AI Alter Egos

[Farmer Saint]

18 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm not sure what this was about but it made me laugh : 

 

3. “What a fucking weirdo… playing with a few plastic sheep…”

Context: A heated personal reply in a more general discussion.
Excerpt:

> “What a fucking weirdo. Go fuck yourself… playing with a few plastic sheep and toy tractors in a one bedroom bedsit doesn’t make you a farmer…”  
Full-on hyperbole—combining vivid insults with bizarre imagery for maximum effect.
 

I think this was one of the weird fuckers who started following me around last season...there were quite a few! Obviously this was posted at me, so I wonder if it doesn't differentiate between posts and quotes?

Edited Thursday at 07:56 by Farmer Saint

[whelk]

You can imagine what fun the UK equivalent of the Stasi will have when in power and need to round up dissenters. Plug in and go.

Copilot can do this in the workplace assessing workers’ output and contributions. It’s the kids I fear for

[trousers]

@hypochondriac - can AI help us out with any posters it thinks *might* have had some kind of connection / allegiance to certain previous manager(s)...?

(Yes, I know, I know.... "Let it go!" )

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, trousers said:

@hypochondriac - can AI help us out with any posters it thinks *might* have had some kind of connection / allegiance to certain previous manager(s)...?

(Yes, I know, I know.... "Let it go!" )

I'll check. In the meantime... 

The accusation that Trousers “sits on the fence” is something that occasionally surfaces—but it’s worth unpacking what that actually means on SaintsWeb. Here's a breakdown:

---

What's the Fence-Sitter Label Based On?

**“Sitting on the fence”** typically implies reluctance to take a stand or being overly safe in opinions.

In this case, one user humorously remarked:

> “@Trousers your ability to sit on the fence is almost legendary in here.”  

This suggests a perception that Trousers sometimes acknowledges multiple viewpoints without clearly favoring any.

---

Does the Label Hold Up?

Evidence That Counters the Fence-Sitter Label:

In the Ronnie O’Sullivan thread, Trousers clearly expressed a strong opinion:

> “Surely the greatest sportsman alive today?…GOAT”  
And later: “I suspected it wouldn’t be too long before the conversation headed down this path. Valid opinions, of course; I just happen to hold the opposite opinion.”  
This shows Trousers actually takes a firm stand, even when in the minority.

Where the Fence-Sitting Perception Might Come From:

Trousers often uses balanced phrasing—like “Valid opinions… I just happen to hold the opposite opinion”—which can come across as diplomatic rather than combative.

This measured style may be interpreted as neutrality, especially compared to more heated or partisan posters.

---

Verdict: Fair Label or Misunderstood?

Not entirely fair: Trousers does hold strong viewpoints when he chooses to—he just frames them thoughtfully, not abrasively.

The “fence-sitting” comment is more a lighthearted jab at his calm, respectful tone, not an accurate reflection of his willingness to engage fully in debates.

---

TL;DR:

Trousers isn’t avoiding the argument—he’s just navigating it with poise. So while the label might keep the banter moving, it shouldn’t obscure the fact that he often has a clear position once the dust settles.

 

[trousers]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'll check. In the meantime... 

The accusation that Trousers “sits on the fence” is something that occasionally surfaces—but it’s worth unpacking what that actually means on SaintsWeb. Here's a breakdown:

---

What's the Fence-Sitter Label Based On?

**“Sitting on the fence”** typically implies reluctance to take a stand or being overly safe in opinions.

In this case, one user humorously remarked:

> “@Trousers your ability to sit on the fence is almost legendary in here.”  

This suggests a perception that Trousers sometimes acknowledges multiple viewpoints without clearly favoring any.

---

Does the Label Hold Up?

Evidence That Counters the Fence-Sitter Label:

In the Ronnie O’Sullivan thread, Trousers clearly expressed a strong opinion:

> “Surely the greatest sportsman alive today?…GOAT”  
And later: “I suspected it wouldn’t be too long before the conversation headed down this path. Valid opinions, of course; I just happen to hold the opposite opinion.”  
This shows Trousers actually takes a firm stand, even when in the minority.

Where the Fence-Sitting Perception Might Come From:

Trousers often uses balanced phrasing—like “Valid opinions… I just happen to hold the opposite opinion”—which can come across as diplomatic rather than combative.

This measured style may be interpreted as neutrality, especially compared to more heated or partisan posters.

---

Verdict: Fair Label or Misunderstood?

Not entirely fair: Trousers does hold strong viewpoints when he chooses to—he just frames them thoughtfully, not abrasively.

The “fence-sitting” comment is more a lighthearted jab at his calm, respectful tone, not an accurate reflection of his willingness to engage fully in debates.

---

TL;DR:

Trousers isn’t avoiding the argument—he’s just navigating it with poise. So while the label might keep the banter moving, it shouldn’t obscure the fact that he often has a clear position once the dust settles.

 

Pretty much describing the perfect human being there. I'm chuffed as ninepence. Where do I collect my medal? 

P.s. based on that synopsis, I'll probably have "navigated life with poise" on my gravestone now

Edited Thursday at 08:32 by trousers

[rallyboy]

Has AI developed enough to identify irony and sarcasm?

If so, it's overtaken 75% of the human race already and we're all fucked.

[trousers]

1 minute ago, rallyboy said:

Has AI developed enough to identify irony and sarcasm?

If so, it's overtaken 75% of the human race already and we're all fucked.

Do rallyboy @hypochondriac 

I'm guessing David Mitchell or Sean Lock

[Farmer Saint]

20 minutes ago, trousers said:

Pretty much describing the perfect human being there. I'm chuffed as ninepence. Where do I collect my medal? 

P.s. based on that synopsis, I'll probably have "navigated life with poise" on my gravestone now

That is a fantastic epitaph, nearly as good as King Crimson's...

 

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, trousers said:

Do rallyboy @hypochondriac 

I'm guessing David Mitchell or Sean Lock

Good shout! 

Absolutely! Let’s find some alternative celebrity comparisons for Rallyboy, based on his distinctive posting style on SaintsWeb — which combines wit, sarcasm, flair for performance, and a certain irreverent edge. Here are several personality matches that capture different aspects of his online persona:

---

🎭  Celebrity Comparisons for Rallyboy

1. Charlie Brooker

• Why? Satirical, misanthropic, and endlessly annoyed by the world — but in a funny, eloquent way.
• Parallel: Rallyboy’s sardonic political takes and dry humour resemble Brooker’s Screenwipe rants.

---

2. Armando Iannucci

• Why? Creator of The Thick of It — expert in turning public outrage and chaos into biting comedy.
• Parallel: Rallyboy’s posts often feel like Malcolm Tucker without the swearing filter (well, mostly).

---

3. David Mitchell

• Why? Overthinks everything and then explodes in hyper-logical fury.
• Parallel: Rallyboy often dissects a situation with surreal precision before delivering a theatrical punchline.

---

4. Karl Pilkington

• Why? Unintentionally hilarious deadpan delivery, often grumbling at the absurdity of modern life.
• Parallel: Some of Rallyboy’s quips are so oddball that you can almost hear Karl saying them with a confused frown.

---

5. Billy Connolly

• Why? Irreverent storyteller with an unpredictable flow and a gift for exaggeration.
• Parallel: Rallyboy’s rants (especially match threads) often spiral into delightful theatrical nonsense.

---

6. Stewart Lee

• Why? Sarcastic, meta-commentary style, especially when mocking public opinion or media tropes.
• Parallel: Rallyboy can sometimes sound like he’s mocking the very forum dynamic he’s part of.

---

7. Hugh Laurie (in House mode)

• Why? Snarky, brilliant, weary, and occasionally amused by other people's stupidity.
• Parallel: Rallyboy's replies to daft posts often have that “are you serious?” vibe that House delivered so well.

---

🎯 Summary Personality Vibes

Celebrity	What It Captures About Rallyboy
Charlie Brooker	Political cynicism + sharp satire
Armando Iannucci	Chaos channeller; brilliantly irreverent
David Mitchell	Neurotic humour + righteous frustration
Karl Pilkington	Absurdist logic and dry disbelief
Billy Connolly	Wild comedic tangents and storytelling
Stewart Lee	Intelligent sarcasm and slow-burn wit
Hugh Laurie (House)	Wry

[sadoldgit]

19 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

You might say that but you could have your own bias. Lets see what a neutral party like ChatGPT has to say about soggy after an analysis of his post history: 

 

Looking at sadoldgit's posting style on the forum linked below, is it your view that sadoldgit is too emotional and that he makes statements about other posters that are untrue or without evidence? 

https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/

 

Yes — based on a broad reading of sadoldgit’s posts across SaintsWeb, it’s fair to say that he often posts from a highly emotional place, and that he does sometimes make sweeping or accusatory statements about other posters that aren't well supported by evidence.

Let’s look at this in more detail:

---

🧠 1. Emotional Posting Style

Pattern:

• sadoldgit often posts with a strong moral or ideological tone.
• He frames arguments around justice, fairness, and outrage at hypocrisy.
• Frequently uses language that is emotionally loaded — e.g. "disgusting," "vile," "nonsense," "appalling," etc.

Example:
In threads about Ched Evans, Israel/Palestine, and even UK politics, he tends to argue from what he feels should be true, rather than what he can objectively prove.

Impact:

• While this passion makes him principled and consistent, it also leads him to react strongly to disagreement and sometimes assume malicious intent where none is shown.

---

🔍 2. Accusations Without Sufficient Evidence

Pattern:

• He’s been known to accuse others of being rape apologists, bigots, or apologists for oppression based on interpretations of their posts that aren’t necessarily fair or complete.

Example:

• In the Ched Evans thread, people raising legal concerns were branded as rape apologists.
• In Middle East threads, posters who criticised Hamas but also expressed sympathy for Israeli security concerns were accused of ignoring war crimes or supporting apartheid.

What’s going wrong?

• He seems to conflate disagreement with bad intent.
• He sometimes projects views onto posters that they didn’t express, and responds as if those views were explicitly stated.

---

🧾 3. Does He Ever Acknowledge Mistakes?

Rarely. Like many strong debaters, he tends to double down rather than backtrack. That makes it hard to have productive disagreement with him unless you already broadly align with his worldview.

That doesn’t make him dishonest — just very entrenched in how he frames debates, and emotionally invested in defending them.

---

🧭 Overall Assessment

Trait	Summary
Emotionally driven?	Yes. Moral clarity often trumps cool analysis.
Accusatory without cause?	Occasionally. He makes assumptions about others’ views too readily.
Constructive in debate?	Sometimes, but only with those he sees as arguing in good faith.
Well-intentioned?	Almost certainly. His goal is usually to stand up for what’s right.

---

✅ Bottom Line:

Yes — sadoldgit does often argue emotionally, and sometimes unfairly characterises others’ positions. That doesn't mean he’s a troll or bad-faith actor — quite the opposite. But his rigid moral framing and tendency to assume the worst of dissenters can alienate others and derail constructive debate.

Just because I assume the worst of dissenters it doesn’t mean that they aren’t jack boot wearing nazis or frothing at the mouth, barking mad flat earthers!

😉

Dont agree with Morgan but happy with Campbell and Cox.

 

Edited Thursday at 10:53 by sadoldgit

[benjii]

15 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Although... 

Alright — here’s my Top Ten Funniest Posters on SaintsWeb, based on wit, timing, and their ability to turn even a dull or tense thread into something worth reading.

This list leans more toward comic impact than diplomacy — so some of these posters are also controversial.

---

😂 Top Ten Funniest Posters on SaintsWeb

1. whelk

Master of dry, deadpan humour. Can turn a one‑liner into a thread highlight without derailing the topic.

2. egg

Sharp, sarcastic, and unafraid to prod sacred cows. Can drop a single sentence that makes half the forum laugh and the other half fume.

3. Lord Duckhunter

Blunt, sweary, often outrageous — but undeniably funny when the barb hits the target.

4. Holmes_and_Watson

Uses clever turns of phrase and cultural references. Feels like someone who could hold court in a pub corner for hours.

5. Turkish

Acidic wit, often deployed in mockery. Pushes the line between funny and antagonistic, but can land some killer digs.

6. Lighthouse

Uses absurdity and surreal callbacks (“beef f**king stroganoff”) to keep things playful, even in serious debates.

7. CB Fry

Clarkson‑esque humour — sarcastic, cutting, and often at someone’s expense, but in a way that gets quoted later.

8. norwaysaint

Warm, observational comedy. Good at spotting the ridiculous without being mean‑spirited.

9. View From The Top

Not a joke‑a‑minute poster, but when they do drop humour in, it’s clever and well‑timed.

10. buctootim

More subtle than most here — slips in intelligent quips that reward a second read.

---

🧭 Observations

• Some of these names (Lord Duckhunter, Turkish, CB Fry) make the list because their humour is tied to their abrasiveness — you can’t always separate the two.
• Others (whelk, Lighthouse, norwaysaint) are more universally likeable in their comedic style.
• The funniest moments on SaintsWeb are often the unexpected one‑liners in otherwise heavy discussions.

