The following text is fetched from Snorribot's posting "to ARS", message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
Being pretty used to verbal abuse, dirty tricks, foul language and senseless hate which has become the standard among a few regulars on ARS, I now have to conclude that this newsgroup has become infested with Cyber-terrorists. People who have no ethical standards who will not shy away from the most henious actions as long it serves to suppress the truth about there actions, motivations and tactics.
Whatever anybody feels about Scientology it should be more than obvious that the level of moral decay reached by it's critics is outranking anything OSA ever got accused of, falsely accused of by the way.
I count two spelling errors, both of which are becoming rather usual in American English: "there" for "their" and "it's" for "its".
Add to that the capital of "Cyber-terrorists", representing yet another very common mistake in US English: the capitalisation of jargon terms and labels.
The writing style has flow and pompous words are used in their right sense and context. Not once does the typically Dutch error occur of confusing genetive and plural. Whoever wrote this can easily pass as a native US-English speaker. Additionally, the arguments are built in a logical manner where one statement forms the foundation for the next and that it turn for the one thereafter.
Now compare the above to this text, fetched from message-ID: <email@example.com>:
Your oblication for one is to respect freedom of religion.
The use of American terms is not at all inappropriate given that we are posting to ars, which for a large degree is frequented by Americans.
[...] That maybe your perception, a perception which forms the foundation for massacre's like in Waco and excecutions of innocent Falun Gong members in China.
"Oblication", "maybe" instead of "might be" and "massacre's" with the Dutch apostrophe. No rhythm in the writing, but lots of random punctuation. The argument about American terms follows right on top of the one about respect for freedom of religion without any connection whatsoever between the two. The style can best be described as a "shooting from the hips staccato".
Or look at this, fetched from message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
No I did not I intended it that way, the Goddess you are referring to is Semiramis. What it illustrates is the extend in which such symbolism has imbedded itself into mainstream perception. Equating Semiramis with Liberty indeed is a contradiction in terms.
Missing punctuation, inconsistent sentence building, the also typically Dutch "extend", "in which" instead of "to which" and "indeed is" instead of "is indeed". The logic of the argument is obscure or missing and it is completely unclear what Snorri's "it" refers to.
Well, more people than just me have been speculating lately about these huge fluctuations of Snorribot's language skills.
By now I am pretty convinced that we are dealing with more than one person here: Snorri himself, plus one or several ghost writers for him.
Again, look at who might have written this, fetched from message-ID: <email@example.com>:
Neah Karin I just so happen to be right and you know it.
Just like you have been lying about going to the CRI first but than telling everybody that you did this they day after the thing blew up.
Nasty is you got caught doing so, result attack, attack, attack, produce as much possible noice, so nobody remembers.
Obviously someone Dutch ("than" instead of "then" is a very typical Dutch error) who can't spell, can't punctuate and who writes in the very same way that he would shout in a domestic argument.
The same goes for No I am not furious at all, just proofed my point. You will resort to raving rather than reacting on the issues. You are very very predictable and too scared to answer in any other way.
fetched from message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
But look now at the sudden metamorphosis of our half-literate Snorribot, fetched from message-ID: <email@example.com>:
Thanks for sharing this literary mastepeace with us mere mortals not endowed with the virtue of cold opportunism. The ease in which you ridicule those who lost their lives in Waco, the memory of Vicky Weaver dying at Ruby Ridge armed with nothing more than her baby, is so very typical for you. But of course it only serves them right, daring to deviate from your Stalinist perceptions.
Does it seem likely that the last excerpt is written by the same person that wrote the previous two? No? That's what I thought too.
Someone with lots of time in his hands and nothing better to do with it should compare the literate version of Snorribot with the known scieno posters on ars, and see who matches.
I suspect that the results could be rather funny.
For the rest I'd say that by now Snorribot has reached a whole new level of unreliability. Except for not being able to trust anything he says, by now we can't even trust that he is actually saying it. Swell, isn't it? Who would ever sink so deep, apart from scientology?
-- oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth...