has_key(key):
dict[key].append(word)
else:
dict[key] = [word]
if prev1[-1:] == '.':
end_sentence.append(key)
prev2 = prev1
prev1 = word
if end_sentence == []:
print 'Sorry, there are no sentences in the text.'
return
key = ()
count = 10
while 1:
if dict.has_key(key):
word = rand.choice(dict[key])
print word,
key = (key[1], word)
if key in end_sentence:
print
count = count - 1
if count <= 0:
break
else:
key = rand.choice(end_sentence)
# end of run() function
# immediate-mode commands, for drag-and-drop or execfile() execution
if __name__ == '__main__':
if len(sys.argv) == 2:
run(sys.argv[1]) # accept a command-line filename
else:
run()
print
raw_input("press Return>")
else:
print "Module Bishop imported."
print "To run, type: bishop.run()"
print "To reload after changes to the source, type: reload(bishop)"
... and that is that. The mystery is solved. Next.
-
Optimus wins.
-
I beg to differ. Ladies, Gentleman... I present... Tom Bishop: the Mark V. Shaney text-generating robot
Simply run this Python script after running any simple forum search bot. After you have your txt files generated. Run them through Tom Bishop here.
import sys
import rand
import string
def run(filename=''):
if filename=='':
file = open( raw_input('Enter name of a textfile to read: '), 'r')
else:
file = open( filename, 'r')
text = file.read()
file.close()
words = string.split(text)
end_sentence = []
dict = {}
prev1 = ''
prev2 = ''
for word in words:
if prev1 != '' and prev2 != '':
key = (prev2, prev1)
if dict.has_key(key):
dict[key].append(word)
else:
dict[key] = [word]
if prev1[-1:] == '.':
end_sentence.append(key)
prev2 = prev1
prev1 = word
if end_sentence == []:
print 'Sorry, there are no sentences in the text.'
return
key = ()
count = 10
while 1:
if dict.has_key(key):
word = rand.choice(dict[key])
print word,
key = (key[1], word)
if key in end_sentence:
print
count = count - 1
if count <= 0:
break
else:
key = rand.choice(end_sentence)
# end of run() function
# immediate-mode commands, for drag-and-drop or execfile() execution
if __name__ == '__main__':
if len(sys.argv) == 2:
run(sys.argv[1]) # accept a command-line filename
else:
run()
print
raw_input("press Return>")
else:
print "Module Bishop imported."
print "To run, type: bishop.run()"
print "To reload after changes to the source, type: reload(bishop)"
... and that is that. The mystery is solved. Next.
2 things.
1 Eat it dogplatter
2 You are my hero optimus.
-
i dont get it
-
That's ok Gayer... it just means you're not a nerd. Be happy and proud and go grab a pint ;D
-
but can you explain it to me please?
-
Sure... I'll PM you... TL; TB for here... ;)
-
now I understand, mostly
-
Sure... I'll PM you... TL; TB for here... ;)
wanna explain to me. I thought it was a bot program now i think I am missing a big joke.
Me + non basic code = confuzzled.
-
Nope it's just a bot program... but I didn't want to go into explaining what a script / program is, why or how one works, and how it relates to this situation and make a big long boring post for everyone to read and think "good lord... I just wasted 3 minutes of my life to find out... *that*?" ;D
Iit is nothing more than a script (which is basically a type of program) that when run or activated will take input in the form of text, search it, and randomly spit out a semi-coherent response with several repetitions (the way I re-coded it. Normally it won't do so many repetitions .. lol)
Also, being only the main interpreter or 'sorter' if you will... this could easily be the smallest portion of the Tom Bishop script. The entirety creating logs and tracking records to provide even more realistic and seemingly personal responses at times. Overall being somewhat canned in nature, the occasional one-on-one discussion can arise and the script can actually be seen if you pay attention...
Ever notice how "Tom Bishop" seems to just sort of babble an answer that really doesn't quite apply sometimes? I mean there are some words in the sentence that kind of go along with what's being said, but the end point is totally moot. Well that's the script trying to pull a response out of it's ass without enough information from the thread yet. Most of the time it's in threads where people have given short and to the point answers, or brief statements - therefore not enough large bodies of text to draw detailed responses from.
Simple.
-
Hrm...it could be so...you know, the greatest way to test is to try severe sarcasm on a bot, and see what happens. Furthermore, he doesn't come onto these threads, which is what I would do. However, he does seem to pick up things from me. For example, when I prove him wrong using Snell's law, he starts using Snell's law repeatedly. That sort of behavior is extremely advanced for a bot. Either it is a truly advanced script, or a very, very, very dumb human. I still vote human. Actually, the best way would be to use an image. Let's try it. Show an image to illustrate a point, and see if it understands.
