I know the the number of all possible legal positions is very large
but the number of positions that actually occur during real playing is probably not very large at all. I think this would be a very
interesting and useful thing to know for all kinds of practical
applications.
I would propose that the most frequent positions in human-v-human, human-v-bot and bot-v-bot games will be distinctively different due to
the characteristic styles/strategies of different types of players,
and perhaps be also different based on the strength level of the
players in each of the above pairing combinations.
Most stored games are probably already saved as sequences of unique
position ID's or can be batch converted to be so. And then a script
can read through all available games and tabulate the frequency of all
the unique position ID's encountered.
Could the effort be justified for some beneficial uses like "frequent positions books" to speed up bots or just to satisfy human curiosity?
I don't know much about them but apparently there are quite a number of collections/databases of games/matches that are kept for various reasons
like rating/ranking players, analysing positions, etc.
What I'm wondering is whether there are any stats about the frequency of backgammon positions?
I know the the number of all possible legal positions is very large but the number of positions that actually occur during real playing is probably not very large at all. I think this would be a very interesting and useful thing to
know for all kinds of practical applications.
I would propose that the most frequent positions in human-v-human, human-v-bot and bot-v-bot games will be distinctively different due to the characteristic styles/strategies of different types of players, and perhaps be also different based on the strength level of the players in each of the above pairing combinations.
Most stored games are probably already saved as sequences of unique
position ID's or can be batch converted to be so.
And then a script can
read through all available games and tabulate the frequency of all the
unique position ID's encountered.
Any thoughts on this subject?
Any ideas about how difficult would this be to accomplish?
Could the effort be justified for some beneficial uses like "frequent positions books" to speed up bots or just to satisfy human curiosity?
Personally, it would be worth for me to contribute some of my time and
effort towards this if I can be useful in some way.
Most stored games are probably already saved as sequences of unique
position ID's or can be batch converted to be so. And then a script can
read through all available games and tabulate the frequency of all the unique position ID's encountered.
Any thoughts on this subject?
Any ideas about how difficult would this be to accomplish?
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
I agree that this is an interesting question, but have
some doubts about the usefulness. Some thoughts:
Imaging a vast area of land. A backgammon position is,
well, a position somewhere in this area. A backgammon
move is a path from one position to another one. Some
of these paths are well-trodden ..... others are rarely used
.....
Coming to the end of the game, in a pure race there will a
"squeezing" zone and both the number of positions and
the number of paths will shrink.
Continuing with the opening stage, we will have a "combinatorial
explosion" because of the much higher branching factor of
backgammon compared to chess ....
GNU Backgammon Position ID: Pp8PAACfzwcAAA
Match ID : cAkAAAAAAAAA
This is "Double, take", but my Isight count said "Double, pass",
which sealed the deal for him. I then asked whether he had
ever seen this position over the board ("No").....
I would propose that the most frequent positions in
human-v-human, human-v-bot and bot-v-bot games will
be distinctively different due to the characteristic
styles/strategies of different types of players, and perhaps
be also different based on the strength level of the
players in each of the above pairing combinations.
Yes, sure: Splitters versus slotters, backgamers versus
blitzers, novices running when behind, not daring to hit
openly but preferring stacking plays, ...
An interesting detail is that this "map of backgammon country"
is mathematically a directed multi-graph (if I got the terminology
right) with all its consequences regarding application of graph
theory. It could be also seen a Markov chain, with probabilities
assigned to status changes, e.g., after 31 in the starting position,
we will end up almost certainly with the move 8/5 6/5, whereas
for 43 we might have something like 35 % for Down, 35 % for .....
Yes, sure, technically this should be simple. But what would
you do with this? The combinatorical explosion is really, really
bad, so I am quite sure that since backgammon started being
played we (which is all human players ever in existence) have
so far covered only a fraction of "practically relevant" positions,
let alone "theoretically possible" positions.
Could the effort be justified for some beneficial uses like
"frequent positions books" to speed up bots or just to satisfy
human curiosity?
My guess is that such a look-up table would have to be so
huge that it would not save time anymore.
Also, despite being huge, it would be too small to reasonably
cover "backgammon country". Which is why humans use
rules of thumb ("if in doubt, hit"). Even bots do not work by
memorizing positions (again, in contrast to chess programs,
at least in the opening stages), but by assigning weights to
"features" of positions.
