Getting started:
Problem Definition
Plans for aquiring and annotating the data
Plans for evaluation
Some issues to deal with when defining the problem and writing instructions
for annotators:
1. Included messages: when included message is a flame and current
one is not and vice versa
requires a policy decision
2. When does passionate or spirited disagreement cross the line to
flames ? (ether discussion)
3. What if attack is on some one not on newsgroup and everyone agrees
(attacking Clinton on a
Repriblican newsgroup, attacking Bosnians on a Serb
newsgroup, what if you can't tell if
person being attacked is on the newsgroup)?
4. Dealing with humor and sarcasm in this context.
5. How newsgroup-specific should we be? (alt. music.hardcore, gaming
groups).
6. Does profanity mean a flame?
7. What is then main intension of the message and how does that fit
in?
More general issues:
1. Whst level to tag at: newgroup., message, sentence, phrase, word?
2. Getting the data
3. Deciding what form the data should be in and putting it in that
form.
2. What kind of agreement can we get from taggers?
A case study: distinguishing flames in newsgroups
Given the general definition that a flame is an attack
on a person on a newsgroup or their beliefs,
that is abusive or insulting,, let's look at some
examples:
WARNING : These examples are taken from actual newsgroups and in no
way represent the thoughts,
opinions, or beliefs of the research group or myself.
You may find some some the following offensive.
%%*******************************************
<ANN flame=" ", cert=" ", id="19:647.236:1" /ANN>
Xref: news.NMSU.Edu alt.punk:256068
The Nation of Ulysses - Plays Pretty for Baby
"Who ya f@#$%&' now!?!?"
-TEX
"Eigenlijk houd ik helemaal niet van punkmuziek"
-Sjoerd Goslinga
%%*******************************************
<ANN flame=" ", cert=" ", id="95:521.10:2" /ANN>
Xref: news.NMSU.Edu rec.music.makers.marketplace:234336 alt.guitar.amps:83929
rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic:126015
$200.00 For a Kalamazoo....are you nuckn futz!
tbrc <bugtussl@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:bugtussl-0310991752550001@10.0.2.15...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Taylor 514 C
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=172012684
>
> 1966 Kalamazoo/Gibson Tube Combo Amp
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=171999144
>
> MusicMan Sabre 1 Project/Parts
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=172006820
%%*******************************************
<ANN flame=" ", cert=" ", id="4.5.25" /ANN>
Xref: news.NMSU.Edu soc.culture.usa:275048
oh no, henry. god is bill clinton to you
a gun in the hand is worth two in the bush
%%*******************************************
<ANN flame=" ", cert=" ", id="124:208.19:2" /ANN>
Xref: news.NMSU.Edu sci.physics.relativity:78381
In <380855A9.27A8F31A@usa.net>
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@usa.net> wrote:
Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> In addition, the theory he actually proposed turned out
> to be false. Wegner proposed that continents plough
> though the underlying bassalt and mantle. That's
> incorrect: they float on it.
Kolker wrote:
Yah. But the plates push over and under each other. Wegner
was sniffing out something that resembled the facts.
O'Barr comments (to Throop):
I know of many boats that `float' and they sure plough
through the water when they move! It might be true that
continents float, but since the underlying materials do not
themselves always move as a `unified' unit, one side of the
continent can most certainly end up doing a lot of plowing!
The real point is being overlooked! Exactly how
fair
and how scientific were his critics? Did they act in a
reasonable way and with logic and understanding? Were his
critics as scientific as he was?
Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> Wegner's case is an excellent example to aspiring
> etherialists. He wasn't taken seriously until 1) his
> proposed mechanism was physically plausible, and 2) it
> could be tested. Since LET makes all the same physical
> predictions of SR, etherialism is not, and fundamentall
> cannot be, analogous to Wegner's case.
>
O'Barr comments:
Do the SR experts question the evidence that supports
SR? No! The SR experts claim that SR is the most well
proved theory that has ever existed. Therefore, you are
right! LET is not like Wegner's case at all. LET is the
most well proved theory that has ever existed. Therefore,
when an adult, well-educated person, such as an SR expert,
rejects the ether, he is openly acting in a non-scientific
way. He is rejecting a theory that has `tons' of evidence.
He is rejecting a theory based entirely on his own personal
choice! And worse of all, just as is evident in the FAQ,
he hides the fact that his belief is only a personal
choice, and not based on a stand alone theory! These acts
are much worse than how Wegner was treated!
Kolker wrote:
Now there is the main point. The Ether Boys do not offer an
hypothesis of any added value, It does not predict any more
effectively than non-ether theories. The usual complaint is
that the non-ether theories aren't physical and that they
explain physical reality with equations. Bullshit! The non
ether theories predict the outcome of experiments and
observations under stated conditions. The business of
science is prediction, not finding the TRUTH.
