On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Dean Anderson <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com>
> 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.
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?
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.
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf