stainless steel rat: Hi-Lo vs Zen

[pm]

First, let me echo bfb and say that I don't mind your posts at all; I just have to scratch my itch here.

So a couple of points:

1) This thing about you not being in error. You were in error. Your rebuttals actually did make it sound like you were correct, but when we (once again) bring the focus back to the original question that you were answering, we see that you were indeed in error.

The original question was "Can anyone tell me if it is worth while to use a level 2 count over a level 1?" Now, let me point out the obvious here: this question is not at all a novel one, it's one that's been beaten to death (it's almost the same question as "Which system should I use?"). The reponse to this question is always broken down into two parts:

a) how much more profitable is the more complex system, and

b) how much harder is it to use the more complex system.

Point b) was never really discussed much in this particular thread, so we can forget about that; the entire debate arose from point a). In order to evaluate point a), the example of Zen vs. Hi-Lo was brought up. In order to compare the two, you ran a sim with these conditions:

a) DD game, S17, DAS, LS, 66% pen, spread 1-8

b) a forced unit (i.e. a non-optimal one, but one that you used in play)

c) no LS indices on Zen (i.e. how it would perform right out of the book)

First of all, you only compared the two for one particular game. That makes no sense. If you're attempting to answer the question "Is an L2 better than an L1?" via the exmaple of Zen vs. Hi-Lo, you have to compare results across a range of games. Using only one game is far from a complete answer. That was a mistake because it provided a very skewed answer to the question "Is an L2 better than an L1?"

Second, you forced the unit. Did the original question specify optimal play vs. realistic play? No, so when you post your results based on the realistic forced unit, you need to mention that, especially since the de facto standard for system comparison is to use optimal units (and we know that that's true since the SCORE method is the de facto system comparison method, and that uses optimal units). Mistake #2: you went against the de facto standard and didn't mention that you were doing that. Since we're trying to evaluate if "an L2 is better than an L1," not mentioning that is a mistake.

Third, you weren't using LS indices for Zen. You weren't aware of that at the time, and when it came to light, two schools of thought emerged: 1) utulizing a system to its full potential by using software to generate indices, and b) utilizing a system as it is described in its book, since not everyone has access to the required software. Let's pretend, for the moment, that you were aware that you didn't use LS indices for Zen. Here's the problem: nowhere in the question did gazman specify which school of thought he subscribed to (software vs. book). You simply "picked" the book approach and never mentioned that you were doing that (you couldn't have mentioned that, because you didn't know that that was the case). So here's mistake #3: you "picked" the book approach and never mentioned that that's what you were doing. Once again, since we're trying to evaluate if "an L2 is better than an L1," not mentioning that is a mistake.

And you know, SSR, the thing that makes your mistakes so egregious is that fact that once all of these issues were pointed out to you, you didn't say "Holy s---, sorry about that guys. I had posted sim results that showed Hi-Lo outperforming Zen in an attempt to help gazman decide if an L2 was better than an L1, but it turns out that the comparison I made was not even CLOSE to comprehensive; I compared the two for only a VERY VERY VERY specific set of conditions (when gazman didn't even mention any conditions in his question AT ALL), and what's even worse is that I wasn't even able to fully describe what those very specific conditions were."

You know what you did say? "That's how I play." That's fine, but then don't try to use those stats as an answer to the question "Is an L2 better than an L1?"

2) So now I've shown you that your intial response was not correct; the initial results you posted were harboring ALL SORTS OF assumptions (most of them hidden), and hence your entire response was unacceptable. It was a terribly inaccurate answer to the question "Is an L2 better than an L1?" Once again, that wouldn't have been a big deal, because you didn't see all those hidden assumptions at the time. Hell, it was a while before Parker finally pointed out that the Zen sims were being done without LS indices. But you know what's really amazing? As each of your assumptions came to light, you just kept saying "That's okay, that's okay, that's okay." No, man, it was NEVER okay; each one of your assumptions that was brought to light showed more and more how your response to "Is an L2 better than an L1?" was COMPLETELY incomprehensive.

