Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (
More info?)
msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote:
>I have never been a Tic-Tac-Toe afficionado, but I do recall, with
>reasonable certainty, reading and (and discussing with others) a way to
>win at the game provided one moves first. Now, all evidence of such an
>algorithm seems to have vanished. This does not surprise me very much,
>considering the fact that this is a pseudo-reality which seems to
>undergo a variety of fundamental "editing" so that (for example) events
>which occurred in the past vanish from record; also, I am used to
>dealing with pseudo-sentients like yourself, who lie compulsively and
>habitually, from a pathological contrarianism. My recollections of the
>Tic-Tac-Toe algorithm are from school days, many decades ago, and it
>might, possibly, have been erroneous: I do not recall exhaustively
>analyzing it, but it made sense to me at the time; now, however, there
>seems to be no recoverable record of it -- the closest thing being the
>assertion of a winning algorithm for 3-D Tic-Tac-Toe. I routinely see
>advertisements for "new release" movies which I KNOW, with absolute
>rather than merely reasonable certainty, have been out before, years
>ago, though all archival evidence of this disappears by the time the
>events reoccur. The same is true for many newspaper stories, magazine
>covers, and obituaries. As for Tic-Tac-Toe, I really don't care enough
>to try to reconstruct what was once widely published as a winning
>method. Perhaps it never was what it claimed to be: but something
>claiming to be this certainly held nearly universal circulation.
So you refuse to admit that there is no winning method for tic-tac-toe,
and you prefer to believe that somehow archival evidence of something
as well-publicized as a movie release disappears than to believe the
obvious - that you are delusional. Alas, you aren't one of those nice
delusional people who are charming and fiendly, but are instead one of
those nasty delusional people who engage in unprovoked personal attacks
on anyone who questions your version of "reality."
Here are some definitions that you should be aware of:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kook
[Usenet; originally and more formally, `net.kook'] Term used to
describe a regular poster who continually posts messages with
no apparent grounding in reality. Different from a troll, which
implies a sort of sly wink on the part of a poster who knows
better, kooks really believe what they write, to the extent that
they believe anything.
The kook trademark is paranoia and grandiosity. Kooks will often
build up elaborate imaginary support structures, fake corporations
and the like, and continue to act as if those things are real even
after their falsity has been documented in public.
While they may appear harmless, and are usually filtered out by
the other regular participants in a newsgroup of mailing list,
they can still cause problems because the necessity for these
measures is not immediately apparent to newcomers; there are
several instances on record, for example, of journalists writing
stories with quotes from kooks who caught them unaware.
See also Troll
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Troll
1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting
on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the
post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in
turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one
trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite.
The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and
flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do,
while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in
fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be
in on it. See also YHBT.
2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts
specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup,
discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone
or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they
have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply
want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after,
they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are
recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him,
he's just a troll."
Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower
category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing
some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial.
The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily
produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not
infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of
a followup to troll postings.
See also Kook.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Killfile
[Usenet; very common] (alt. `KILL file') Per-user file(s) used by some
Usenet reading programs (originally Larry Wall's rn(1)) to discard
summarily (without presenting for reading) articles matching some
particularly uninteresting (or unwanted) patterns of subject, author,
or other header lines. Thus to add a person (or subject) to one's kill
file is to arrange for that person to be ignored by one's newsreader in
future. By extension, it may be used for a decision to ignore the
person or subject in other media.
See also plonk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plonk
[Usenet: possibly influenced by British slang `plonk' for cheap booze,
or `plonker' for someone behaving stupidly (latter is lit. equivalent
to Yiddish `schmuck')] The sound a newbie makes as he falls to the
bottom of a kill file. While it originated in the newsgroup talk.bizarre,
this term (usually written "*plonk*") is now (1994) widespread on Usenet.
See also killfile.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram