I actually cannot believe no one here knows about Arthur T Murray aka Mentifex.

To quickly catch up with the past 20 years or so, please read the Mentifex-FAQ:

http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html

‘nuff said.

Richard, I doubt that there’s a person in this forum, young or old, who hasn’t made mistakes. Anyone who is afraid of making mistakes has little chance of ever achieving anything worthwhile. That said, the only mistake that is unforgivable is failure to learn from mistakes, but to do that, it’s necessary to grant a second, third, fourth, etc chance. Why not just stick to judging the members of this forum by what they do and say in this forum?

Richard,

I’m very disappointed that you chose to post the link to the FAQ.  The fact is that several of us were already aware of the FAQ and associated history of Mr. Murray. However, many of us prefer to read what others have written and to judge for ourselves if the content is relevant and useful to our individual research. If not we are free to ignore it.  I agree completely with Andrew that people should be judged by what they do and say in ‘this’ forum. 

Everyone,

Here’s my suggestion for what it is worth. In the future, if you have a concern about a member, then contact Erwin (or a moderator) privately to state your concern. This does a couple of things. Firstly, it is very professional and reinforces the amiability of the chatbots forum. Secondly, it respects Erwin’s ‘right of ownership’ and ‘right of censorship’.

Of course this is just one man’s opinion.

Regards,
Chuck

oops, guys, what’s happening here? Chuck, tx again for the alert.

I agree with Chuck. The number of posts is growing rapidly and we’re antipating a fast growth in 2010. Therefore, in the future it will no longer possible to read and check all posts in detail.

We’ve in fact three standard mechanisms in place:
1. Three moderators: Victor Shulist and Dave Morton  and me (not many people know that Dave will be introduced as a formal Chatbots.org team member shortly). Moderators will monitor the forum, but we are just people like you and we can miss out thiings.
2. The ‘report’ button. You’ll find a ‘report’ link on every posting to report inappropriate postings.
3. Email the moderators about individual members behavior.

The most powerful mechanism however, is where members correct each other in order to keep discussions positive, constructive and inspiring. Always try to suggest how things could be said in other way, for the next time. Learn from each other. With positive members, we’ll build a positive community. A negative atmosphere on the contrary, will be a disaster for the forum. And we all like to be part of a positivie community, don’t we?

It’s all about: ‘advancing the chatbot community, worldwide’ (Chatbots.org mission).

I had a nice post about this all typed in, only awaiting some simple editing, when I had to leave the house for a “short” errand that took me over 4 hours to complete. I came back, did my simple editing, and posted my message, only to lose the entire post due to an expired cookie. I should have known better. 

Anyway, what I had put into the post is now mirrored by both Chuck and Erwin, so I won’t beat a dead horse here, except to say that we all have our own notions, ideas, theories, prejudices, etc. and we each need to bear in mind that, while we may not agree on things here, that doesn’t necessarily mean that someone else’s ideas lack value or validity. It’s often the “off the wall” ideas that expand the boundaries of our knowledge, and “thinking outside the box”, while not always successful, still has the potential to see the greatest gains.

@Andrew & Chuck: I think that’s a very noble attitude. It shows your personality.

Though I can also understand Richard’s point of view. In the end, bold claims should better be accompanied bold proof.
Personally, I did not know Arthur. I didn’t even bother to read the entire thread (I stopped after ‘is tangentially approaching consciousness’, which was sort of a clue for me) until I saw Chuck’s reaction and went back a few posts.

Jan Bogaerts - Oct 13, 2010:

@Andrew & Chuck: I
think that’s a very noble attitude. It shows your personality.

Though I can also understand Richard’s point of view. In the end, bold
claims should better be accompanied bold proof.

I should simply state, that the nobleness of my attitude is defined by
the good intent to save your (pointing to the round) precious time.

Andrew Smith - Oct 12, 2010:

... but to do that, it’s
necessary to grant a second, third, fourth, etc chance. Why not just
stick to judging the members of this forum by what they do and say in
this forum?

It is debatable whether the number of chances should be countably
infinite as you propose (no?), but not here and not now. What do you
think have I done in my judging by letting this thread “develop” for
more than 2 weeks? I just wanted to see if it is going to be THE SAME
story with Arthur as already observed more than a decade ago. Also,
why should I throw away my experience I gathered with him in other
forums - just to redo it here over and over again?

Chuck Bolin - Oct 12, 2010:

I’m very disappointed that you chose to post the link to the FAQ.  The
fact is that several of us were already aware of the FAQ and
associated history of Mr. Murray.

Well Chuck, then I apologize to have misinterpreted your reactions in
this thread. To me, it looked as if you were not aware of both FAQ and
history. As stated above, there was just good intent to save your
(and everyone elses) precious time.

Putting all together, you have stated that you were playing cat and
mice with Arthur and now I understand your choice of words about being
“very disappointed”. Sorry to have spoiled that game.

Of course you are free to spend your time as you like and I will take
this into accout should I feel the urge for “good intentions” next
time.

Richard

Perhaps it would be best to move this discussion, starting with Richard’s original post, to a separate area so as not to hijack Mr. Murray’s thread?

done