O'Barr comments:
No one could be sicker than a person who rejects an
explanation of a truth because the explanation didn't
change the truth! To me, only someone who was unscientific
could even think of such an excuse. Only a very prejudiced
mind would say such a silly thing to escape the obvious!
The ether is perfect. It gives us the perfect answers.
It gives us everything that SR gives us. And on top of all
of this perfection, it gives us certain natural limits to
the math, the exact limits we would want the math to have
to match the evidence. And besides all this, it has
explanations and logic and understanding. It simplifies
the physics! It gives us simple 3-D space and simple 1-D
time. It gives us simple addition of velocities.
And besides all this, if the ether explanation were
used, all the kooks would disappear! Who said there was
no added value to the ether concept? Anyone with a brain
would do anything if we could just get rid of all the
kooks!!!! How dare you not see these important things!!!
In all seriousness, the facts really are obvious, and
SR, as a philosophy, is now dead! It is my estimate that
within the next year, we will all reach this same
conclusion! Actually, if you made a survey at this moment,
you would find that this has already started! It cannot be
stopped!
Gerald L. O'Barr
flaco@access1.net
Please Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco
Read Pete Brown's Aether FAQ at:
http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aeth_faq.htm
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
%%*******************************************
<ANN flame=" ", cert=" ", id="126:724.111:4" /ANN>
Xref: news.NMSU.Edu sci.skeptic:342170 alt.paranormal:98136
Earl Curley wrote in message <380AACD2.CFB913A@hotmail.com>...
>Hilliard if someone shoved your ass full of radium, gave you a gieger
>counter and put you in a room full of mirrors you couldn't find your
ass
>in a years time.
Nup, just lost me, too erudite.
That sentence actually paints a picture - try mixing it about abit.
Now if you'd gone with:
...Hilliar if you shoved rhodium up your ass you couldn't find talk
through
it with a geygar counter in a room of mirrors, you faggot jo-boy...
Or, some such.
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
=== London, England (neé Melbourne, Australia)
===
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
%%*******************************************
<ANN flame" ", cert=" ", id="45:19.1:2" /ANN>
Xref: news.NMSU.Edu comp.lang.fortran:65061
Henry Leyh <Henry.Leyh@ipp.mpg.de> writes:
> Yes, and even g77 "only" uses the f2c converter.
That is simply not true. Where did you get this "data".
--
Richard Maine
maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov
%%*******************************************
<ANN flame" ", cert=" ", id="22:146.10:2" /ANN>
Xref: news.NMSU.Edu alt.religion.kibology:188484
james dolan <jdolan@math.ucr.edu> wrote in article
>
> last night i listened to a dramatization of h. g. wells's "the time
> machine" on the 1950's radio show "escape", currently in repeats
on
> station knx in los angeles. before the main trip to the year
100,080
> (i think it was), the guy who invented the time machine took his
> friend on a demonstration trip, travelling just 23 hours into the
> future. the two guys entered the time machine, the machine
made a
> humming sound for about a second, and then the inventor guy had his
> friend look at the watch he was wearing and notice that it said 11
am
> whereas just before they entered the time machine it had said 12
noon.
>
> am i confused here or does this make no sense whatsoever? this
is the
> kind of time travel logic i expect from danny dunn rather than from
> h. g. wells. did this logic really come from wells's story,
or was it
> as seems more likely introduced by the radio script-writer?
>
>
> i just checked a project gutenberg copy of "the time machine".
in the
> original the time traveller detects the passage through time by
> looking not at a watch worn by someone inside the time machine, but
at
> a clock in the laboratory in which the time machine is sitting.
also
> as kibo noted the main trip in the original is to the 803rd millenium,
> not the 101st.
>
> tonight i listened to the lux radio theatre one hour condensed version
> of "kiss of death", with victor mature, richard widmark, and colleen
> gray reprising their roles from the original movie. the scene
where
> tommy udo pushes mrs. rizzo down the stairs occurs offstage in this
> version.
I read this, wondered and then I realised: It's the fault of the people
who
yell all the time - they've stolen mr. james dolan's Capital Letters!
If
you need any, mail me. I've got whole bunch of them somewhere in my
basement.
--
"For there are only two worlds - your world, which is the real world,
and
other worlds, the Fantasy. Worlds like this are worlds of human
imagination: Their reality, or lack of reality, are no important. What
is
important is that they are there. These worlds provide an alternative.
Provide an escape. Provide a threat. Provide a dream, and power, provide
refuge, and pain. They give your world meaning. They do not exist;
and thus
they are all that matters"
- Titania, Queen of Faerie, "Books of Magic"
AVB, who never liked fish in the first place.
andersvb@BLAHHHHmail.tele.dk
remove BLAHHHH (obvious, isn't it?) to email me.
%%*******************************************