Watson / Jeopardy 'robot', whats so cool?

[1jam]

Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?

Sure it has one of the better text to speech engines I've ever heard. And
the speech recognition worked very well (assuming it is using one..?).

But as far as answering trivia questions goes... just rig it up to google or
wolfram alpha.. how can it lose??? Google can answer in milliseconds. While
a human is still listening to the questions.

I'm sure it took some talented comp.sci thinkers to streamline the thing and
get it thru a taping of a tv show without a hitch. Natural language
processing is an interesting area of research, though I don't know to what
degree it is even doing much of that..

But still.. I'm assuming it has many encyclopedia's of knowledge available.
How can it lose? This is nothing like playing chess masters.

 

In comp.robotics.misc 1jam <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?
....

To entertain engineers.

--
[Sucked in:]

1/2 of what he posts always contradict the other 1/2.
One day 50 ppmv is the warming cutoff.
Oh Puuhhleeeeeeze easy with the strawman!

Not "cutoff" but 90% of the warming effect below 50ppm.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172.static.tpgi.com.au [86 nyms and counting], 8 Feb 2011 11:27 +1100

 

[Winston]

1jam wrote:

Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?

(...)

Natural language
processing is an interesting area of research (...)

That is what is so cool and mostly the point.

Perhaps you have been totally nonplussed by a question put to
you outside of your current 'context space'?
I do that two or three times a day, (but I'm old).

Note to self: She asked 'Soup or Salad?' not 'SuperSalad?'

--Winston

 

[Dan Coby]

On 2/15/2011 10:39 PM, 1jam wrote:

Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?

Sure it has one of the better text to speech engines I've ever heard. And
the speech recognition worked very well (assuming it is using one..?).

But as far as answering trivia questions goes... just rig it up to google or
wolfram alpha.. how can it lose??? Google can answer in milliseconds. While
a human is still listening to the questions.

I'm sure it took some talented comp.sci thinkers to streamline the thing and
get it thru a taping of a tv show without a hitch. Natural language
processing is an interesting area of research, though I don't know to what
degree it is even doing much of that..

But still.. I'm assuming it has many encyclopedia's of knowledge available.
How can it lose? This is nothing like playing chess masters.

There was an interesting program on PBS's NOVA on this project.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/smartest-machine-on-earth.html

 

[Rich Grise]

1jam wrote:

Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?

Presumably, the same as the point of Deep Blue, that kicked that chess
champion's ass. I saw that clip. The chess master (was it Kaspaov?)
was heard to say, "Well, at least it didn't enjoy it."

Sure it has one of the better text to speech engines I've ever heard. And
the speech recognition worked very well (assuming it is using one..?).

But as far as answering trivia questions goes... just rig it up to google
or wolfram alpha.. how can it lose???

That was no more allowed that it would have been for a human contestant.

They even rigged up a mechanical hand to press the same button as the
humans.

And it's about to win a million dollars, which IBM is going to donate
to charity.

And it's just WAY KEWL!

Hope This Helps!
Rich

 

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:39:17 -0900, 1jam <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?

Sure it has one of the better text to speech engines I've ever heard. And
the speech recognition worked very well (assuming it is using one..?).

But as far as answering trivia questions goes... just rig it up to google or
wolfram alpha.. how can it lose??? Google can answer in milliseconds. While
a human is still listening to the questions.

I'm sure it took some talented comp.sci thinkers to streamline the thing and
get it thru a taping of a tv show without a hitch. Natural language
processing is an interesting area of research, though I don't know to what
degree it is even doing much of that..

But still.. I'm assuming it has many encyclopedia's of knowledge available.
How can it lose? This is nothing like playing chess masters.

The point is that it took a lot of arm waving and head scratching to
get a machine to make the same logical/illogical word associations
that a human does - and learn from its mistakes, deal with puns,
associate disparate clues, etc..

It is way more complicated than playing chess where there is a very
limited list of rules and a more finite number of possibilities.

Yeah Google might help, but then it wouldn't be artificial
intelligence, just a fancy text to speech engine.

 

[Curt Welch]

1jam <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?

The project is motivation for the IBM researchers to push the envelop in
natural language processing. The show just makes it fun, while at the same
time, acting as PR for IBM.