This amounts to a huge compression of information. In fact,
it is quite embarrassing that a neural network with a ridiculously
low number of "brain cells" beats almost all human players in
the long run.
On 10/04/2022 1:21 pm, MK wrote:
What I'm wondering is whether there are any stats
about the frequency of backgammon positions?
Probably not, or you'd have found them surely?
I think this would be a very interesting and useful
thing to know for all kinds of practical applications.
Not sure why, but ok.
Any ideas about how difficult would this be to accomplish?
Technically easy, even I could do it.
Could the effort be justified for some beneficial uses
like "frequent positions books" to speed up bots or just
to satisfy human curiosity?
For the latter, yes, if one were willing to devote the time
and effort required.
Personally, it would be worth for me to contribute some
of my time and effort towards this if I can be useful in
some way.
As you're a self-confessed programmer, you can do it all
yourself. All the tools you need are publicly available.
Let us know how you go.
MK schrieb am Sonntag, 10. April 2022 um 05:21:24 UTC+2:
Any ideas about how difficult would this be to accomplish?
Wasn't MK the one who named bgblitz rubbish because I
said I fixed about 50 bugs and claimed that he is quite well
in the programming area even providing a link to his website?
And now you ask this question for an pretty trivial task?
(Why I'm not really astonished)
There are about 10^20 possible positions and if only 1% of
the them occur in real games
and you need about 20 bytes to describe a position
you can't do that counting even with the current largest
supercomputer.
So if you only use recorded matches (I have a colection with
about 4 million human matches, let's say if all BG servers
collaborate we might get 100 million matches)
it might be doable with a decent PC (probably within a 4
digit budget) But counting the individual positions is
pointless unless you categoryze them.
BTW the effort is moderate it took me about 1 or 2 evenings
to code that stuff, and I used it for categorizing.
Using that for a lookup is not a relevant idea as Axel already
pointed out.
On April 10, 2022 at 3:36:33 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:
dropped cubes, which can happen after just a couple of rolls and cut
the trip short before even getting out of city limits.
If you take the train, it will follow a single track all the way, each
and every time. You will always see the same limited scenery that you
will eventually memorize and maybe even get bored of.
players may end up taking some back-roads, dirt-roads or go off-road
on their atv's/horses, weaving and meandering around, thus
encountering increasingly larger and larger numbers of possible
positions, maybe even get totally lost at times to even see the odd
shaped cactus that you gave in your example position above.
An interesting detail is that this "map of backgammon country" is
mathematically a directed multi-graph (if I got the terminology
right) with all its consequences regarding application of graph
theory. It could be also seen a Markov chain, with probabilities
assigned to status changes, e.g., after 31 in the starting position,
we will end up almost certainly with the move 8/5 6/5, whereas for 43
we might have something like 35 % for Down, 35 % for .....
I'm not sure if I really understand what you are talking about but I
would like to see you elaborate and explain further.
The various stats I'm talking about can, of course, be presented as
graphs. Trying to understand what you wrote, I thought of color
spectrums of elements. I wonder if the graphs of bot-v-bot,
human-v-human, human-v-bot positions graphs can be similarly
recognizable enough characteristic?
In fact, with this said, while tabulating frequency of positions, each
time a certain position is the final position of a game, it should be
marked and counted as such also.
Among my reasons is just to look at them to see if something alien
will jump at my face... :)
My guess is that such a look-up table would have to be so
huge that it would not save time anymore.
We can control the size to a practical number of most frequent
positions.
I thought that at least some bots were using opening books and even
large positions files.
How about using frequency stats during the training of neural
networks?
Since no entity with the necessary means is showing an interest
in working towards Alpha-Zero-BG-Bots, I keep trying to think of
things that can be subtituted towards better bots in the meantime.
On April 10, 2022 at 3:36:33 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:
dropped cubes, which can happen after just a couple of rolls and cut
the trip short before even getting out of city limits.
If you take the train, it will follow a single track all the way, each
and every time. You will always see the same limited scenery that you
will eventually memorize and maybe even get bored of.
players may end up taking some back-roads, dirt-roads or go off-road
on their atv's/horses, weaving and meandering around, thus
encountering increasingly larger and larger numbers of possible
positions, maybe even get totally lost at times to even see the odd
shaped cactus that you gave in your example position above.