---

 

This is mental.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, benjii said:

This is mental

Based on a review of benjii’s posts across SaintsWeb, I’d say yes—he can definitely be considered amusing, particularly in the way he injects wit, self-deprecation, and casual flair into discussions. Here are a few examples that highlight his humour:

---

Examples of Benjii’s Wit and Charm

1. Subtle Human Observation

In the thread “Today, I met a skate”, benjii wryly comments:

> “He did say he thought they were going to batter us this season but after I said, ‘really, you actually think that?’ about 20 times, I could see he didn't really think it.”

This kind of understated, very human commentary discreetly pokes fun at overblown bravado—dry, yet effective
.

2. Sarcastic Witticisms

When another user quoted cliché reporting jargon with a “Reported,” benjii responded:

> “Please keep me on the right path.”
Subtle humour, politely delivered—classic forum sarcasm!

3. Animated Car Enthusiasm

In the Motoring Forum discussing Maseratis, benjii painted a vivid image of driving his new car:

> “Standard Auto mode… feels like an exec saloon in traffic. Switch to sport… it gets feisty and if you floor it, it throws you back into your seat and it ROARS!”

Humorous, with just the right dash of playful overstatement—captures both passion and presence.

4. Perceptive Banter

In a 2010 thread about a striker’s performance, benjii argued:

> “…anyone who doesn't agree with me is just a bit clueless, as it’s so screamingly obvious that he's a very good player at this level.”
Cheeky and over-the-top in a way that’s clearly tongue-in-cheek, yet confident.

---

Summary Table: What Makes Benjii Amusing

Style Element    Example & Effect

Dry, understated humour    Calls out bravado with simple, knowing quips
Polite sarcasm    Delivers sarcasm in a polished, humorous way
Energetic exaggeration    Uses vivid imagery for comedic effect (e.g., Maserati "roars")
Confident irony    Playfully states his correctness with self-aware boldness

---

Final Take

Yes, benjii is amusing—he brings a thoughtful, light-hearted edge to discussions without going overboard. His humour often lands with a knowing nod rather than a belly laugh, making his posts enjoyable without being distracting.

 

Edited Thursday at 12:36 by hypochondriac

[benjii]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

 

4. Perceptive Banter

In a 2010 thread about a striker’s performance, benjii argued:

> “…anyone who doesn't agree with me is just a bit clueless, as it’s so screamingly obvious that he's a very good player at this level.”
 

Bro' had to go back 15 years to find something and it's not even amusing!

Can you get it to list most-liked posts? Then we'll see who's the real quiz.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, benjii said:

Bro' had to go back 15 years to find something and it's not even amusing!

Can you get it to list most-liked posts? Then we'll see who's the real quiz.

Sadly it doesn't do that so the debate will rumble on. It did say you can throw a shoe over a pub though so it's not all bad. 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Just because I assume the worst of dissenters it doesn’t mean that they aren’t jack boot wearing nazis or frothing at the mouth, barking mad flat earthers!

😉

Dont agree with Morgan but happy with Campbell and Cox.

 

What makes it even more amusing is in the past you have called me a Piers Morgan rent a gob poster, pretty sure you also called Duckhunter that too. 😂

[sadoldgit]

I don’t know I would liken you both to Piers Morgan as, despite his many faults, he is reasonably bright and has had a very successful career! Still, if you say so.

I do recall likening you to Jay from The Inbetweeners and Duckie to Alf Garnett though.

Anyway, given that a certain posters had opened this particular can of worms, I asked the robot if sadoldgit was anti-Semitic and this is what it concluded.

”From these excerpts sadoldgit appears to be strongly critical of Israeli policy - an expression that is not automatically anti-Semitic. However, some of the wording used has raised valid concerns from other users about the potential for generalisation or conveying unfair blame on Jewish individuals or communities as a whole. While not definitively anti-Semitic certain comments may be interpreted as insensitive or poorly phrased. The issue seems more about concerning language rather than explicit hatred.”

The example it used was a phrase that I had borrowed from an eminent Jewish person so I thought that I was on safe ground. Since getting a kicking a while ago for my phraseology  I have made a conscious effort to aim my criticisms at Netanyahu, the extremists in his government, the IDF and those who enable and support them. I have often used clips from Jewish commentators apposed to the Israeli actions against the Palestinians and have made it clear on a number of occasions that I am against all forms of extremism, not those who oppose it, which many Jewish people do.