Sure it has one of the better text to speech engines I've ever heard. And
the speech recognition worked very well (assuming it is using one..?).

It has no speech recognition. The questions are fed to it as text files.
That was explained at the beginning of the first show. It seems to be very
good text to speech like you say however. But even my GPS is pretty good at
reading the names I type into it.

But as far as answering trivia questions goes... just rig it up to google
or wolfram alpha.. how can it lose??? Google can answer in milliseconds.
While a human is still listening to the questions.

Neither Google or wolfram alpha even come close to being able to answer
Jeopardy questions. Wolfram alpha is still pitiful and mostly useless - it
only looks "good" in a canned demo. Google is a fantastic tool to allow
humans to find relevant web pages from keywords, but it doesn't have the
level of context based understanding that Watson seems to have. That is,
Watson is very good at correctly identifying what subject the question is
about from the limited clues that are in typical Jeopardy questions, and
can correctly deduce what type of answer is correct, as well as what answer
is correct.

In addition, Watson is fast. It was built to win the button pushing race
that's a key part of the game. And it doesn't just push the button and
then hope it will get the answer before it's asked for. It comes up with
the answers before it decides to push the button, and will only push the
button, if it's statistical probability is right. But yet, it is still
winning the button race most the time. It's basically making the human
champions look like first graders.

I'm sure it took some talented comp.sci thinkers to streamline the thing
and get it thru a taping of a tv show without a hitch. Natural language
processing is an interesting area of research, though I don't know to
what degree it is even doing much of that..

Yeah, that's the question. How well can the algorithms that they used to
make it good at Jeopardy questions be applied to other areas. The IBM
video they ran on last nights show implied they would be able to put it to
use in the medical field to allow doctors to quickly find relevant answers
to diagnoses questions.

The question remains, how much English language facts ended up being hard
coded into the Watson to help prevent it form making stupid mistakes and
how much of it's knowledge base was learned just by scanning (reading)
documents on its own?

But still.. I'm assuming it has many encyclopedia's of knowledge
available. How can it lose? This is nothing like playing chess masters.

Well, I assume they wouldn't have actually put together the match unless
they had gotten it to the point that they expected it would be able to win.
So my bet was on Watson as well. At the end of day one, Watson was not in
the lead. He was tied with Brad. But now, at the end of day two, Watson
is way out in front. Maybe something like $36K in winnings vs $12K for the
next closest guy? The other guys spend most the show watching Watson
answer questions.

But Watson does make mistakes. Most the points the other guys got was from
when Watson wasn't sure of the answer, and didn't buzz in at all. They are
showing a graphic at the bottom of the screen with Watson's three top
answers and a bar graph showing Watson's estimated probability of the
answer being right. It also has a vertical line showing the buzz-in limit.
If the top answer is not past that line, Watson won't push the button.

Most the time, Watson's top answer is above 90% and most the time it's
right. And when it's wrong, it's often a much lower probability. But a
few of Watson's wrong answers were way up in the high 90% range - so it was
"sure" it was right, even though it was dead wrong. I think that happened
maybe once on the first night and once on the second night.

It also made a stupid mistake which it was obviously not programed to avoid
on the first night. Ken won the buzz-in, and produced a wrong answer.
Watson then got to try next, and answered the same as Ken - Watson
obviously had no way of knowing what Ken had answered so they both made the
same mistake.

It is somewhat amazing to me how much knowledge it seems to have, and how
small the server farm is. It's something like 15 racks of 10 servers each
with no connections to the internet or other systems. But yet, this small
set of servers seems to have encyclopedic knowledge of general human
affairs and has it coded in a way that it can extract highly relevant
answers to the Jeopardy style questions.

I've seen nothing about where Watson get's it's information from? Does it
digest normal written text documents on it's own (I believe so - but I'm
not sure). And did they let it loose on the internet, or did they hand
feed it high quality information documents - such as maybe wikipedia?

However, Jeopardy questions are normally answered with a single word. So
it's clearly a very specialized type of information extraction. Finding
the single word that best fits the clues, is not the same thing as being
able to produce a language answer to a complex question such as "explain to
me how you work Watson.".

