the tiger cub

[Age]

Are you a person, Age?

Oh, and by the way, is there ANY 'you', which is NOT a 'person'?

I don't know. Are computers known as "chatbots" also "people"?

Not that I am aware of.

[Gary Childress]

Oh, and by the way, is there ANY 'you', which is NOT a 'person'?

I don't know. Are computers known as "chatbots" also "people"?

Not that I am aware of.

Are you a computer?

[Age]

I don't know. Are computers known as "chatbots" also "people"?

Not that I am aware of.

Are you a computer?

'I' have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' of what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY. And, 'you' being a 'computer' was NEVER IN what I SAID and WROTE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True here.

[Gary Childress]

Not that I am aware of.

Are you a computer?

'I' have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' of what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY. And, 'you' being a 'computer' was NEVER IN what I SAID and WROTE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True here.

That doesn't answer my question, Age.

[Age]

Are you a computer?

'I' have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' of what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY. And, 'you' being a 'computer' was NEVER IN what I SAID and WROTE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True here.

That doesn't answer my question, Age.

In other words IF you HAD READ my DEFINITION FOR the 'person', and 'you', words, THEN you would have CLEARLY SEEN that there is NO 'you', NOR 'person', that could be 'a computer', TO me.

[Gary Childress]

'I' have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' of what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY. And, 'you' being a 'computer' was NEVER IN what I SAID and WROTE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True here.

That doesn't answer my question, Age.

In other words IF you HAD READ my DEFINITION FOR the 'person', and 'you', words, THEN you would have CLEARLY SEEN that there is NO 'you', NOR 'person', that could be 'a computer', TO me.

OK. But that still doesn't answer my question. Are you a computer program, Age. Are you a "chatbot" that is programmed to converse with people in a way that will make us think you are a person also? It's a simple yes or no question. It should be easy for you to answer, whether truthfully or not.

[Age]

That doesn't answer my question, Age.

In other words IF you HAD READ my DEFINITION FOR the 'person', and 'you', words, THEN you would have CLEARLY SEEN that there is NO 'you', NOR 'person', that could be 'a computer', TO me.

OK. But that still doesn't answer my question. Are you a computer program, Age.

YES IT DOES. SEE, I define the 'you' word as being, and referring to, the invisible 'thoughts', (and 'emotions'), WITHIN 'human bodies'. So, VERY, VERY CLEARLY, from YOUR perspective, 'the ' you' "age" ' is NOT A 'computer program'.

ALTHOUGH 'the brains' WITH 'human bodies' work EXACTLY like 'computers' DO. So, it could be said and argued that 'the thoughts' WITHIN human bodies, that IS 'the yous', are somewhat LIKE 'computer programs'. In that ONLY what 'goes in', or 'fed in', can be collected, gathered, and stored.

Are you a "chatbot" that is programmed to converse with people in a way that will make us think you are a person also?

But it would NOT matter ONE IOTA what I SAY, NOR WRITE, here, 'you' WILL NOT necessarily BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE, EITHER WAY.

It's a simple yes or no question.

YES IT IS. But IF I gave a SIMPLE 'yes' OR 'no' ANSWER, what would 'that INFER', EXACTLY, TO 'you', "gary childress"?

It should be easy for you to answer, whether truthfully or not.

'This' IS the VERY REASON WHY I RESPONDED the WAY I DID.