-
No.. images are what bots strive for. People have to give at least a limited explanation for others. Even if you post a picture and simply say "How do you explain this picture?"
What is Tom's usual canned response?
"What does that have to do with anything?"
"What evidence do you have to support your claim?"
"Images are not admissible as proof"
"That doesn't proof anything anyway"
etc. etc.
See what I mean?
Definately a script. I'm considering taking time out to write an Optimus 2.0 script and login as it every so often, and "read" the posts and let it "respond" by posting whatever it spits out just to see what happens. It will take me some time to write one that I'm satisfied with, but one of these days.. everyone just might get a surprise.. ;D
-
Write the text inside the image. Trust me, try it.
No script written has that level of sophistication. If you show a picture of a giraffe, and ask Tom what it is, what script could tell it was a giraffe? Image recognition of such a profound level? That would be amazing. I would be shocked if MIT's entire artificial intelligence division(if it exists) managed to create Tom.
-
This is true... but you are talking about posting an image in a forum. You are still going to have to ask Tom "What is this a picture of?"
or something. In which a response will be simple to replicate. See what I'm saying? Aside from that.... what's there to a little human intervention on behalf of the creator of the script every once in a while eh?
It's without question an advanced script that has a huge reserve of canned information (like the endless reiterations of Rowbotham info) combined with a great little AI random generator.
-
I've got an idea. I'll let you in on the results when they are finished.
-
Hrm...it could be so...you know, the greatest way to test is to try severe sarcasm on a bot, and see what happens. Furthermore, he doesn't come onto these threads, which is what I would do. However, he does seem to pick up things from me. For example, when I prove him wrong using Snell's law, he starts using Snell's law repeatedly. That sort of behavior is extremely advanced for a bot. Either it is a truly advanced script, or a very, very, very dumb human. I still vote human. Actually, the best way would be to use an image. Let's try it. Show an image to illustrate a point, and see if it understands.
Like some trolls he will treat the sarcasm as you being serious. If you haven't notice you can say "oh i guess that PROVES FE correct ::)"
and he will respond like you seriously admitted he was right.
-
Write the text inside the image. Trust me, try it.
No script written has that level of sophistication. If you show a picture of a giraffe, and ask Tom what it is, what script could tell it was a giraffe? Image recognition of such a profound level? That would be amazing. I would be shocked if MIT's entire artificial intelligence division(if it exists) managed to create Tom.
There are programs that can search an image and find the name and description of it. You would have to take the pic yourself and make sure the name is just numbers.
Also why would he be forced to respond? He has avoided bigger questions than that to avoid losing an argument.
-
Write the text inside the image. Trust me, try it.
No script written has that level of sophistication. If you show a picture of a giraffe, and ask Tom what it is, what script could tell it was a giraffe? Image recognition of such a profound level? That would be amazing. I would be shocked if MIT's entire artificial intelligence division(if it exists) managed to create Tom.
There are programs that can search an image and find the name and description of it. You would have to take the pic yourself and make sure the name is just numbers.
Also why would he be forced to respond? He has avoided bigger questions than that to avoid losing an argument.
It's called Cryptonology.
http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/376.pdf
-
I don't think he's a real person, in fact haven't for ages. Ever since I came up with a proof that was better than his, and yet still saw him using his flawed proof over and over again. And also every time I called him up on it he gave me the same response.
-
And, to my shock, I am forced to revert my views after conducting an experiment. Tom is indeed a bot, possibly human assisted at times. I conducted an experiment, which, at least to my mind, proves that Tom, in at least part, is computer operated. I do believe, based on other evidence, that a human checks up on him every now and then. I sent him an argument about the map of the FE, and distances, except that I swapped the map for a picture of a rhino. He argued with me about how all FE maps are hypothetical, without noting(as any human would), that I had sent him a picture of a rhino...
-
And, to my shock, I am forced to revert my views after conducting an experiment. Tom is indeed a bot, possibly human assisted at times. I conducted an experiment, which, at least to my mind, proves that Tom, in at least part, is computer operated. I do believe, based on other evidence, that a human checks up on him every now and then. I sent him an argument about the map of the FE, and distances, except that I swapped the map for a picture of a rhino. He argued with me about how all FE maps are hypothetical, without noting(as any human would), that I had sent him a picture of a rhino...
He could have thought it was metaphorical.... ;)
-
Doubtful. If so, his response would be tongue in cheek. I thought he was pure human, until I tried this. His response was merely one of his canned ones, no jokes, no nothing. His response would have been more suited if I had actually put a map. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's pure bot, but he's definitely(to my mind at least) partly a bot/script.