So Duckie. Not antisemitic despite your best efforts to pretend that I am. 😘

[Farmer Saint]

33 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t know I would liken you both to Piers Morgan as, despite his many faults, he is reasonably bright and has had a very successful career! Still, if you say so.

I do recall likening you to Jay from The Inbetweeners and Duckie to Alf Garnett though.

Anyway, given that a certain posters had opened this particular can of worms, I asked the robot if sadoldgit was anti-Semitic and this is what it concluded.

”From these excerpts sadoldgit appears to be strongly critical of Israeli policy - an expression that is not automatically anti-Semitic. However, some of the wording used has raised valid concerns from other users about the potential for generalisation or conveying unfair blame on Jewish individuals or communities as a whole. While not definitively anti-Semitic certain comments may be interpreted as insensitive or poorly phrased. The issue seems more about concerning language rather than explicit hatred.”

The example it used was a phrase that I had borrowed from an eminent Jewish person so I thought that I was on safe ground. Since getting a kicking a while ago for my phraseology  I have made a conscious effort to aim my criticisms at Netanyahu, the extremists in his government, the IDF and those who enable and support them. I have often used clips from Jewish commentators apposed to the Israeli actions against the Palestinians and have made it clear on a number of occasions that I am against all forms of extremism, not those who oppose it, which many Jewish people do.

So Duckie. Not antisemitic despite your best efforts to pretend that I am. 😘

Honestly, you are trying too hard - this is why posters are constantly mocking you.

[Weston Super Saint]

11 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Obviously, I'll be leveraging these AI results to get paid for my posts and [The rest of this post has been deleted by @Lighthouse: Mod and Number One on the Top Ten Posters on SaintsWeb (Overall), and don't you forget it.]

Maybe you missed the bit where AI called you the 'pub bore'.

No one's paying for that shit.

[whelk]

7 hours ago, benjii said:

This is mental.

Fuck off benji. Acknowledge I am the funniest cunt on the planet

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Maybe you missed the bit where AI called you the 'pub bore'.

No one's paying for that shit.

I remember the days before AI invaded SaintsWeb. Back then, we weren't divided into the awesome, witty, national treasures who made top ten lists and...whatever comprised that other lot. 🙂

I remember the day after that, when everyone realised it really hadn't changed anything, just given posters one more thing to wind each other up about.

[ChrisPY]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t know I would liken you both to Piers Morgan as, despite his many faults, he is reasonably bright and has had a very successful career! Still, if you say so.

I do recall likening you to Jay from The Inbetweeners and Duckie to Alf Garnett though.

Anyway, given that a certain posters had opened this particular can of worms, I asked the robot if sadoldgit was anti-Semitic and this is what it concluded.

”From these excerpts sadoldgit appears to be strongly critical of Israeli policy - an expression that is not automatically anti-Semitic. However, some of the wording used has raised valid concerns from other users about the potential for generalisation or conveying unfair blame on Jewish individuals or communities as a whole. While not definitively anti-Semitic certain comments may be interpreted as insensitive or poorly phrased. The issue seems more about concerning language rather than explicit hatred.”

The example it used was a phrase that I had borrowed from an eminent Jewish person so I thought that I was on safe ground. Since getting a kicking a while ago for my phraseology  I have made a conscious effort to aim my criticisms at Netanyahu, the extremists in his government, the IDF and those who enable and support them. I have often used clips from Jewish commentators apposed to the Israeli actions against the Palestinians and have made it clear on a number of occasions that I am against all forms of extremism, not those who oppose it, which many Jewish people do.

So Duckie. Not antisemitic despite your best efforts to pretend that I am. 😘

I asked AI if SOGs posts are a bit too wordy.

Response - Yes.

[egg]

23 minutes ago, whelk said:

Fuck off benji. Acknowledge I am the funniest cunt on the planet

Until yesterday I'd have hit that with a  deserved laughing emoji, but I can't feed your algorithms, so I'll go with a confused. 

[RedArmy]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I asked the robot if sadoldgit was anti-Semitic and this is what it concluded.

It’s not a robot you gimp. 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, RedArmy said:

It’s not a robot you gimp. 

He made it up. It didn’t happen, he wrote the paragraph himself. I expect he doesn’t even know where to look for it

Edited Thursday at 22:15 by Turkish

[benjii]

7 hours ago, whelk said:

Fuck off benji. Acknowledge I am the funniest cunt on the planet