Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mit-eddie!nessus From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) Newsgroups: net.music,net.rumor,net.flame,net.singles Subject: Re: Most Bitter Attack on A Good Man Message-ID: <4508@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 18:58:41 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4508 Posted: Thu Jun 20 18:58:41 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Jun-85 02:50:35 EDT References: <1079@princeton.UUCP> <4488@mit-eddie.UUCP> <1083@princeton.UUCP> Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 112 Xref: watmath net.music:7944 net.rumor:922 net.flame:10659 net.singles:7444 ["Today I am a small blue thing"] Thanks to Rob Ferguson, I have received a copy of the forged message that was posted to the net with my name on it. This message was apparently generated by the Doug Alan algorithm that those wonderful eunuch wizards at Princeton, the Fun-People, are working on. I know that this algorithm exists because they have shown me its output on previous occasions. Since this algorithm represents, perhaps, my only chance at immortality, I feel that I must provide some constructive crticism and comments. To refresh the reader's memory, the forged letter began like this: > First of all I did not post the vicious attack on Hugh Jansic. Cute. Self-referential. Ironic. Quite my style. I would never begin a message with "First of all", though, and I did in fact post the article on Hugh Janic. It was not a vicious attack, however, but merely the unfortunate truth. > I suspect someone knowledgable in the use of computer networks such as > Mark Horton or Rob Pike or Sunny Kirsten (bitch) did this to tarnish > my otherwise illuminating insights in net.music. Now this is not characteristic of me at all. I would certainly not call anyone a "bitch" in public or private -- especially people I barely know and have no absolutely no reason to malign. My type of insult is usually on the order of insinuating that the person enjoys "Three's Company", etc. > I suspect one of them has a very advanced AI expert system for > generating articles apparently written by me. This is true, but it's Fun-People that have it, not Mark Horton, et. al. > The realization that the algorithm for my thinking process has propogated > over the net gives me a new feeling of imortality! I hope they wrote > down the method they use to emulate me. Cause then, even long after I'm > dead, I will exist on that piece of paper. Perhaps my algorithm will > even infect people's minds and they will become me. The whole world > might eventually become filled up with me's. It will be great! Why do > I even go on bothering to keep life within this useless piece of flesh I > now inhabit? I've transcended all that! I'm disposing of this useless > body tomorrow, but before I do, I'll send them all my Kate Bush albums, > fanzines, photographs, videotapes, blow-up loves dolls, and used panties > to put with the Doug Alan algorithm so that it will always be happy too. Now this is just a blatant rippoff of my private discussions with the Fun-People. It is too bad that the Doug Alan algorithm must plagerize what I have actually said. This is strong evidence that the algorithm does not completely duplicate my thought processes. If it did, there would be no reason for it to plagerize me -- it could think of brilliantly witty responses on its own. Also, this section was clearly of the highest quality of any of the material in the article. This strongly indicates that the quality of the output of the Doug Alan algorithm needs serious work. > I must confess I had mixed feelings upon reading about Kate Bush's > personal life. On the one hand I love Kate Bush more than any other > human in the whole world. On the other hand, the silly Yuppie > preciousness of her stage persona sends me into a real mean mood.... > [etc. ad nauseum] I'm sorry, but none of this correctly captures my feelings about Kate Bush or any other artist whom I admire. The hinting toward a love/hate relationship towards art I love may have some merit, but not for the reasons indicated. Kate Bush has achieved perfection and other artists have come close. I almost certainly never will, and I am jealous of these artists' talent -- talent that I will never have. It can be quite frustrating. But, in any case, back to the drawing board, fellows... > Sometimes I decide I will never listen to Kate Bush again and other > times I can't imagine not listening to Kate Bush every day. It's like > self-contradictory :-). This is certainly true -- it's difficult and sometimes painful to stare straight into the face of perfection. But I almost never use those silly smiley faces. If one's intent isn't clear without them, then perhaps he hasn't done a good enough job of writing. > Maybe there is a meta-language to describe > these kinds of situations. This reminds me of a Koan. > If the buffalo runs, he will fall into the trench; > If he returns, he will be butchered. > That little tail > Is a very strange thing. That's a really nice Koan! Good job! The Fun-People have also shown me some sample output of their Kate Bush lyric writing algorithm. It is fairly interesting, but unfortunately, completely unlike Kate Bush. I wish they would perfect this and have it make albums so that Kate Bush albums would come out at a faster rate than once every three years. In conclusion, I'd just like to reiterate that though I feel that this Doug Alan algorithm has some merit, it needs a lot of serious work before I will safely feel immortal! I'd also like to recommend that the Fun-People play with their newly created friends in private, rather than in public (where the pesky Commies might get a hint at our advanced technology). "O for the wings of any bird Other than a battery hen" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA) P.S. There is not the smallest pinch of Ken Arndt in me, and I am EXTREMELY offended that anyone would make such a rediculous insinuation.