An interesting detail is that this "map of backgammon country" is
mathematically a directed multi-graph (if I got the terminology
right) with all its consequences regarding application of graph
theory. It could be also seen a Markov chain, with probabilities
assigned to status changes, e.g., after 31 in the starting position,
we will end up almost certainly with the move 8/5 6/5, whereas for 43
we might have something like 35 % for Down, 35 % for .....
I'm not sure if I really understand what you are talking about but I
would like to see you elaborate and explain further.
The various stats I'm talking about can, of course, be presented as
graphs. Trying to understand what you wrote, I thought of color
spectrums of elements. I wonder if the graphs of bot-v-bot,
human-v-human, human-v-bot positions graphs can be similarly
recognizable enough characteristic?
In fact, with this said, while tabulating frequency of positions, each
time a certain position is the final position of a game, it should be
marked and counted as such also.
Among my reasons is just to look at them to see if something alien
will jump at my face... :)
My guess is that such a look-up table would have to be so
huge that it would not save time anymore.
We can control the size to a practical number of most frequent
positions.
I thought that at least some bots were using opening books and even
large positions files.
How about using frequency stats during the training of neural
networks?
Since no entity with the necessary means is showing an interest
in working towards Alpha-Zero-BG-Bots, I keep trying to think of
things that can be subtituted towards better bots in the meantime.
You said the thechnical part was easy. Could you provide
the scripts? Then we can see can do the legwork of data
gathering. After that, I would bet more than a few people
would be interested to analyse and interpret the stats.
It may be a little too much for one person to do it quickly
enough. I haven't looked to see what tools are available.
I have a few other major projects of deep interest on my
list that I only have time and energy to peck at as I can.
As far as backgammon, I am also pecking at the design
of a "Lego-Bg-Bot" and any amount of time and effort I
could spare for backgammon would first go towards that.
Even if I get no help, I may be able to hack it from Gnubg
but it may take me too long to start on it and then too long
to complete it.
As Frank pointed out, developing this part of what you want to
do is easy enough, a few hours work.
No I cannot provide the scripts, the parts you want are embedded deep
in bglog and would be meaningless outside of that context.
Besides, if you were to do this work, you'd gain credibility in a
community that you spend half your time swearing at.
Me too, probably Frank also. So why would we spend time doing your
bidding when we have more interesting projects to do?
Simon Woodhead <simon@bglog.org> writes:
As Frank pointed out, developing this part of what you want to
do is easy enough, a few hours work.
Easy? It is trivial! The statistics I have given in a previous reply
were generated by 1 line of code. After reading "Classic Shell
Scripting" and "Unix Power Tools" any willing learner should be ready to
go. The problem is probably the "willing" ...
Continuing with the opening stage, we will have a "combinatorial
explosion" because of the much higher branching factor of backgammon
compared to chess (which is one of the reasons why it took roughly 10
years longer for the computers to become better than world class
players).
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
On April 10, 2022 at 3:36:33 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:
dropped cubes, which can happen after just a couple of rolls
and cut the trip short before even getting out of city limits.
Yes.
If you take the train, it will follow a single track all the way,
each and every time. You will always see the same limited
scenery that you will eventually memorize and maybe even
get bored of.
A resounding "No", see below.
My guess is that such a look-up table would have to be
so huge that it would not save time anymore.
We can control the size to a practical number of most
frequent positions.
No. The branching factor is so high, that even in "boring"
bot-vs-bot play you will rarely encounter exactly the same
position after you have left the city limits.....
I did so just now, with one file containing 1096762 different
positions. Of these, 770042 occured exactly once and....
I thought that at least some bots were using opening books
and even large positions files.
GNU Backgammon has a bear-off database. So this covers
Manhattan. I do not think it covers Seattle.
How about using frequency stats during the training of neural
networks?
No. The branching factor is too high. The outcome will be fed
back immediately, AFAIK.
On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 1:36:45 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
On 4/10/2022 5:36 AM, Axel Reichert wrote:
Continuing with the opening stage, we will have a "combinatorial explosion" because of the much higher branching factor of backgammon compared to chess (which is one of the reasons why it took roughly 10 years longer for the computers to become better than world class players).Let me see if I can translate the core of MK's question into more
commonly understandable language.
Create two large piles of backgammon positions. Pile 1 consists of positions taken from bot-versus-bot games. Pile 2 consists of
positions taken from human-versus-human games.
Can we train a classifier to distinguish between a randomly chosenIf we take the entirety of human backgammon games, no matter how weak the players, then the positions are completely different.
position from Pile 1 and a randomly chosen position from Pile 2?
Of course it won't be perfect because some positions will appear in
both piles. But how high an accuracy/recall is possible?
Probably over 99% of humans are weak beginners or worse.
I think I could distinguish between a random human position and a random strong bot vs strong bot position with over 90% confidence.
For example, beginners are terrified of getting hit so you get massive candlesticks
around the 8 and 6 points. A 5 point slotted is a strong suggestion of a non-beginner
and therefore a non-human.
A better question is whether we can readily distinguish between positions encountered
when strong bots play each other, and positions encountered when world-class humans
play each other. Almost certainly, no, we can't.
Paul
On 4/10/2022 5:36 AM, Axel Reichert wrote:
Continuing with the opening stage, we will have a "combinatorialLet me see if I can translate the core of MK's question into more
explosion" because of the much higher branching factor of backgammon compared to chess (which is one of the reasons why it took roughly 10
years longer for the computers to become better than world class
players).
commonly understandable language.
Create two large piles of backgammon positions. Pile 1 consists of
positions taken from bot-versus-bot games. Pile 2 consists of
positions taken from human-versus-human games.
Can we train a classifier to distinguish between a randomly chosen
position from Pile 1 and a randomly chosen position from Pile 2?
Of course it won't be perfect because some positions will appear in
both piles. But how high an accuracy/recall is possible?
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
An interesting detail is that this "map of backgammon
country" is mathematically a directed multi-graph (if I
got the terminology right) with all its consequences
regarding application of graph theory. It could be also
seen a Markov chain, with probabilities assigned to
status changes, e.g., after 31 in the starting position,
we will end up almost certainly with the move 8/5 6/5,
whereas for 43 we might have something like 35 % for
Down, 35 % for Split, 30 % for Zplit and 5 % for Up, see
(the perhaps outdated) https://www.bkgm.com/openings.html.
I'm not sure if I really understand what you are talking about
but I would like to see you elaborate and explain further.
You understood "graph" as something like a contour plot or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_of_a_function#/media/File:Three-dimensional_graph.png
The various stats I'm talking about can, of course, be presented
as graphs. Trying to understand what you wrote, I thought of
color spectrums of elements. I wonder if the graphs of bot-v-bot,
human-v-human, human-v-bot positions graphs can be similarly
recognizable enough characteristic?
I meant this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(discrete_mathematics)
An interesting detail is that this "map of backgammon
country" is mathematically a directed multi-graph (if I
got the terminology right) with all its consequences
regarding application of graph theory.
seen a Markov chain, with probabilities assigned to
status changes, e.g., after 31 in the starting position,
we will end up almost certainly with the move 8/5 6/5,
whereas for 43 we might have something like 35 % for
Down, 35 % for Split, 30 % for Zplit and 5 % for Up, see
(the perhaps outdated) https://www.bkgm.com/openings.html.
I think I could distinguish between a random human position and a random strong bot vs strong bot position with over 90% confidence.
For example, beginners are terrified of getting hit so you get massive candlesticks
around the 8 and 6 points. A 5 point slotted is a strong suggestion of a non-beginner
and therefore a non-human.
A better question is whether we can readily distinguish between positions encountered
when strong bots play each other, and positions encountered when world-class humans
play each other. Almost certainly, no, we can't.
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
opening ROLLS, played somewhat differently by my program and
GNU Backgammon, hence 17 POSITIONS after the play, not 15).
That much to your statement from above: "If you take the train, it
will follow a single track all the way, each and every time." It is
simply not true and backgammon is a more scenic ride than you
thought. Which is why we love this game. (-:
Some of these paths are well-trodden (kind of a six-lane
autobahn), e.g., the one from the starting position to the
one after 31: 8/5 6/5, others are rarely used and have
become overgrown, e.g., the one from the starting position
to the one after 31: 8/7 8/5.
Another way may be for the bot to look for unique markers
such as the example above, which may be more efficient.
Markers not as strong as the above example can be used in
various combinations to make them stronger and more precise.
On 4/13/2022 7:10 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I could distinguish between a random human position and a random strong bot vs strong bot position with over 90% confidence.Even if what you say is true, there is still a rather large zone
For example, beginners are terrified of getting hit so you get massive candlesticks
around the 8 and 6 points. A 5 point slotted is a strong suggestion of a non-beginner
and therefore a non-human.
A better question is whether we can readily distinguish between positions encountered
when strong bots play each other, and positions encountered when world-class humans
play each other. Almost certainly, no, we can't.
of players between beginners and top humans. I'd guess that the
available recorded games contain a fairly large sample of games from
this "middle zone." True beginners generally don't have their games
recorded, and only a handful of players are at the very top.
If it makes sense to have bots with doable opening and closing
(bear-off) books, why not a doable mid-game book?
On April 12, 2022 at 1:53:06 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(discrete_mathematics)
And now it's my turn to ask you what is the practical use (if any) of
this? Can you expand on what you mean by "with all its consequences
regarding application of graph theory"??
In your example of 43, the bot will always play 13/10 13/9. In bot
play you will never see "35 % for Down, 35 % for Split, 30 % for Zplit
and 5 % for Up" regardless of which bot and regardless of what
strength level of that bot.
They may occur in human play but in measuring, consistency is
essential and we can only use bots for measuring beacuse they play
100% consistently, regardless of which bot and regardless of what
strength level of that bot.
So, it's again my turn again to ask you what's the practical use (if
any) of this nonsense of yours?
If you don't want to be around me while I'm trying so,
you can stuff your gifts and admirations up your asses
and go fuck yourselves away from me... ;)
Simon Woodhead <si...@bglog.org> writes:
As Frank pointed out, developing this part of what
you want to do is easy enough, a few hours work.
Easy? It is trivial! The statistics I have given in a
previous reply were generated by 1 line of code.
After reading "Classic Shell Scripting" and "Unix
Power Tools" any willing learner should be ready
to go. The problem is probably the "willing" ...
Although I have to admit that the non-swearing half
of contributions (deliberately not using quotation
marks here) is sometimes original and stimulating.
At least I was thus enticed to learn and program
("hark, hark") something with Markov chains, which
proved useful for my investigations about the
beaver-caused "Petersburg paradox".
But the "value proposition" of this current project is
very poor indeed, at least so far.
On 12/04/2022 5:08 pm, MK wrote:
As Frank pointed out, developing this part of what
you want to do is easy enough, a few hours work.
To generate ids from move lists is a little extra.
No I cannot provide the scripts, the parts you
want are embedded deep in bglog and would
be meaningless outside of that context.
Besides, if you were to do this work, you'd gain
credibility in a community that you spend half
your time swearing at.
Me too, probably Frank also. So why would we
spend time doing your bidding when we have
more interesting projects to do?
And again, as Frank pointed out this is not a hard
thing to do so if you are serious about this, show
us by developing the code to generate id lists...
Even if I get no help, I may be able to hack it from
Gnubg but it may take me too long to start on it
and then too long to complete it.
No-one helped me write bglog. I'm sure no-one
helped Frank write bgblitz. These are labours of
love, and tens of thousands of hours of work over
literally decades of development.
You have yet to perform, so go and make something
great for the backgammon community.
You'll be showered with gifts and admiration. Ok,
you won't, but you'll get the self-satisfaction of
having achieved something useful. Assuming it's
useful ;-)
On 4/10/2022 5:36 AM, Axel Reichert wrote:
Continuing with the opening stage, we will have a
"combinatorial explosion" ....
Let me see if I can translate the core of MK's question
into more commonly understandable language.
Create two large piles of backgammon positions.
Pile 1 consists of positions taken from bot-versus-bot
games. Pile 2 consists of positions taken from
human-versus-human games.
Can we train a classifier to distinguish between a
randomly chosen position from Pile 1 and a randomly
chosen position from Pile 2? Of course it won't be
perfect because some positions will appear in both
piles. But how high an accuracy/recall is possible?
On 4/13/2022 9:28 PM, MK wrote:
In the old days, having human programmers propose
specific features was more or less the only way to get
off the ground with machine learning.
Nowadays, though, the increase in computing power means
that it's often better to just let the programs discover their
own features rather than hand-craft features using human
expertise.
Static features are simpler but dynamic features tend to
be more powerful, and again because of the increase in
computing power, dynamic features tend to be the way to
go if they are available.
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
If it makes sense to have bots with doable opening and
closing (bear-off) books, why not a doable mid-game book?
Because in contrast to bear-off positions and especially
opening positions you will almost never come across
exactly the same "landmark". Hence the cartographer's
work would be futile. No one else will visit the same spot
in forseeable time. This is caused by the branching factor
of the dice, even if an algorithm plays the same position
always in the same way.