-
Was that a thread?
-
No. I made it a PM so that there would be no additional human responses from which to generate sentences. I can post what I wrote and he wrote, though. Trust me though, I don't think a human would do that. You should try a series of turing tests on jabberwacky with some friends. Some questions are better than others, and short responses which are ambiguous are practically trademark for bots.
-
He's not a script/bot, and he's not any of the other members on the site (individual or combined). Trust me on this one.
-
I trust your science. I don't trust your sociology.
-
No. I made it a PM so that there would be no additional human responses from which to generate sentences. I can post what I wrote and he wrote, though. Trust me though, I don't think a human would do that. You should try a series of turing tests on jabberwacky with some friends. Some questions are better than others, and short responses which are ambiguous are practically trademark for bots.
Please post your findings in here. I'm interested.
-
I sent him this:
Title: How do you explain this drawing?
(http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/4/1/22/f_FEProof2m_ce109ea.jpg)
Click to view larger picture
Look at this. The actual distance between Johannesburg and Sydney is less than 7000 miles. Now, using a scale measurement of the distance of New York - London which is around 3500 miles, I got a scale key of 3000 miles. Extrapolating this upon another person's FE map, which actually shrinks the distance because it doesn't go all the way around the circle, I got that the distance from Johannesburg -- Sydney according to FE is equal to over 5 times as long, because the straight line equivalent(going over Asia a bit) is almost 4 times long. Even with Tom's magic jet streams, which would only double the speed of the aircraft, the plane won't make it. Bear in mind that my estimates are conservative, since the map only goes half-way around the circumference of the Earth, so your jet streams don't work, unless you increase their speed to over 1500 MPH :D .
I got the response:
There is no Flat Earth map. Any distances between continents are hypothetical only.
Additional responses for clarification went unanswered.
I feel certain that a human would not have said that. I also have a theory regarding why such an advanced bot may be trawling this site. Think about it. We are the flat earth society. What more prominent forum is there to acceptably(to a college students mind) troll with an experimental bot/script? Furthermore, said beliefs are a little strange, so it would be acceptable for a human to say some of the weird things he says, and evade detection. Said shoddy maths and so on are acceptable here, what easier location for a bot?
I plan to test this by inserting a lot of images for Tom to decode, and see if he can.
-
legendary
-
Unfortunately, I explained this last year.
-
And, to my shock, I am forced to revert my views after conducting an experiment. Tom is indeed a bot, possibly human assisted at times. I conducted an experiment, which, at least to my mind, proves that Tom, in at least part, is computer operated. I do believe, based on other evidence, that a human checks up on him every now and then. I sent him an argument about the map of the FE, and distances, except that I swapped the map for a picture of a rhino. He argued with me about how all FE maps are hypothetical, without noting(as any human would), that I had sent him a picture of a rhino...
HAH brilliant! I like you now
-
He's probably just messing with you having read this thread. I'm not at liberty to explain how, but I know him to be a real person.
(Perhaps if you examine some of his old posts, you'll come to a different conclusion).
-
No, in fact, I'm certain he is a real person, but judging by some of the responses, he uses a script for most of the time. Too many copy/pasted, etc. I've seen some posts which simply cannot be done by a script; they're too intellectually complex(sad, computers can't even emulate Tom's intelligence :'( ), but some can easily be done by script, and I don't think he was playing with me. Maybe he thought I was playing with him, but his response was just soooo canned, I don't think he got the rhino. I suppose the only defense you can give him is that he still uses Lynx as his browser :D
-
"Tom Bishop" May indeed, and I encourage the thought, have help from time to time via his 'creator' as it were. When a question or topic becomes to far reaching for simple interpretation and regurgitation, it is plainly obvious when "Tom" suddenly becomes coherent and starts making sense, albeit in his own - Tom sort of way.
So in short, I believe there is no question as to whether or not "Tom" is 90% bot - constantly being monitored and upgraded / helped out by his creator. It is an obvious explanation for Tom's irrelevance at times and complete lack of continuity in others.
I'm sure the is a 'real' Tom Bishop that Dogplatter and even some others may have met, but he/she is obviously nothing more than the creator of the script or a friend thereof. It's very easy to see if you just go back and read through his posts as Dogplatter said to do and see the patterns. It's unmistakeable.
Cya,
Optimus
-
This is a Meta-Conspiracy. Cool.
-
if you click the link in generalgayers signature you will find in that particular thread a quite nasty rant from Tom Bishop towards TheEngineer.
