Don't tell me. Show me, through your actions.

The very reason I have to tell you is because you've been misinterpreting the actions I have already shown you. I am simply, politely, correcting you.

If you don't want to understand it, or the reasoning behind it (which i've also shared, thoroughly) - then i can't (and wouldn't, if i could!) force you.

I understand your argument, I am refuting it with a counter, by stating that interaction with a bot is significantly easier to discern when the conversation is over audio, video, or better still, in person, something that is quite common knowledge. Obviosuly, I think the latter option will likely have logistical issues, which is why the next best option is video.

This is why I had asked if you believe a robot could pass the Turing test in a conversation with you if had over video (a question you still have not answered). I was making sure whether I'm correct in understanding you have the (extremely uncommon and surprising) belief that you think that it's easier to discern whether a person is human over text, rather video, or any other medium

Because blindly believing the voices you encounter - wether online or in real life is foolish.

I'm not blindly believing anything. The evidence is clear, that you are 100% a human being. To doubt that, at this stage, is foolish.

When i say you are foolish for believing...

If you need to choose your words more carefully, be more mindful to do so. Your actions are showing to be one that are attacking my character rather than the idea. It's clear that the idea is not worth attacking, because you an I both know that you are a human being. It's inreasonable for you to go after that idea.

However, you still do attack my character imilar to how you in your repeated suggestions that "my behavior is bot-like." It's attacking me, often in efforts to either distract or avoid the topic at hand, but ultimately to not address the idea that I present to you.

This is the entire reason why I have chosen to direct our attention to this tendency of yours, in hopes that you would realize it and learn to be more earnest in having an honest discussion of ideas.

Perhaps naturally, and out of frustration.

Understandable that you might be frustrated! I'm simply attempting to appease frustration, and lack of clarity, by suggesting we move to a medium where we can more intentional and honest dialogue.

It becomes much easier to answer questions directly, and to not drop off the topic when direct questions are asked by one person to the other.

Don't tell me. Show me, through your actions.

The very reason I have to tell you is because you've been misinterpreting the actions I have already shown you. I am simply, politely, correcting you.

If you don't want to understand it, or the reasoning behind it (which i've also shared, thoroughly) - then i can't (and wouldn't, if i could!) force you.

I understand your argument, I am refuting it with a counter, by stating that interaction with a bot is significantly easier to discern when the conversation is over audio, video, or better still, in person, something that is quite common knowledge. Obviosuly, I think the latter option will likely have logistical issues, which is why the next best option is video.

This is why I had asked if you believe a robot could pass the Turing test in a conversation with you if had over video (a question you still have not answered). I was making sure whether I'm correct in understanding you have the (extremely uncommon and surprising) belief that you think that it's easier to discern whether a person is human over text, rather video.

Because blindly believing the voices you encounter - wether online or in real life is foolish.

I'm not blindly believing anything. The evidence is clear, that you are 100% a human being. To doubt that, at this stage, is foolish.

When i say you are foolish for believing...

If you need to choose your words more carefully, be more mindful to do so. Your actions are showing to be one that are attacking my character rather than the idea. It's clear that the idea is not worth attacking, because you an I both know that you are a human being. It's inreasonable for you to go after that idea.

However, you still do attack my character imilar to how you in your repeated suggestions that "my behavior is bot-like." It's attacking me, often in efforts to either distract or avoid the topic at hand, but ultimately to not address the idea that I present to you.

This is the entire reason why I have chosen to direct our attention to this tendency of yours, in hopes that you would realize it and learn to be more earnest in having an honest discussion of ideas.

Perhaps naturally, and out of frustration.

Understandable that you might be frustrated! I'm simply attempting to appease frustration, and lack of clarity, by suggesting we move to a medium where we can more intentional and honest dialogue.

It becomes much easier to answer questions directly, and to not drop off the topic when direct questions are asked by one person to the other.

Don't tell me. Show me, through your actions.

The very reason I have to tell you is because you've been misinterpreting the actions I have already shown you. I am simply, politely, correcting you.

If you don't want to understand it, or the reasoning behind it (which i've also shared, thoroughly) - then i can't (and wouldn't, if i could!) force you.

I understand your argument, I am refuting it with a counter, by stating that interaction with a bot is significantly easier to discern when the conversation is over audio, video, or better still, in person, something that is quite common knowledge. Obviosuly, I think the latter option will likely have logistical issues, which is why the next best option is video.

This is why I had asked if you believe a robot could pass the Turing test in a conversation with you if had over video (a question you still have not answered). I was making sure whether I'm correct in understanding you have the (extremely uncommon and surprising) belief that you think that it's easier to discern whether a person is human over text, rather video.

Because blindly believing the voices you encounter - wether online or in real life is foolish.

I'm not blindly believing anything. The evidence is clear, that you are 100% a human being. To doubt that, at this stage, is foolish.

When i say you are foolish ...

Then you are not attacking the idea, you are attacking me. If you need to choose your words more carefully, be more mindful to do so. Similar to how you continuously say that "my behavior is bot-like." It's attacking me, not the idea that I present to you.

This is the entire reason why I have chosen to direct our attention to this tendency of yours, in hopes that you would realize it and learn to be more earnest in having an honest discussion of ideas.

Perhaps naturally, and out of frustration.

Understandable that you might be frustrated! I'm simply attempting to appease frustration, and lack of clarity, by suggesting we move to a medium where we can more intentional and honest dialogue.

It becomes much easier to answer questions directly, and to not drop off the topic when direct questions are asked by one person to the other.

Don't tell me. Show me, through your actions.

The very reason I have to tell you is because you've been misinterpreting the actions I have already shown you. I am simply, politely, correcting you.

If you don't want to understand it, or the reasoning behind it (which i've also shared, thoroughly) - then i can't (and wouldn't, if i could!) force you.

I understand your argument, I am refuting it with a counter, by stating that interaction with a bot is significantly easier to discern when the conversation is over audio, video, or better still, in person, something that is quite common knowledge. Obviosuly, I think the latter option will likely have logistical issues, which is why the next best option is video.

This is why I had asked if you believe a robot could pass the Turing test in a conversation with you if had over video (a question you still have not answered). I was making sure whether I'm correct in understanding you have the (extremely uncommon and surprising) belief that you think that it's easier to discern whether a person is human over text, rather video.

Because blindly believing the voices you encounter - wether online or in real life is foolish.

I'm not blindly believing anything. The evidence is clear, that you are 100% a human being. To doubt that, at this stage, is foolish.

When i say ** you are foolish**...

Then you are not attacking the idea, you are attacking me. If you need to choose your words more carefully, be more mindful to do so. Similar to how you continuously say that "my behavior is bot-like." It's attacking me, not the idea that I present to you.

This is the entire reason why I have chosen to direct our attention to this tendency of yours, in hopes that you would realize it and learn to be more earnest in having an honest discussion of ideas.

Perhaps naturally, and out of frustration.

Understandable that you might be frustrated! I'm simply attempting to appease frustration, and lack of clarity, by suggesting we move to a medium where we can more intentional and honest dialogue.

It becomes much easier to answer questions directly, and to not drop off the topic when direct questions are asked by one person to the other.

Don't tell me. Show me, through your actions.

The very reason I have to tell you is because you've been misinterpreting the actions I have already shown you. I am simply, politely, correcting you.

If you don't want to understand it, or the reasoning behind it (which i've also shared, thoroughly) - then i can't (and wouldn't, if i could!) force you.

I understand your argument, I am refuting it with a counter, by stating that interaction with a bot is significantly easier to discern when the conversation is over audio, video, or better still, in person, something that is quite common knowledge. Obviosuly, I think the latter option will likely have logistical issues, which is why the next best option is video.

This is why I had asked if you believe a robot could pass the Turing test in a conversation with you if had over video (a question you still have not answered). I was making sure whether I'm correct in understanding you have the (extremely uncommon and surprising) belief that you think that it's easier to discern whether a person is human over text, rather video.

Because blindly believing the voices you encounter - wether online or in real life is foolish.

I'm not blindly believing anything. The evidence is clear, that you are 100% a human being. To doubt that, at this stage, is foolish.

When i say ** you are foolish**...

Then you are not attacking the idea, you are attacking me. If you need to choose your words more carefully, be more mindful to do so.

Perhaps naturally, and out of frustration.

Understandable that you might be frustrated! I'm simply attempting to appease frustration, and lack of clarity, by suggesting we move to a medium where we can more intentional and honest dialogue.

It becomes much easier to answer questions directly, and to not drop off the topic when direct questions are asked by one person to the other.