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
On April 12, 2022 at 1:53:06 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(discrete_mathematics)
And now it's my turn to ask you what is the practical use (if
any) of this? Can you expand on what you mean by "with all
its consequences regarding application of graph theory"??
I thought we were still in brainstorming mode? Also, it is YOUR
burden to tell what you are after. I am just helping out with ideas.
So, it's again my turn again to ask you what's the practical use
(if any) of this nonsense of yours?
As before, I am just helping out with ideas. No need to flip-flop
back into insulting mode.
Some paragraphs before, you were hypothesising about
distinguishing bots from human, now humans are out.
And since you mention "measuring", but do not say what you
want to measure, I am out as well. Good luck with your project.
As before, I am just helping out with ideas. No need to flip-flop back
into insulting mode.
You guys are stingy of donating a few hours to a
project for the sake of the game but you don't mind
wasting as many hours at being dickheads to me. :(
[...]
(Please guys, spare me from dickhead comments like
I should count them myself and such. Thanks.)
[...]
Wow. I didn't know that you were so sensitive to feel insulted by
by my calling some of your comments "nonsense".
I was going to make pun of you by calling you "nonsensitive" but
I decide not to, fearing that you may think I made fun of you and
run off crying... ;)
[...]
This is a "nonsensitive" excuse. If the kitchen got too hot for
you, fine, you can go.
If you want to come back later to accept by your own will that
some of your comments were wrong, incomplete, useless or
whatever, I'll allow you to be polite to yourself and use your
choice of nice words... ;) Okay?? :)
MK
And once again, Murat is left alone, king in his island, talking to
the winds. His lack of manners and zeppelin-sized ego strike again,
leading him to dilapidate his interlocutors' willingness to contribute
to a discussion he himself proposed.
4. Switch to ranting/insulting mode as next attempt to get the others do
the work for you.
I think it would be fun to see MK try to coerce Nasti Chestikov
into doing work for him.
On 4/14/2022 10:40 PM, MK wrote:
You guys are stingy of donating a few hours to a
project for the sake of the game but you don't mind
wasting as many hours at being dickheads to me. :(
Someone should invent a saying about the color of
common kitchen items.
On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 5:30:20 AM UTC-3, MK wrote:
And once again, Murat is left alone,
king in his island, talking to the winds.
His lack of manners and zeppelin-sized ego strike again,
leading him to dilapidate his interlocutors' willingness to
contribute to a discussion he himself proposed.
On 4/14/2022 4:04 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
As before, I am just helping out with ideas. No need
to flip-flop back into insulting mode.
Fun fact: there's an early Persian version of the
fable in which it stings a turtle rather than a frog.
1. Come up with a vague idea that is somewhere between
weird and stimulating.
2. Get criticism from a diverse range of others, who point
out theoretical issues.
3. Fail to know/learn the theory behind the others' arguments.
4. Switch to ranting/insulting mode as next attempt to get
the others do the work for you.
5. Get further criticism (theoretical, satirical) or get ignored.
6. Switch to whining mode.
7. Stay silent for some weeks.
8. Repeat.
PS: Have you guys ever heard the King Crimson song
called "I talk to the wind"? Here are the partial lyrics
and a link to listen to it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlKrH07au6E
What is fun about that..??
On 4/16/2022 2:41 AM, Axel Reichert wrote:
4. Switch to ranting/insulting mode as next attempt to get the others do the work for you.I think it would be fun to see MK try to coerce Nasti Chestikov
into doing work for him.
---
Tim Chow
On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 14:07:16 UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
On 4/16/2022 2:41 AM, Axel Reichert wrote:
4. Switch to ranting/insulting mode as next attempt to get the others do >>> the work for you.I think it would be fun to see MK try to coerce Nasti Chestikov
into doing work for him.
---
Tim Chow
Or Timothy Chow coming out as Alex Choi and admitting that he hawks fast cars around YouTube.
So transparent.
I don't hawk fast cars much any more because I'm so busy
developing Eraser.
Why can't you pathetic little sick cretins stay out of it if you
have nothing meaningful to contribute?
Why can't you mother loving, rooster sucking scumbags do
it in your own moronic discussions in threads that you can
start yourselves instead of spoiling mine?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 72:54:46 |
Calls: | 6,657 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,203 |
Messages: | 5,332,378 |
Posted today: | 1 |