Note to self, do not read Have Your Say Still, this particular rant… - Sally's Journal
Note to self, do not read Have Your Say
Still, this particular rant made me giggle:The Anglican Church will ever remain divided as long as there is some diversion from what the Bible says. In genesis 2:24 the Bibles says: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" As long as the Bible serves as a reference book for the Christians, I want the conservative not to give up, because God doesn’t want homosexuals in his temple as priests. It is clear stated, A MAN AND A WOMAN NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.
Gosh, a woman and a man! How unnatural!
Even the capitalisation is theirs. Do you think they're a spoof?
Nah, it's fairly typical of the ill-informed rash idiocy that you find on the BBC HYS forums.
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 12:39 pm (UTC)|| |
The first rule of BBC News Club is: Don't read 'Have Your Say'.
I'm honestly no longer sure what proportion of the posters to HYS genuinely mean what they say, and who's just pretending for comic effect - for the most part they're indistinguishable from automatically generated parody
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 12:43 pm (UTC)|| |
I'd forgotten that. Do you think we have to declare it's passed the Turing Test?
It's depressingly good. I think at some point the sufficient-but-not-necessary bar was raised, since for ages we've had computers which can be taken for human in specific venues.
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 12:54 pm (UTC)|| |
Hmmm, we'd first have to do the experiment; make a big list of generated comments, mix it in with real comments harvested randomly from HYS, and see if people can pick the auto-generated ones out. On a balanced test set, I'd guess that a clueful person would get it right, oooh, 80% of the time or so?
Maybe when I'm not at work I should set this up.
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 12:55 pm (UTC)|| |
I'm not sure - I think a more likely analysis is that a fair proportion of HYS posters have failed
the Turing Test.
There was a legend that one of the lecturers in the Computer Science department at York had failed the Turing Test. The story I heard is that on an open day sometime in the mid-late 1980s, some terminals were set up, one running an AI demonstration (something like Eliza or Racter) and another running a talk session where you could have a conversation with whichever lecturer had been roped in to help out for the day. Legend has it that a non-negligible number of visitors were unable to tell the difference. (This story doesn't seem to be on the York Campus Folklore
pages, for some reason - I thought we'd put it on the list.)
There's a similar story in, I think, The Mind's I.
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 02:43 pm (UTC)|| |
When I was an undergrad I helped write an Eliza bot to run on a BBS as a simulated user, and it successfully took someone in
in spite of us actually having given it the account name "eliza".
(Granted that a non-computer-literate BBS user couldn't be blamed for not recognising that as a hint, but on the other hand other people on the system had spotted it immediately and he wasn't taking their
I spin it on the transcript page as "a moral victory in the Turing Test", but I think what it really shows is just how desperate some people are to chat up anything with a female account name...Edited at 2008-07-21 02:44 pm (UTC)
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 03:18 pm (UTC)|| |
just how desperate some people are to chat up anything ... female
Apparently on the SMS equivalents of phone sex lines, it's quite easy for a bot to pass for human. That said, it's not all due to testosterone - it's very well known that natural language systems perform better on restricted domains, and I can't imagine that there's all that much to dirty talk.
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 03:30 pm (UTC)|| |
Though our Eliza bot was in a less restricted domain than that, of course, and would never have intentionally generated dirty talk – but if anyone had tried it on her, they'd have got out what they put in. Er, so to speak.
|Date:||July 22nd, 2008 09:51 am (UTC)|| |
|(Link)|I can't imagine that there's all that much to dirty talk
perl -pe's/.*/["MMMM","OH YEAH BABY","I PUT ON MY ROBE AND WIZARD HAT"]->[3*rand]/e'
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 03:25 pm (UTC)|| |
Are you sure you took them in? I mean, they could just have been pulling your legs by making you think you were pulling their leg...
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 03:31 pm (UTC)|| |
Possible in principle, but Hanlon's Razor doesn't encourage assuming it without at least some evidence :-) I think that if someone had been deliberately taking the piss then their responses would be likely to have been a little more witty.
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 01:19 pm (UTC)|| |
Wow, that comment is just so wrong on so many different levels, from the overall argument right down to the grammar! It's a shame there aren't any spelling mistakes in there, it would just make the whole thing complete.
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 03:33 pm (UTC)|| |
They could have used a spellchecker. So it's still possible that they were wrong on every possible level, even if their posting software improved on that baseline.
This reminds me, Alec was covering a Sunday school class this Sunday (except he didn't in the end because there was only one child in that age group at the service so she just stayed in the service) and the youth worker gave him the book she's been using for the classes, so of course he spent a chunk of Saturday night telling me how awful it was an reading extracts down the phone to illustrate his point. It sounded a little bit like she'd been teaching the class from Chick tracts. There was one wonderful bit where it said that we should follow G@d through he instructions in the Bible but the Devil tries to trick us into not doing this by telling us the Bible is unclear - example "Well, it depends upon your interpretation."
That sounds like a horrible book!
I wonder how anyone seriously using it would respond to the standard using the bible literally
speech. I'd like to see see a child telling her father he should be killed when he comes home from work on a Sunday.
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 03:36 pm (UTC)|| |
You want Ken's Guide to the Bible
for that sort of thing. Ken goes through and points out all the things that Must Be Done and where else it says they Must Not Be Done.
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 01:55 pm (UTC)|| |
The whole point of HYS is to try and say something populist and inflammatory so that you get the maximum number of recommendations. The system is biased towards early contributors and those who get added at the top of a moderation release, on the basis that they're visible for longest. Other than that, treat it as a write-only system.
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 02:33 pm (UTC)|| |
A blog I read came up with the idea of Sanity Watchers Points, by analogy with Weight Watchers. Anything that's likely to make you go gradually insane in your rage at it would use up points, so they'll suggest you might only want to read the comments on an article they link to if you've got a lot of Sanity Watchers points saved up. Things like Have Your Say risk blowing all your allowance for the whole week in the space of an hour.
<old duffer> I remember when the BBC (specifically, the World Service) was a beacon of journalism which I could listen to hours on end*. Now, every time World Have Your Say
comes on I switch off in disgust - whatever happened to make the producers feel the need to provide a forum for the unwashed to get their soundbites on the air? The written version, as you've discovered, is no better, I too have stopped reading it altogether.
At least it's still one step above the lowest of the low of comment forums
. </old duffer>
And that comment is hilarious. * This was around the same time when men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri where real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri....
There is actually a HYS blog that collects some of the less sane posts (admittedly that's quite a choice): http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com
Quite mind-boggling, though I admit to a sneaking admiration for the chap who's obviously on a one-man crusade to bring back Fahrenheit in the weather forecast.
Oh my.... it's like a train wreck..... I can't look away....
|Date:||July 22nd, 2008 09:52 am (UTC)|| |
Blast! I was about to post that.
Farenheit is the worst scale ever, IMO: 0 was set to the coldest thing found in his lab, and 100 was set to the human body temperature. Except he got that wrong.
|Date:||July 21st, 2008 09:29 pm (UTC)|| |
I gave up on reading HYS a long time ago. I just can't deal with the raising of my blood pressure.
I hope you don't mind me friending you. You seem to have a lot of interesting conversations on here :)
|Date:||July 27th, 2008 09:59 am (UTC)|| |
Of course not! It's always nice to meet more interesting people.