With Google being a part of our lives for years, I have to admit that you
are right that this next "milestone" in machine vs computer is not nearly
as interesting a challenge as chess was. Even though Google is not tuned
to answer Jeopardy questions, you do have to feel Watson is not doing
anything that much more special than what Google does. Google ranks web
pages from clues instead of ranking words, but otherwise, the technology is
no doubt very similar.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/

 

[Joe]

In article <4d5b721d$0$22472$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:

In comp.robotics.misc 1jam <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?
...

To entertain engineers.

I think that Jeopardy!, at least partially, jumped the shark when they
let winners go on indefinitely, rather than retiring them after five
consecutive wins.

Watching the human "machine" Ken Jennings performing in those dozens of
wins became boring. It's much more fun to watch the program to see what
you might know and the contestants do not, and vice versa.

Jeopardy! probably achieved higher ratings from attracting and holding
the yahoo's that said to themselves "Gaw-lee, he's a right agin!"

Now it's a physical machine against at least one human "machine".

<Yawn...>

--- Joe

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:34:21 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <4d5b721d$0$22472$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:

In comp.robotics.misc 1jam <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?
...

To entertain engineers.

I think that Jeopardy!, at least partially, jumped the shark when they
let winners go on indefinitely, rather than retiring them after five
consecutive wins.

Watching the human "machine" Ken Jennings performing in those dozens of
wins became boring. It's much more fun to watch the program to see what
you might know and the contestants do not, and vice versa.

Evidently you're in the minority. It's ratings were soaring at the time.

Jeopardy! probably achieved higher ratings from attracting and holding
the yahoo's that said to themselves "Gaw-lee, he's a right agin!"

Now it's a physical machine against at least one human "machine".

I take it that you didn't watch it? (BTW, I didn't either)

 

[Joe]

In article <msvol6lgkr19asaof8gstp106gi4bhv7ua@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:34:21 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <4d5b721d$0$22472$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:

In comp.robotics.misc 1jam <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?
...

To entertain engineers.

I think that Jeopardy!, at least partially, jumped the shark when they
let winners go on indefinitely, rather than retiring them after five
consecutive wins.

Watching the human "machine" Ken Jennings performing in those dozens of
wins became boring. It's much more fun to watch the program to see what
you might know and the contestants do not, and vice versa.

Evidently you're in the minority. It's ratings were soaring at the time.

Jeopardy! probably achieved higher ratings from attracting and holding
the yahoo's that said to themselves "Gaw-lee, he's a right agin!"

Now it's a physical machine against at least one human "machine".

I take it that you didn't watch it? (BTW, I didn't either)

Jeopardy! is on at the same time as the first half-hour of reruns of
"Two-and-a-Half Men", Wheel of Fortune, on the same channel as
Jeopardy!, is opposite the second half-hour of reruns of
"Two-and-a-Half Men". Most of the time I watch only the second
half-hour of "Two-and-a-Half Men".

This week I watch both half-hours of the reruns.

I hope old Charlie recovers and straightens out enough to give us more
first-run episodes.

--- Joe

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:06:54 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <msvol6lgkr19asaof8gstp106gi4bhv7ua@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:34:21 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <4d5b721d$0$22472$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:

In comp.robotics.misc 1jam <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?
...

To entertain engineers.

I think that Jeopardy!, at least partially, jumped the shark when they
let winners go on indefinitely, rather than retiring them after five
consecutive wins.

Watching the human "machine" Ken Jennings performing in those dozens of
wins became boring. It's much more fun to watch the program to see what
you might know and the contestants do not, and vice versa.

Evidently you're in the minority. It's ratings were soaring at the time.

Jeopardy! probably achieved higher ratings from attracting and holding
the yahoo's that said to themselves "Gaw-lee, he's a right agin!"

Now it's a physical machine against at least one human "machine".

I take it that you didn't watch it? (BTW, I didn't either)

Jeopardy! is on at the same time as the first half-hour of reruns of
"Two-and-a-Half Men", Wheel of Fortune, on the same channel as
Jeopardy!, is opposite the second half-hour of reruns of
"Two-and-a-Half Men". Most of the time I watch only the second
half-hour of "Two-and-a-Half Men".

This week I watch both half-hours of the reruns.

My point was that evidently the human "machine" sucked.

I hope old Charlie recovers and straightens out enough to give us more
first-run episodes.

