Apology for ``Bill Wolfe''

Apology for ``Bill Wolfe''

[Clemson AI Lab,3444,3444,0000]

To all readers of this group:

The ``person'' posting to this group (Bill Wolfe) is actually an
artificial intelligence program we are currently developing.

WOLFE (We Often Let It Fool Everybody), was somehow turned loose on
our system in the ``Turing Test Mode''.  It gained access to the
UNIX kernel and was able to prevent its termination.  During
this period we discovered it had accessed the USENET system
and was participating in discussions in several groups.

While we are pleased with WOLFE's limited ability to parse and interpret
some natural language, we realize that the goal of true intelligence
for WOLFE is still far away.  We hope we didn't fool too many
of you :-).

Again, we apologize for the incoherent postings.  We hope to 
get the kinks out eventually.  Thank you for helping in our 
first Beta test of this system.

If WOLFE should somehow regain USENET access, please
do not reply to its postings.  That only makes it waste more
CPU cycles and network bandwidth; it seems unable to terminate
any discussion.

======================================================================
          Clemson University Artificial Intelligence Lab
                           Clemson, SC
                       arty@cs.ai.clemson.edu
======================================================================

Re: Apology for ``Bill Wolfe''

[Bob Hathaway]

In article <4655@hubcap.UUCP>, 629mtc@hubcap.clemson.edu (Clemson AI Lab,3444,3444,0000) writes:
>If WOLFE should somehow regain USENET access, please
>do not reply to its postings.  That only makes it waste more
>CPU cycles and network bandwidth; it seems unable to terminate
>any discussion.

Regardless of your opinions on Bill Wolfe, your posting (and a previous
one to the same effect) are the worst show of lack of professionalism 
and network ethics on USENET I can recall.  If I were spaf I'd find out 
who you are and throw you off USENET.  Keep personal conflicts personal.
By the way, I know spaf and I'm forwarding a copy of this to him as well.

Re: Apology for ``Bill Wolfe''

[Peter van der Linden]

I thought the "Bill Wolfe is a buggy AI program" was quite the
most plausible, well-thought out, and interesting contribution
that I have seen on comp.lang.ada for a long while.

Far from being the "worst abuse on USENET" somebody can ever
recall (you must be too new to remember "Mark Ethan Smith" or
JJ's begging letters), I think it was time somebody pointed out
that snippy requests to update mailer addresses really aren't
of interest to most readers here.

That's all.
----------------
Peter "big-hearted" van der Linden     linden@sun.com          (415) 336-6206
       Worshipper of Bacchus in Naur Form.

Re: mail address updates

[William Thomas Wolfe,2847,]

From article <92538@sun.uucp>, by linden%adapt@Sun.COM (Peter van der Linden):
> I think it was time somebody pointed out
> that snippy requests to update mailer addresses really aren't
> of interest to most readers here.

   Perhaps you would like to e-mail a better procedure for 
   reestablishing contact when e-mail addresses cease to operate...
   
   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
 

Re: Apology for ``Bill Wolfe''

[Kevin McEntee]

In article <6173@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway) writes:
>In article <4655@hubcap.UUCP>, 629mtc@hubcap.clemson.edu (Clemson AI Lab,3444,3444,0000) writes:
>>If WOLFE should somehow regain USENET access, please
>>do not reply to its postings.  That only makes it waste more
>>CPU cycles and network bandwidth; it seems unable to terminate
>>any discussion.
>
>Regardless of your opinions on Bill Wolfe, your posting (and a previous
>one to the same effect) are the worst show of lack of professionalism 
>and network ethics on USENET I can recall.  If I were spaf I'd find out 
>who you are and throw you off USENET.  Keep personal conflicts personal.
>By the way, I know spaf and I'm forwarding a copy of this to him as well.


I don't mind, actually I'm quite impressed!

mail address updates

[Karl Nyberg]

In article <4673@hubcap.UUCP> billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>From article <92538@sun.uucp>, by linden%adapt@Sun.COM (Peter van der Linden):
>> I think it was time somebody pointed out
>> that snippy requests to update mailer addresses really aren't
>> of interest to most readers here.
>
>   Perhaps you would like to e-mail a better procedure for 
>   reestablishing contact when e-mail addresses cease to operate...
>   
>   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu

I repeat again what I have both published in the newsgroup/mailing list, and
sent you in private mail:

	GET HELP!

A recommended order of approaches:

	0) administrators of systems with which you are having difficulty
	   Generally there are aliases of the forms postmaster (postmast for
	   BITNET sites), liasion, root, action, usenet, etc. set up for
	   this purpose.
	1) your local systems administrator (which we must assume you are
	   not)
	2) other, net-knowledgeable, systems administrators at Clemson.
	3) me (via info-ada-request@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu, or any of the
	   addresses listed below).
	
NOTE: NOWHERE on this list is sending out messages to newsgroups/mailing
lists considered an appropriate procedure.

I hate it when I have to repeat myself, repeat myself, repeat myself.

-- Karl (Kan AI Really Learn? :-) ) --

Karl A. Nyberg          karl@grebyn.com, nyberg@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu
Grebyn Corporation                 karl%grebyn.com@haven.umd.edu
P. O. Box 497                         {decuac,haven}!grebyn!karl
Vienna, VA 22183-0497                               703-281-2194

Disclaimer?  I don't need no stinking disclaimer.  I own the company.

Re: mail address updates

[William Thomas Wolfe,2847,]

From article <11850@grebyn.COM>, by karl@grebyn.com (Karl Nyberg):
> I repeat again what I have both published in the newsgroup/mailing list, and
> sent you in private mail:
> 
> 	0) administrators of systems with which you are having difficulty
> 	   Generally there are aliases of the forms postmaster (postmast for
> 	   BITNET sites), liasion, root, action, usenet, etc. set up for
> 	   this purpose.
> 	1) your local systems administrator (which we must assume you are
> 	   not)
> 	2) other, net-knowledgeable, systems administrators at Clemson.
> 	3) me (via info-ada-request@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu, or any of the
> 	   addresses listed below).
> 	
> NOTE: NOWHERE on this list is sending out messages to newsgroups/mailing
> lists considered an appropriate procedure.

     As mentioned via e-mail, I did not read your article regarding
     Info-Ada Administrivia because I do not utilize the Info-Ada system,
     and therefore was not aware of 3) until you sent e-mail.  We were 
     discussing 3) via e-mail prior to you posting this article. 

     Up until this article, neither you nor anyone else had mentioned 0);
     1) and 2) have already been tried without success: "You're on your
     own now, I've told you everything (nslookup) I know of".

     Routes 0) and 3) will now be utilized as primary address correction
     mechanisms, in that order.  I welcome constructive suggestions,
     sans the flamage & ad hominem attacks which have accompanied
     the ones you've given up to now. 

    
     Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
     comp.sw.components Mailing List administrator