889-10 (9eBvg dist, 3.3 mean)
Selected-By: Christophe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The Internet Oracle has pondered your question deeply.
Your question was:
And in response, thus spake the Oracle:
> ORACULAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR 1996
> March 2, 1997
> I. Purpose
> The purpose of this Oracular Performance Evaluation is to determine
> the effectiveness of the Oracle, an omniscient being created to answer
> questions from creatures endowed with sentience and the capability to
> ask questions ("supplicants"). If performance is judged to be of very
> poor quality, the Oracle program shall be terminated immediately to
> avoid further cost.
> II. Method
> The Oracular Performance Evaluation shall proceed as follows:
> 1. Several questions shall be submitted to the Oracle to judge
> timeliness and quality of response
> 2. The Oracle's annual budget shall be evaluated and judgement shall
> be made as to the effectiveness of the Oracle's use of the money
> provided to him.
> 3. A personal interview with the Oracle shall be conducted to
> determine any areas of additional interest.
> III. Evaluation
> A. Questions
> First Question:
> > How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck
> > wood?
> } **ZOT**!
> As you can see, the Oracle's response to the first question is short,
> succinct, and to the point. It is not, however, helpful. It consists
> entirely of one single zot, the purpose of which is to destroy the
> supplicant. Unless the supplicant has another person ask the question
> for he or she, and the supplicant is capable of interpreting the
> remains of the victim (as often performed by many ancient shamans, who
> would often kill a sacrificial animal and then prophecize based on the
> entrails of the previously mentioned animal), this response is
> completely ineffective as a means of conveying the Oracle's response.
> Rating (1 to 10): 1.00
> Second Question:
> } I told you no more null questions! **ZOT**!
> As before, the Oracle's response is short, succinct, and to the
> point. Again, it is not helpful. The supplicant's obvious use of the
> null question was completely misunderstood by the Oracle. The Oracle's
> response was once again useless, as, similar to the previous inquiry,
> it requires two supplicants, with the second being capable of
> interpreting the remains of the victim. As with the previous failed
> supplication, this response is completely ineffective as a means of
> conveying the Oracle's answer to the supplicant.
> Rating (1 to 10): 1.00
> Third Question:
> > Do you have a girlfriend? Can I go on a date with her?
> } Lisa is mine. **ZOT**!
> Much like the first two questions, the Oracle's response is short,
> succinct, and to the point. However, unlike the previous two
> questions, the Oracle's response may be considered helpful in this
> instance because it provides not only the name of his girlfriend (who
> shall be checked into as a possible source of money loss) but that the
> Oracle considers her his own. This answers the first question very
> well, in that not only is the supplicant given the fact that the Oracle
> has a girlfriend, but her name as well. The second part of the
> question, however, has been answered by the zot technique that is
> apparently very common, and is onjce again ineffective.
> Rating (1 to 10): 1.67
> Average rating: 1.11
> The Oracle's question answering service is extremely ineffective,
> giving poor responses in nearly 100% of test cases.
> B. Budget
> Expenses Costs
> Thirty-seven (37) zot staff battery packs.................$3700.00
> Women's lingerie..........................................$1500.00
> See's Candies..............................................$250.00
> Total $5450.00
> No items of payment have been collected from supplicants.
> Total loss: -$6830.00
> The budget is a very strange one. The use of 37 zot battery packs is
> excessive; only 1 is budgeted for the current year. The lingerie and
> See's Candies can perhaps be explained by the existance of Lisa, the
> Oracle's apparent girlfriend. These are unacceptable expenses the
> value of which must be repaid by the Oracle himself, as the general
> fund is not to be used for such purposes.
> C. Interview
> > What are your current concerns in matters relating to the state of
> > your question and answer operation?
> } You didn't grovel. **ZOT**!
> The interview went very quickly. It was totally unproductive, to the
> point of the interview being detrimental to Oracular Performance
> Evaluation. It is recommended that this step be removed in the future.
> IV. Conclusion
} Hmm... let's go over some of the finer points of this so-called
} 'report' shall we...
} > > How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck
} > > wood?
} > } **ZOT**!
} > As you can see, the Oracle's response to the first question is
} > short, succinct, and to the point. It is not, however, helpful. It
} > consists
} Not helpful? NOT HELPFUL!!? Obviously you have not studied the
} links between woodchuck fetishes and violent crime n the world.
} At least 98% of all known violent criminals have a woodchuck fetish.
} John Wilkes Booth? Woodchuck lover. Ted Bundy? Kept 'em as pets.
} Jeffery Dahmer? Probably ate a few. The list goes on (and I won't
} mention what is says about Mr. Clinton). So you see, the number of
} Zotted supplicants with woodchuck fetishes has done untold GOOD to this
} planet of ours! Children are safer in the streets now thanks to me.
} > Second Question:
} > >
} > } I told you no more null questions! **ZOT**!
} Oh yeah, when was the last time I gave such a lame answer to a
} null question? Would you be so kind as to do a little more thorough
} research in future? I mean, do take a look at oracularities 729-02,
} 732-05, 733-01, 741-02, 743-06, 746-05, 760-09, 761-04, 764-10,
} 765-07, 774-04, 777-07, 778-10, 779-04, 780-09, 783-01, 797-03 ....
} well you get the idea. All Brilliant answers to null questions,
} I'll think you'll find.
} > Third Question:
} > > Do you have a girlfriend? Can I go on a date with her?
} > } Lisa is mine. **ZOT**!
} Not helpful? Don't you see my skilful use of diversionary tactics...
} for the real story I recommed you look at 736-01.
} The interview, I can understand. I mean, you really shouldn't
} have sent Zadoc as the interviewing officer. Witness 842-09, and
} especially 853-03.
} And so, in conclusion, as the benefit to society I provide is clearly
} demonstrable, the loyalty I show to my Significant Other is admirable,
} and dog-gone it, people like me, it is course expected that once again
} my bidget shall be doubled. Thank you, yes, just leaves the wads of
} cash at the temple door, I'll send someone to collect them shortly.
} You owe the Oracle a private librarian for going through all the
} Oracularites of the past two years or so...