I really don't care about the woes of the self-absorbed Hollywood nut-baskets.

 

[Rich Grise]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Evidently you're in the minority. It's ratings were soaring at the time.

It is ratings?

THERE IS NO APOSTROPHE IN THE POSSESSIVE ITS!!!!!!!!

Thanks,
Rich Grise, Self-Appointed Chief,
Internet Apostrophe Police.

 

[Joe]

In article <t01pl6ln15rdrssqs676t4jccngdsnkt9d@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:06:54 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
My point was that evidently the human "machine" sucked.

I don't see where *you* made that point. I did say it was boring.

I hope old Charlie recovers and straightens out enough to give us more
first-run episodes.

I really don't care about the woes of the self-absorbed Hollywood
nut-baskets.

My point: I'd rather have Charlie Sheen's comedy than boring,
shark-jumping, yahoo-oriented episodes of Jeopardy! He does have to be
somewhat healthy to make more episodes. Otherwise, I wish they wouldn't
even report on the personal lives of any show-biz types.

--- Joe

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:31:07 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <t01pl6ln15rdrssqs676t4jccngdsnkt9d@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:06:54 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
My point was that evidently the human "machine" sucked.

I don't see where *you* made that point. I did say it was boring.


I hope old Charlie recovers and straightens out enough to give us more
first-run episodes.

I really don't care about the woes of the self-absorbed Hollywood
nut-baskets.

My point: I'd rather have Charlie Sheen's comedy than boring,
shark-jumping, yahoo-oriented episodes of Jeopardy! He does have to be
somewhat healthy to make more episodes.

Insufficient alternatives.

Otherwise, I wish they wouldn't
even report on the personal lives of any show-biz types.

Don't listen.

 

[Shaun]

<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:msvol6lgkr19asaof8gstp106gi4bhv7ua@4ax.com...

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:34:21 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <4d5b721d$0$22472$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:

In comp.robotics.misc 1jam <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?
...

To entertain engineers.

I think that Jeopardy!, at least partially, jumped the shark when they
let winners go on indefinitely, rather than retiring them after five
consecutive wins.

Watching the human "machine" Ken Jennings performing in those dozens of
wins became boring. It's much more fun to watch the program to see what
you might know and the contestants do not, and vice versa.

Evidently you're in the minority. It's ratings were soaring at the time.

Jeopardy! probably achieved higher ratings from attracting and holding
the yahoo's that said to themselves "Gaw-lee, he's a right agin!"

Now it's a physical machine against at least one human "machine".

I take it that you didn't watch it? (BTW, I didn't either)

What were you doing?.... too buzy jerking off!

 

[Joe]

In article <3u2pl6t1hd4ukrpdr1q505cse565i4f1of@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:31:07 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <t01pl6ln15rdrssqs676t4jccngdsnkt9d@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:06:54 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
My point was that evidently the human "machine" sucked.

I don't see where *you* made that point. I did say it was boring.


I hope old Charlie recovers and straightens out enough to give us more
first-run episodes.

I really don't care about the woes of the self-absorbed Hollywood
nut-baskets.

My point: I'd rather have Charlie Sheen's comedy than boring,
shark-jumping, yahoo-oriented episodes of Jeopardy! He does have to be
somewhat healthy to make more episodes.

Insufficient alternatives.

It was a simple comparison - not a list of alternatives.

Otherwise, I wish they wouldn't
even report on the personal lives of any show-biz types.

Don't listen.

You were the one who said "I really don't care about the woes of the
self-absorbed Hollywood nut-baskets." I was only addressing your off
the point remark. My mistake.

--- Joe

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:03:55 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <3u2pl6t1hd4ukrpdr1q505cse565i4f1of@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:31:07 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <t01pl6ln15rdrssqs676t4jccngdsnkt9d@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:06:54 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
My point was that evidently the human "machine" sucked.

I don't see where *you* made that point. I did say it was boring.


I hope old Charlie recovers and straightens out enough to give us more
first-run episodes.

I really don't care about the woes of the self-absorbed Hollywood
nut-baskets.

My point: I'd rather have Charlie Sheen's comedy than boring,
shark-jumping, yahoo-oriented episodes of Jeopardy! He does have to be
somewhat healthy to make more episodes.

Insufficient alternatives.

It was a simple comparison - not a list of alternatives.

"Neither" is a better alternative, even if there aren't any.

Otherwise, I wish they wouldn't
even report on the personal lives of any show-biz types.

Don't listen.

You were the one who said "I really don't care about the woes of the
self-absorbed Hollywood nut-baskets."

Translated: I don't.

I was only addressing your off the point remark. My mistake.

"Off point"? Wow! That's rich!

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:07:56 -0600, "Shaun" <rowl@nomail.com> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:msvol6lgkr19asaof8gstp106gi4bhv7ua@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:34:21 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <4d5b721d$0$22472$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:

In comp.robotics.misc 1jam <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?
...

To entertain engineers.

I think that Jeopardy!, at least partially, jumped the shark when they
let winners go on indefinitely, rather than retiring them after five
consecutive wins.

Watching the human "machine" Ken Jennings performing in those dozens of
wins became boring. It's much more fun to watch the program to see what
you might know and the contestants do not, and vice versa.

Evidently you're in the minority. It's ratings were soaring at the time.

Jeopardy! probably achieved higher ratings from attracting and holding
the yahoo's that said to themselves "Gaw-lee, he's a right agin!"

Now it's a physical machine against at least one human "machine".

I take it that you didn't watch it? (BTW, I didn't either)


What were you doing?.... too buzy jerking off!

Hey Shawn, found a job yet?

 

[Joe]

In article <j58pl6t0eefiot979o7u0es7um1dnhup60@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:03:55 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <3u2pl6t1hd4ukrpdr1q505cse565i4f1of@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:31:07 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <t01pl6ln15rdrssqs676t4jccngdsnkt9d@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:06:54 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
My point was that evidently the human "machine" sucked.

I don't see where *you* made that point. I did say it was boring.


I hope old Charlie recovers and straightens out enough to give us more
first-run episodes.

I really don't care about the woes of the self-absorbed Hollywood
nut-baskets.

My point: I'd rather have Charlie Sheen's comedy than boring,
shark-jumping, yahoo-oriented episodes of Jeopardy! He does have to be
somewhat healthy to make more episodes.

Insufficient alternatives.

It was a simple comparison - not a list of alternatives.

"Neither" is a better alternative, even if there aren't any.

Otherwise, I wish they wouldn't
even report on the personal lives of any show-biz types.

Don't listen.

You were the one who said "I really don't care about the woes of the
self-absorbed Hollywood nut-baskets."

Translated: I don't.

I was only addressing your off the point remark. My mistake.

"Off point"? Wow! That's rich!

It looks like you just want to tag one irrelevant comment onto another.
Seems to me that you're just another usenet blubbering old fart.

Piss off.

--- Joe

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:22:29 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <j58pl6t0eefiot979o7u0es7um1dnhup60@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:03:55 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <3u2pl6t1hd4ukrpdr1q505cse565i4f1of@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:31:07 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <t01pl6ln15rdrssqs676t4jccngdsnkt9d@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:06:54 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
My point was that evidently the human "machine" sucked.

I don't see where *you* made that point. I did say it was boring.


I hope old Charlie recovers and straightens out enough to give us more
first-run episodes.

I really don't care about the woes of the self-absorbed Hollywood
nut-baskets.

My point: I'd rather have Charlie Sheen's comedy than boring,
shark-jumping, yahoo-oriented episodes of Jeopardy! He does have to be
somewhat healthy to make more episodes.

Insufficient alternatives.

It was a simple comparison - not a list of alternatives.

"Neither" is a better alternative, even if there aren't any.

Otherwise, I wish they wouldn't
even report on the personal lives of any show-biz types.

Don't listen.

You were the one who said "I really don't care about the woes of the
self-absorbed Hollywood nut-baskets."

Translated: I don't.

I was only addressing your off the point remark. My mistake.

"Off point"? Wow! That's rich!

It looks like you just want to tag one irrelevant comment onto another.

That figures. You're incapable of putting two thoughts together.

Seems to me that you're just another usenet blubbering old fart.

I suppose it might look that way to a dumbass kid who really cares about
Charlie Sheen, of all losers.

Piss off.

After you kid (but you just can't resist the last word, can you?).