Why do you do that? Why is it so amazingly difficult for you to follow the chronology of events for yourself and see how you f----- everything up? I'm literally having to spell out for you, word by word, what is so obvious to me, what is so PAINFULLY obvious to everyone else, and what you are simply not able to comprehend, for some reason. You've done this so many times and still you haven't come to the realization that you need to question yourself before you question the experts. If that's not obtuse, I don't know what is.

3) Why do you continuously cite your CS credentials? They're meaningless here. If you joined a discussion with a group of aeronautical engineers, would you propose ideas and then cite all your CS accomplishments to lend credibility to your arguments? No, because that would be stupid. NOBODY else on these boards sits there and gives continuous orations of how distinguished they are in their fields; Don's one of the most distinguished people in the field under question here, the freakin BLACKJACK field, and HE doesn't even do that, even when someone challenges him. What's the matter with you? You need to stop that.

4) If you feel persecuted and ostracized and you're almost at the point where you no longer want to post here, then that's your fault. You were making all sorts of mistakes all along, and you continuously stood firm in your conclusions vs. the experts' conclusions, and you came off as having an abrasive personality because of that. My friend, it's not up to others to accept an abrasive personality; it's up to you to make yourself less abrasive. Use this whole debate as a guide to figure out why you're coming off as abrasive, and make some adjustmenst accordingly.

[stainless steel rat]

> First, let me echo bfb and say that I don't
> mind your posts at all; I just have to
> scratch my itch here.

> So a couple of points:

> 1) This thing about you not being in error.
> You were in error. Your rebuttals actually
> did make it sound like you were correct, but
> when we (once again) bring the focus back to
> the original question that you were
> answering, we see that you were indeed in
> error.

> The original question was "Can anyone
> tell me if it is worth while to use a level
> 2 count over a level 1?" Now, let me
> point out the obvious here: this question is
> not at all a novel one, it's one that's been
> beaten to death (it's almost the same
> question as "Which system should I
> use?"). The reponse to this question is
> always broken down into two parts:

this is my last post on this topic. Here is my original post, since it seems to have been greatly mis-quoted or mis-read:

------------quote on----------------
> Can anyone tell me if it is worth while
> using a level 2 count over a level 1

Parker's response is dead on. I would only add this. The difference between a L1 and L2 counting system is not as large as you might guess. From a discussion about this with Don from a few weeks back, this is an approximation of what you can do with L1 vs L2:

L1 has a very high betting correlation. 98% or so of the time you will bet big when you have an advantage. You might geto to 99% with a L2/L3 system, maybe. So for betting, there is essentially no difference.

L2 has a better playing efficiency. First, about 80% of the time, you play pure BS, so the playing efficiency comes into play on the last 20% where BS departures are recommended. Hi-Lo is about 50% efficient, meaning that for the remaining 20% of the total hands played, where BS isn't good enough, Hi-Lo will get about 1/2 of those right. In short, with simple Hi-Lo counting, you will play correctly 90 out of every 100 hands. The best Non-L1 count around has a playing efficiency of about .67, which means that of that same 20% where BS is not correct, you get 67% or for every 100 hands, you play correctly 93 times. So 3 better plays per 100 hands. You decide whether the work is worth it.

Finally a good L2 (or better) count will help on insurance decisions, since you want to know what the probability of a dealer 10 down is. Hi-Lo tells you the probability of the dealer having a 10 or A down, which is not as useful...

I prefer the KISS principle (not the KISS count) which simply means keep it simple...

I had thought about moving to a stronger count system until I understood what playing efficiency really meant after a discussion with Don. I quickly decided Hi-Lo was good enough.

Far more important that playing efficiency is "playing accuracy". Hi-Lo tends to excel there because it is easy...
--------quote off-------------

Those are _my_ words exactly. Please show me exactly where I said that a L1 is better than a L2. Also please read parker's response which I mentioned as the very first sentence. You said something to the effect that difficulty was not mentioned much. It seems to be a significant part of what I wrote above.

I believe my comments represent reality. But the thread got hijacked solely because of my reference to PE. Yet I'll be happy to point you to more than one web site that compares counting systems solely based on PE, BC and IC. So it is still being done, and regardless of what anyone wants to believe, while SCORE is clearly the better way to compare systems, the majority of new counters probably look at the web-available information that I mentioned above.

Was all this acrimony _really_ worth it over that _one_ paragraph on PE? Was it _really_ worth it?

I didn't think so. I think the rest of what I wrote, and the reference to Parker's post was pretty clear, pretty accurate, and was reasonable advice to someone that is _obviously_ a counter-to-be looking for the system to learn. Would you really want a brand new counter to start with zen, as opposed to Hi-Lo (or KO for the division-impaired)? Or KISS? or some other L1 count?

Of course not.

I doubt that poster cared much about even the PE discussion and whether PE or SCORE was the comparison. I didn't say L1 was better than L2 in any regard other than ease of use.

If you want to have a final word, feel free. I think this has dragged on way beyond any reasonable limit.

But feel free to point out where I said L1 is better than L2 in any thing other than simplicity of use... I clearly said L2 was better in PE and IC, and a very small bit better in BC.

So someone isn't reading everything... or is reading between the lines... or something.

[pm]

I guess if that was your last post on the discussion then it's done.

Interesting brouhaha that innocent little question turned into.

[mdlbj]

I am a novice and have just gotten BS down. Now I would like to figure out what would be the best system to use. I am not quick with numbers so the simplest counting system would be the way for me to go. Any suggestions?

[Parker]

> I am a novice and have just gotten BS down.
> Now I would like to figure out what would be
> the best system to use. I am not quick with
> numbers so the simplest counting system
> would be the way for me to go. Any
> suggestions?

KO is simpler to learn and use than Hi-lo because no true-count conversion is required. Go with KO or consider Fred Renzey's KISS count, which is even simpler than KO. This is discussed in his excellent book, Blackjack Bluebook II, available from our online catalog (direct link below).

The KO vs. Hi-lo topic has been discussed at some length on this forum. Scroll down the page or use the search function at the top of the index page to read more.

Blackjack Bluebook II

[mdlbj]

Thank you Mr Parker, orderd a copy of Blackjack Bluebook II.

> KO is simpler to learn and use than Hi-lo
> because no true-count conversion is
> required. Go with KO or consider Fred
> Renzey's KISS count, which is even simpler
> than KO. This is discussed in his excellent
> book, Blackjack Bluebook II, available
> from our online catalog (direct link below).

> The KO vs. Hi-lo topic has been discussed at
> some length on this forum. Scroll down the
> page or use the search function at the top
> of the index page to read more.

[Random Poster]

Wow... 35 years.. that's longer than I've been alive!! and unless I'm mistaken, longer than MOST colleges even had a CS department. I know when my father (a programmer) was going for his undergrad and even as high as his post-doc in the early to mid 80's, he had to learn programming through Electrical Engineering classes... You see, this sounds a little suspect to me, considering you would have started teaching in the late 60's, when computers were only available at places like the JPL and, at most, 2 colleges in the world. There wasn't a need for a CS class.

I agree with bfbagain... your credibility is in doubt with me. It didn't help matters when you posted, in such great detail, about your MGM DD LS game and later, said that your memory was a little fuzzy.

"June of this year I played one at the MGM grand... Have not been back. It was in a BJ pit that was on one side of the Dodge Viper that was on display with slots around it luring people to try to win the thing.

I was playing and saw this "Surrender is available" on what I suppose you would call the "podium" in the pit. I asked the dealer and he said "yep". Never gave it any more thought, just surrendered when it seemed to be correct based on the count..."

Here's something else I question... you mentioned on this same thread that you're 57 years old. Given that you've been teaching for the last 35 years, that would make you, what? 22? when you received your professorship and started teaching COMPUTER SCIENCE to most likely grad students (CS wasn't offered to undergrads at that time)? Your style of writing doesn't reflect that of a 57 year old genius professor who taught computer programming (possibly in machine language?) at age 22, _IE_ your use of words such as moron, among other idiosyncrasies you have. Professors are usually more diplomatic than that.

> We need context here. Here is a bit. I'm not
> a hayseed that just fell off a turnip truck.
> I've been a computer science professor for
> 35 years now. That to say that I have done
> my share of research, I have done my share
> of scientific experiments, I have done my
> share of writing reports on those results,
> and so forth.

[sam]

SSR,

I think you set off bullsh*t detectors for many folks from your start here. Your "golly gee, I never knew such places as this existed" initially didn't match with your later declaration of your history in computer science and a four year counting career. It just didn't figure that you're a counter for four years and a computer pro and you didn't know there were websites like this one. Do you see how that might raise questions about who and what you are? You had no concern for cover on these pages. For example, you posted with your university email address which included your name and school and department--seemingly oblivious to the fact that your photo and bio were available as a result. When I brought this to your attention, your reaction was that nobody could track you down. Do you see how that might raise questions about your awareness? Many of your anecdotes contain inconsistencies and/or contradictory details. Most AP's are very conscious of the kind of real life details that you neglect because those details affect the dynamic of the game. Do you see how this causes folks to question you? You seem to have no idea of the way you're perceived by others which causes me to question what you might be like in a casino setting. I wonder if you could play as much as you say and as successfully as you say with such absence of street smarts. Do you see how you could possibly come off as something less than an authority in the seedier but necessary side of this game? I asked you shortly after you began posting if you actually played or if your interest was purely academic because your anecdotes seemed more fiction than fact. Do you see how folks might ask that? My guess is that the conflicts you've had on this site are part of a lifelong pattern of similar conflicts: It's your personality, Man. Wise up and people will be more likely to give you the kind of attention and respect you crave.

Sam

> Wow... 35 years.. that's longer than I've
> been alive!! and unless I'm mistaken, longer
> than MOST colleges even had a CS department.
> I know when my father (a programmer) was
> going for his undergrad and even as high as
> his post-doc in the early to mid 80's, he
> had to learn programming through Electrical
> Engineering classes... You see, this sounds
> a little suspect to me, considering you
> would have started teaching in the late
> 60's, when computers were only available at
> places like the JPL and, at most, 2 colleges
> in the world. There wasn't a need for a CS
> class.

> I agree with bfbagain... your credibility is
> in doubt with me. It didn't help matters
> when you posted, in such great detail, about
> your MGM DD LS game and later, said that
> your memory was a little fuzzy.

> "June of this year I played one at the
> MGM grand... Have not been back. It was in a
> BJ pit that was on one side of the Dodge
> Viper that was on display with slots around
> it luring people to try to win the thing.

> I was playing and saw this "Surrender
> is available" on what I suppose you
> would call the "podium" in the
> pit. I asked the dealer and he said
> "yep". Never gave it any more
> thought, just surrendered when it seemed to
> be correct based on the count..."

> Here's something else I question... you
> mentioned on this same thread that you're 57
> years old. Given that you've been teaching
> for the last 35 years, that would make you,
> what? 22? when you received your
> professorship and started teaching COMPUTER
> SCIENCE to most likely grad students (CS
> wasn't offered to undergrads at that time)?
> Your style of writing doesn't reflect that
> of a 57 year old genius professor who taught
> computer programming (possibly in machine
> language?) at age 22, _IE_ your use of words
> such as moron, among other idiosyncrasies
> you have. Professors are usually more
> diplomatic than that.

[stainless steel rat]

> SSR,

> I think you set off bullsh*t detectors for
> many folks from your start here. Your
> "golly gee, I never knew such places as
> this existed" initially didn't match
> with your later declaration of your history
> in computer science and a four year counting
> career.

Can't help that. If you visit a usenet newsgroup like rec.games.chess.computers, or comp.arch, or whatever, you can find posts dating back to whenever DejaNews started archiving newsgroups. I suspect you will recognize my postings.

> It just didn't figure that you're a
> counter for four years and a computer pro
> and you didn't know there were websites like
> this one. Do you see how that might raise
> questions about who and what you are?

Hardly. I recently had a conversation with someone I knew back in the early 1970's where he was active in computer chess. I mentioned the computer chess usenet newsgroup and a message board for computer chess (www.talkchess.com) and he was amazed.

As far as my counting goes, I have been very up-front with what I have been doing. As I have previously said, I've never played with significant frequency. My first two-three years I might have played 1-2 times a year when we would go back to MS, or I would attend a conference in Vegas or Reno (if you look back you might even figure out which conferences I attended in those locations.)

I still don't play that often most of the time, although for the last 6 months I have had more than the usual number of opportunities due to my traveling back to south mississippi for several reasons, from outside program review at USM to visiting family in various places down there where I grew up...

I'm not a pro. I _really_ was doing this only because my wife got interested in slots and BJ on a visit to Biloxi while my son and I were at a Summer week-long boy scout camp.

> You
> had no concern for cover on these pages. For
> example, you posted with your university
> email address which included your name and
> school and department--seemingly oblivious
> to the fact that your photo and bio were
> available as a result. When I brought this
> to your attention, your reaction was that
> nobody could track you down.

Quite the contrary, my reaction was "anybody can track me or you down." Not "nobody can do so." I think you can find examples of that. I've done it more than once where I am now, tracking down people that are breaking in to our systems and causing massive headaches for everyone. I did listen, and I did change my email as you notice, but not because I believe it makes me completely anonymous, only because it made sense in listening to others...

> Do you see how
> that might raise questions about your
> awareness? Many of your anecdotes contain
> inconsistencies and/or contradictory
> details. Most AP's are very conscious of the
> kind of real life details that you neglect
> because those details affect the dynamic of
> the game. Do you see how this causes folks
> to question you?

I've said this multiple times. I really do not consider myself an AP in the classic sense. I don't play frequently, I rarely play for big stakes (I have played a $100 min table twice in my life, I believe, I have played $25 min tables relatively frequently, but usually play lower. I do this because (a) my wife enjoys going; (b) I enjoy winning; (c) I originally wanted to see if I could actually do it. I have many more things that I do seriously. I lump BJ in with my other hobbies such as hunting and fishing. I can tell you my boat will run 80 MPH. I can't tell you exactly where I caught my last 8+ pound largemouth or my last 25+ pound freshwater striper. Things that I do for fun, I probably am a bit loose with the details. I can tell you when my computer chess program played its first game. I can tell you the years I won the world computer chess championship using that program. I can tell you the years that I gave demos in places like Paris, London, and the like. Because that was all "carreer-oriented". But at 57 years old, I've slowly learned what is important to remember and what are just mind-clogging details that are unimportant...

I'll give you the same advice I give people on the internet _all_ the time. If there is a poster you don't like, or one you don't trust, or one you don't want to read, then just don't read. This is not a forced readership enterprise, at least as far as I have determined...

So whether you believe I have been counting sporadically for five years or not, whether you believe I have been a faculty member for 35 years or not, whether you believe I have even been in a casino or not, doesn't matter to me. I simply chose to participate because I realized long back that there was probably a lot about counting I didn't know. However, it is becoming a bit apparent that maybe this is not the best place for me to "hang out" which is also ok...

> You seem to have no idea of
> the way you're perceived by others which
> causes me to question what you might be like
> in a casino setting. I wonder if you could
> play as much as you say and as successfully
> as you say with such absence of street
> smarts.

"As much as I claim"? Never realized I claimed to play very often. I believe I have been quite clear that if I am lucky I will get to vegas once or twice a year. I have been three times in the last two years, roughly. Twice for conferences, once for a week+ vacation with my wife, brother and his wife. I get to play more frequently on the MS coast, about 5 hours away from here, because it is near family where I grew up in South Mississippi. Over the past 5 years I'd bet I have not averaged 4 trips per year, although for the past 6 months I've been a bit luckier in getting down there as family down there often say "lets drive down to the boats tonight" which suits me...

Do you see how you could possibly
> come off as something less than an authority
> in the seedier but necessary side of this
> game?

I definitely _am_ "something less than authority." I can tell you what I have done. I can tell you some mistakes I have made. I can tell you some things I have learned. Playing as infrequently as I play, I don't see how I could be any kind of "authority" at all, other than in the mechanics of counting which I can do pretty well. At least CVBJ seems to think so.

> I asked you shortly after you began
> posting if you actually played or if your
> interest was purely academic because your
> anecdotes seemed more fiction than fact. Do
> you see how folks might ask that? My guess
> is that the conflicts you've had on this
> site are part of a lifelong pattern of
> similar conflicts

Don't really have any "life-long pattern of conflicts" sorry. So that speculation you will have to answer yourself.

>: It's your personality,
> Man. Wise up and people will be more likely
> to give you the kind of attention and
> respect you crave.

> Sam

I don't really "crave" anything. I am one of "those" that actually has students call me by first name if they will. I'm not hung up on the "doctor" stuff or the "professor" stuff.

You seem to be pretty quick to make the "classic internet mistake" of making character assumptions based on internet posts only, no body language, no facial expressions, no speech inflections, or anything. A person's internet postings offers a very poor one-dimensional view of what they are like. Sometimes that view can be accurate, sometimes not. I've learned several things you might try for yourself. (1) don't form personal opinions from text posted on a public message forum; (2) remember that most any written sentence can be interpreted in multiple ways, if you want to view the "dark side" you will find one, the inverse is true as well. (3) you can almost always find mistakes in what people write. If you let the mistakes get in the way of the main point they are writing about, you fall into the "can't see the forest for all those damned trees in the way" trap. It happens to everyone. And some finally figure it out and stop tripping over it repeatedly. (4) things posted on the internet should not be taken personally, almost anything can be, although almost everything is not intended that way (perhaps Snyder's "fight club" could be considered an exception of course.)

If you remember those points, you'll end up a lot happier.

whether you like me or not doesn't matter at all to me. We'll probably never meet. If we were to, we could either become best friends or worst enemies, neither having anything to do with what is written here. And no, that is _not_ a personal remark. Simply an observation.

[stainless steel rat]

> Wow... 35 years.. that's longer than I've
> been alive!! and unless I'm mistaken, longer
> than MOST colleges even had a CS department.

Yep. I started at the University of Southern Mississippi, and took my first computer science course in 1968. I believe the department was formed in 1966, which makes it one of the oldest in the country.

> I know when my father (a programmer) was
> going for his undergrad and even as high as
> his post-doc in the early to mid 80's, he
> had to learn programming through Electrical
> Engineering classes... You see, this sounds
> a little suspect to me, considering you
> would have started teaching in the late
> 60's, when computers were only available at
> places like the JPL and, at most, 2 colleges
> in the world. There wasn't a need for a CS
> class.

Sorry, but the details are correct. I finished my BS in 1970. I was hired to stay at USM which I did until 1985. So fishy or not, it is true. If you subtract 1970 from 2005, you get approximately 35 years? If you are in the Birmingham area, I'd be happy to have you drop by my office, all three of my diplomas (BS MS and PhD) are hanging on my office wall. Dates are 70, 83, and 88 respectively.

> I agree with bfbagain... your credibility is
> in doubt with me. It didn't help matters
> when you posted, in such great detail, about
> your MGM DD LS game and later, said that
> your memory was a little fuzzy.

I still have not resolved that. If you asked me to testify in court, I would _still_ say that to the best of my recollection, that was where I played the game. If you were to ask me "are you 100% sure?" I would have to say "no."

If you want to email me offline, I'll be happy to provide some information that you can verify as to who I am and what I say I am. It is quite easy to verify by visiting a CS department web site I can point you to.

You are free to believe what you want.

> "June of this year I played one at the
> MGM grand... Have not been back. It was in a
> BJ pit that was on one side of the Dodge
> Viper that was on display with slots around
> it luring people to try to win the thing.

> I was playing and saw this "Surrender
> is available" on what I suppose you
> would call the "podium" in the
> pit. I asked the dealer and he said
> "yep". Never gave it any more
> thought, just surrendered when it seemed to
> be correct based on the count..."

> Here's something else I question... you
> mentioned on this same thread that you're 57
> years old. Given that you've been teaching
> for the last 35 years, that would make you,
> what? 22? when you received your
> professorship and started teaching COMPUTER
> SCIENCE to most likely grad students (CS
> wasn't offered to undergrads at that time)?

Correct. Born in 1948, finished BS in CS at USM in 1970. Hired there and worked there until 1985. Can it get any simpler than that. There was _no_ grad program in CS at USM until about 1980 or so. We started with a BS only, and in 1980 added a MS degree. After I left they added a Ph.D. program.

The university I am at now started with a Ph.D. program in 1970 or so, and much later added a BS/MS program. Programs grow up both ways.

You can easily do a little research with the data I gave above to verify it.

> Your style of writing doesn't reflect that
> of a 57 year old genius professor who taught
> computer programming (possibly in machine
> language?) at age 22, _IE_ your use of words
> such as moron, among other idiosyncrasies
> you have. Professors are usually more
> diplomatic than that.

You have a _way_ distorted view of "professors", sorry. But again, believe what you want, or do a little research with the department I gave above. It is _trivial_ to determine whether my statements are true or not.

[Random Poster]

It won't be necessary to go through the trouble. I've already scoped your homepage, your school, and your department when you changed your identity from Gorilla Player to Stainless Steel Rat, which brings me to one more question if you don't mind. I know why you changed your alias (privacy issues), but what I don't understand is, why didn't you delete the previous messages (especially the ones with your email) if you were so concerned? When you changed aliases in the middle of a thread, that was the thing that set off alarms in my head and caused me to do a search on the previous email you gave.

Perhaps you're right. Maybe I have a distorted view of professors, but none of my professors ever used the word "moron" regardless of context. They all tend to be very PC in and out of the classrooms. An occupational hazard transferred to habit, I suppose.

> Yep. I started at the University of Southern
> Mississippi, and took my first computer
> science course in 1968. I believe the
> department was formed in 1966, which makes
> it one of the oldest in the country.

> Sorry, but the details are correct. I
> finished my BS in 1970. I was hired to stay
> at USM which I did until 1985. So fishy or
> not, it is true. If you subtract 1970 from
> 2005, you get approximately 35 years? If
> you are in the Birmingham area, I'd be happy
> to have you drop by my office, all three of
> my diplomas (BS MS and PhD) are hanging on
> my office wall. Dates are 70, 83, and 88
> respectively.

> I still have not resolved that. If you asked
> me to testify in court, I would _still_ say
> that to the best of my recollection, that
> was where I played the game. If you were to
> ask me "are you 100% sure?" I
> would have to say "no."

> If you want to email me offline, I'll be
> happy to provide some information that you
> can verify as to who I am and what I say I
> am. It is quite easy to verify by visiting a
> CS department web site I can point you to.

> You are free to believe what you want.

> Correct. Born in 1948, finished BS in CS at
> USM in 1970. Hired there and worked there
> until 1985. Can it get any simpler than
> that. There was _no_ grad program in CS at
> USM until about 1980 or so. We started with
> a BS only, and in 1980 added a MS degree.
> After I left they added a Ph.D. program.

> The university I am at now started with a
> Ph.D. program in 1970 or so, and much later
> added a BS/MS program. Programs grow up both
> ways.

> You can easily do a little research with the
> data I gave above to verify it.

> You have a _way_ distorted view of
> "professors", sorry. But again,
> believe what you want, or do a little
> research with the department I gave above.
> It is _trivial_ to determine whether my
> statements are true or not.

[stainless steel rat]

> It won't be necessary to go through the
> trouble. I've already scoped your homepage,
> your school, and your department when you
> changed your identity from Gorilla Player to
> Stainless Steel Rat, which brings me to one
> more question if you don't mind. I know why
> you changed your alias (privacy issues), but
> what I don't understand is, why didn't you
> delete the previous messages (especially the
> ones with your email) if you were so
> concerned? When you changed aliases in the
> middle of a thread, that was the thing that
> set off alarms in my head and caused me to
> do a search on the previous email you gave.

Actually I was not that concerned. I changed my email for a couple of reasons. (1) It ws suggested by several here as a "sensible" precaution. Perhaps it was; (2) there are too many "webcrawler/spider/etc applications that love to grab email addresses. When I started posting here, my daily SPAM content went up although it is impossible to say that something is gleaning emails from here directly, I don't know.

Had I been paranoid, I would have deleted the old posts. Probably should have. But, as the saying goes, what's done is done.

> Perhaps you're right. Maybe I have a
> distorted view of professors, but none of my
> professors ever used the word
> "moron" regardless of context.

I've never called a specific person a "moron". But many of us recognize that within a certain context, "morons" do exist. For example, take a computer chess message board many of us "old timers" set up to get out of the flame wars and personal vendettas that happen on the unmoderated newsgroups. One "moron" didn't like the fact that no matter who was serving as a moderator at the time, his profanity, insults, and generally disruptive posts were not allowed to remain. His response? He used anonymous remailers to register hundreds of different "handles" on the message board and almost succeeded in electing himself as moderator before we caught on. I'd call that kind of "anonymous person" a true moron...

It's a word that fits a certain class of person, and I am not talking about someone that has a low IQ or ability. This particular "moron" was actually quite bright it seems, just bent on making trouble to stay involved in flame wars perpetually...

> They all tend to be very PC in and out of
> the classrooms. An occupational hazard
> transferred to habit, I suppose.

I have worked at two major universities in the computer science departments. At the previous place where I worked, one of our professors used to give discussion (essay) exams, and when students would resort to the classic "if I can't dazzle him with my brilliance, I'll baffle him with my bullshit." So he had a rubber stamp "BULLSHIT" made, and on those answers that were just lots of words with nowhere near anything near the correct answer, he'd just stamp the answer with his BULLSHIT stamp.

As far as PC goes, my experience is 180 degrees counter to that. That's the purpose for "tenure" within the university setting, so that faculty are free to voice any opinion they want, without fear of reprisal from someone that doesn't agree. Faculty are the least PC sect in society, from my experience, which is considerable.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Wow... 35 years.. that's longer than I've
> been alive!! and unless I'm mistaken, longer
> than MOST colleges even had a CS department.
> I know when my father (a programmer) was
> going for his undergrad and even as high as
> his post-doc in the early to mid 80's, he
> had to learn programming through Electrical
> Engineering classes... You see, this sounds
> a little suspect to me, considering you
> would have started teaching in the late
> 60's, when computers were only available at
> places like the JPL and, at most, 2 colleges
> in the world. There wasn't a need for a CS
> class.

Sorry but your history is off. First computer I used was 39 years ago at tiny Haverford College. I wrote an heuristic checker program 38 years ago on an IBM 7040 at U of P. 36 years ago I was hired by a guy with a PHD in CS. Obviously there were classes before that 36 years ago I had already used the following computers: IBM 7040, IBM 7044, IBM 1130, IBM 1800, IBM 360/40, IBM 360/20, Monroe Mark IV, LGP-30 (General Precision), RPC-4000 (Royal Precision), SDS 940 (Scientific data systems), and DEC PDP-8. I was also familiar with the GE 635, RCA Spectra, Xerox Sigma, Univac 1106 & CDC 6600. This stuff goes back farther than most people realize.