XPost: rec.arts.drwho, uk.media.tv.sf.drwho, rec.arts.sf.tv 
 XPost: rec.arts.tv 
 From: mike@xenocyte.com 
  
 The Doctor  wrote: 
 > In article , 
 > The Last Doctor   wrote: 
 >> Not The Doctor  wrote: 
 >>> The Last Doctor   wrote: 
 >>>> Not The Doctor  wrote: 
 >>>>> The Last Doctor   wrote: 
 >>>>>> Not The Doctor  wrote: 
 >>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 >>>>>> This is a lie Dave, isn€€€t it? You didn€€€t write this. It€€€s AI 
 >> generated 
 >>>>>> spaff. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> It€€€s full of errors (which is a bit like you) but is coherent and 
 >>>>>> grammatically correct (which is not at all like you). And it spots 
 lots 
 of 
 >>>>>> things that you never would. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> You hate changes of style? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I love changes of style. But if you wrote one of your usual incoherent 
 >>>> point-by-points, I doubt CoPilot or whatever you used would be able to 
 >>>> polish your turd that far. I€€€d be delighted to be proved wrong - care 
 to 
 >>>> post what you fed into the AI engine so we can see? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> You€€€ve not written anything that coherent in this group - ever. And 
 it€€€s 
 >>>> packed solidly with tells that it€€€s an AI composited screed. 
 >>> 
 >>> CoPilot is a huge security! [risk, I infer] 
 >> 
 >> It€€€s a security risk if you use the public version to compose text based 
 on 
 >> privileged material. The risk is to the confidentiality of information, 
 >> though, not to your computer. Companies can have private instances of 
 >> CoPilot that have access to the public body of information to drive their 
 >> learning, but ring fence any material fed in from the company. 
 >> 
 >> But you€€€re still evading: what AI did this come from and did you give it 
 >> any input other than a target score, and if so what did YOU write? 
 >> 
 >>>>>>> 6/10 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Is that your rating, or is the AI a bigger fanboi than you? 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Mine, so what is yours? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I€€€ll give my thoughts in due course. And I won€€€t run them through an 
 AI 
 >>>> bot. It€€€s fine if you need that crutch. But you really should 
 acknowledge 
 >>>> that it€€€s by no means your own work. 
 >>> 
 >>> You just watched it and you cannot beat AGA into a review? 
 >> 
 >> 1. It€€€s not a race. First review is almost never the best: case in point 
 >> you, who must be typing instead of watching normally, and now are just 
 >> accepting any old AI generated crap and tagging on a rating. 
 >> 
 >> 2. For me I need to watch at least twice before giving my thoughts: once 
 >> just to watch it and see if I enjoy it, then again to spot nuances. And in 
 >> this case, I also need to re-watch €€€The Church on Ruby Road€€€ before 
 >> commenting. 
 >> 
 >> 3. The episode, in conjunction with its purpose for the series and the 
 >> season, was more complex than it appears on the surface. Takes a while to 
 >> put down my thoughts sometimes. 
 >> 
 >> 4. I doubt Aggie gave a real review any more than you have. By the time 
 >> you€€€ve removed the vitriolic rhetoric about €€€degenerate crap for 
 >> illiterates€€€ I suspect there is virtually nothing left. Guessing it got 
 a 
 >> 0/10 from him? Did he at least tell us whether he is a homosexual, a 
 >> transvestite, or both, (his only choices, as earlier this week he told us 
 >> that only such people could watch the show, and yet it seems he has 
 watched 
 >> it)? 
 >> 
 > 
 > Yes about 0/10 and you did not read. 
  
 Of course I didn€€€t read it. I have the loon permanently kill filed. I€€€ve 
 got no interest in his moronic racist homophobic screeds and the utter 
 certainty he has that his tiny mind€€€s viewpoint is the only thing right 
 with the world. I only see the parts of what he€€€s vomited out that others 
 respond to: that€€€s quite enough for me, thanks. 
  
 -- 
 €€€The timelines and €€€ canon €€€ are rupturing€€€ - the Doctor 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)