From: Russell Wallace (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 14 2006 - 09:33:25 MST
On 1/14/06, Richard Loosemore <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I looked at PIBOT. Complete drivel. English may not be his native
> language (I am guessing), but even so this is a claim with absolutely no
> substance, and nothing in the writing to indicate that he knows what he
> is talking about.
English isn't his native language, but that's not the problem; the site is
heavy on boasting while not even trying to present any technical content
beyond buzzwords. Maybe the guy has something, but I'll remain skeptical
until I see evidence to back up the boasts.
People: Does this happen frequently? I mean, is there a sub-genre of
> people who claim that thay have done it, like this guy Rick Geniale?
> Maybe we should produce a list of sites that are obviously cuckoo, so we
> can avoid wasting our time reading them?
This is only the second one I've seen (Arthur Murray being the first). For
whatever reason, physics rather than AI seems to be the big magnet for this
type of kookery, for which we may all (except of course the physicists!) be
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT