[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey that's quite an argument! Good supporting facts! Don't you feel like when you have to resort to name calling, you're saying "I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll just insult you"? Thats how it comes accross.

[/ QUOTE ]

my argument was that:

1) you created a strawman out of the earlier comments when you said "i don't think it would be easy to do x." no one had said it would be easy, just that it would be possible.
2) i didn't name call, i didn't say that i have no idea what i'm talking about, and i didn't insult you. i also don't really need to go in to encyclopaedic detail of how AI programming works in order to make my point in this thread.

from your earlier post, where you said that you didn't believe that a computer could effectively do modeled randomized/semi-randomized/modeled with previous actions taken into account behavior, it was quite obvious that you don't understand anything besides the most basic programming.

by basic programming i mean that your post implies that you think the way computers work is like a choose your own adventure book "if x go do y." this is not the way computers work. a simplistic reality of why not is something like the post a few up on "slowplay aces 12%."

c