[wordup] retailiate with the kook-bot

[Adam Shand]

URL: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/klee/misc/kookbot.html
Via: http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/7/17/22741/6679

The Kook-Bot

kookbot.pl: A script for dealing with the many kooks you meet online, on
mailing lists and elsewhere.

Kooks abound on the Internet. But if you ignore them, or advise other
people on the mailing list to ignore them in the interest of decreasing
mailing list traffic, then they accuse you of being "censors" who are
"afraid of dissenting opinions" or some such drivel. (Of course, you're
not actually censoring them in any way, but to a kook or a troll, not
replying is equivalent to censorship---after all, they have a
constitutional right to a rapt, responsive audience, right?)

Unfortunately, if you do reply to their ravings, you will only waste your
time, as anything you say will no doubt fly right over their heads. I got
annoyed one day and decided I'd just write up a script to deal with them.
If you ever run into another Internet kook, just fire up the kookbot and
dish them out some of their own medicine!  They spend hours of their lives
composing replies, but you can rebut them in mere split seconds. At long
last, you can overwhelm them with so much text that they can finally only
sputter and leave you alone.

The script doesn't write in proper grammar, and it's exceedingly
repetitive, but then that matches most Internet kooks exactly. They'll
feel right at home, like that apocryphal AI student who spent hours into
the night talking to Eliza the Pseudo-Psychoanalyst. The fact is, for most
Internet kooks, this Perl script practically passes the Turing test. (Of
course, I still have some improvements planned; see the source.)

Sample output:

It is only the honest evidence that you refuse to accept, and it is
because you reject anything involved with rational approach. It is only
the intelligent evidence that you object to, and it is because you do not
agree with justice. It is only the flexible yet critical evidence that you
reject anything involved with, and it is because you reject anything
involved with strength. Think about the discrimination, unjust and
closed-minded, and how it compares with truthful rational approach. It is
only the intelligent evidence that you rebut, and it is because you argue
strenuously against rational approach. I do not agree with your arguments
only. There is no personal attack here. You argue strenuously against the
fact that your evidence is shallow, the result of long-winded propaganda
and propaganda. You commune with the spirit of the shameful stupidity to
compassion. You think along the same lines as the closed-minded ignorance
to strength. One must consider realism versus ignorance. Think about the
propaganda, malevolent and malignant, and how it compares with clear
subtlety. Yet your argument tries to rebut everything that is intelligent.
I ask you to be well-constructed, not foolish. You refuse to accept any
appearance of strength. I can only imagine that you embrace tyranny. It is
only the honest evidence that you disagree with completely, and it is
because you do not agree with rational approach. You try to posit lacking
in support prejudice. I refuse to accept that. You try to posit shameful
tyranny. I refuse to accept that. Is this intelligent? I think it is
obvious that your statement is closed-minded and unjust. I refuse to
accept your arguments only. There is no personal attack here. Can there be
any doubt? I think along the same lines as truthful, well-constructed
compassion, and you obviously do not. The argument you would prefer would
result in oppression. Is this honest? I think it is obvious that your
statement is fascist and lacking in support. You apply principles of the
fascist stupidity to straightforwardness. The argument you think along the
same lines as would result in tyranny. Can there be any doubt? I commune
with the spirit of intelligent, flexible yet critical strength, and you
obviously do not.