-
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is against.
Dr. Rowbotham's entire philosophy was to replace conventional science with a true and practical free-thought method. He promoted a back-to-basics approach to knowledge, in which experiments were tried and facts were collected not only to corroborate any existing theory but to start from scratch to uncover the great universal and primary truths.
Any reference to a theorized edge just beyond the Ice Wall is completely ignorant. No edge has been found, and therefore as Zetetics we must simply state that whatever is beyond the Ice Wall is unknown to present human knowledge.
Additionally, your current model is lacking a mechanism to keep the atmosphere in. It lacks an explanation for the sinking ship effect, an explanation for the setting sun, an explanation for the movement of the stars in the north and south, the phases of the moon, the movements and variations of Foucault's pendulum, and the Coriolis Effect. It does not even hint at the mechanism for stellar parallax, solar parallax, abberation, and the movement of the planets. There is zero explanation in your FAQ for the declination of the pole star, how the earth is circumnavigated, the mechanism for the dip sector, the arcs of the meridian, spherical excess, and the theodolite's tangent. Furthermore there is nothing on the midnight sun, what moves the sun in its patterns, the analemma of the sun, the cause of the solar and lunar eclipse, and the 12 hour equinox.
If this is your attempt on "improving" Rowbotham's work and displaying your intelligence, you are an utter and dismal failure in every sense of the word. A child attempting to be witty, your current model of the earth is entirely insufficient.
So what do you all make of this? Not very bottish. Also shows a side of tom that is unusual.
-
As has already been stated. Tom is obviously created by someone, therefore he will have human 'responses' at times since he will actually 'be' a human at times. More often than not though, it is quite obvious the script is just left to run in the author's absence.
You can actually see his attitude and logic skills change from threads before and after. There's no question about it.
-
Yeah. I just wanted someone's opinion on the outburst. Seems very unlike his style human or bot.
-
Yes, I think the creator or someone went to check up on it, and got pissed off at engy. Tom is almost never rattled, except in this section. It's very strange to see Tom rattled. You can call him anything, but he'll just keep quoting Rowbotham......
-
Has anyone tried messaging him?
-
The confusion over how to address the accusations has caused the script to be taken down, until it can be redeployed.
They will fail, because we are mightier.
-
Well, now that we know, we can beat him. Unleash the paradoxes!
-
Notice how they always defend him, when his behavior FAR exceeds any possible trolling behavior any of us COMBINED exhibit?
OOPS!
-
I have no doubt that "Tom Bishop" is an actual person who believes the Earth is flat reguardless of whether that is his real name. For the record, if Bishop had merely been the creation of an administrator (and he was not), it would have been Erasmus who is more skilled at arguing technical flat Earth arguments than Daniel. In spite of what he does for a living, the engineer is a bit of a retard compared to a shut-in like Erasmus who has nothing better to do all day than looking into these things, and even the Eng would be a better candidate than Daniel for this, but Erasmus is the only one who would come remotely close to pulling something off as sophisticated as creating "Tom Bishop," but he's not quite that good. Whatever his actual name, "Tom Bishop" is for real, guys.
Speaking of the devil, it appears that Erasmus has taken at least a temporary leave from the forums. Sucker. I was here before him, and I'm still here after he's gone.
I was here the first week these boards lived. You lose.
-
I was here the first week these boards lived. You lose.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to call B.S. on this one. What was your username beforehand?
-
I'm just still trying to figure out why somebody would name themselves after a not-so-defunct Marxist - guerrilla group in Greece...
I've looked into the various date corrolations and haven't found anything, and the reversed nature of day / month leans towards the group name. I've never gotten a response on that.
Care to indulge 17N? Any aprticular choice for the date? Or some sort of empathy for the cause?
Thanx,
OP
-
I was here the first week these boards lived. You lose.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to call B.S. on this one. What was your username beforehand?
Why don't you tell them yourself, Tom. I mean Daniel. I mean Raa.
You know who I am, and that is what makes this all the sweeter.
-
I've not been here long, and it's pretty obvious Tom is a bot. Especially considering fshy sent him a picture of a rhino and he didn't notice.
-
Mids you joined around the same time I did, don't try and confuse people
-
Mids you joined around the same time I did, don't try and confuse people
You are completely failing in your assessment. I became VISIBLE as mids then. I was here long before, and I will be here long after. ;-)
-
Mids you joined around the same time I did, don't try and confuse people
He was here before me. And I was here before you. All these people remembered him when he came as mids. Though I'm hazy on why i remember this.
-
I disagree
-
I disagree
You would.
-
Agree or not, reality doesn't hold her breath.