Newcomers

Oh... maybe I should post that in The AI Engine-forum.

You could try:
{?PF if (mem-nickname) is "ABC"; ?}
where ABC is the name of the bot you want the response to be used with. This presupposes you have a nickname stored for ABC, though. Note: Use diamond brackets, not {}.

To automatically store nicknames, you go into the bot's settings and put: default "(name)" as "nickname"
into the AI-Script initialization box.

I'm not sure if this is what you wanted, but maybe it will help.

please help me out, im new to all this and think i really messed my bot up, he cant chat with me,, when i click chat he comes on and says "sorry no valid response" for three days now, hes regressing and i dont know how to fix him

Things to do (the Prof needs to make an FAQ for this):
Make sure there's a response with no (mem-XXX) in it.
Make sure there's a response with the emotion boxes set at -5 and 5. (the rank and emotion change boxes should probably be at 0 and 0 for now)

I feel like I'm leaving something out... but those are good starting places.

How do I program favvourites E-mail to stickguy34@hotmail.com (note: if you say Book of AI I shall send a virus to you mwahahahaha)

FYI, spamming all the forums makes people less likely to answer.

Botlover, I don't understand your question. Are you trying to update your e-mail address or are you trying to add a link. or just trying to add a favorite kephrase?

Botlover, I'd try reading the first few sections of the Book of AI. That should give you some idea of what you're doing.

there is no god its impossible.

First, this is an AI site, not a theology site. Second, the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically one way or the other. So when you make such a statement, you need to clarify (1) your assumptions about the universe, (2) your definition of god. For instance, I could claim that the salt shaker in front of me is god. It's not something I'm likely to do, but I could.

With no assumptions or definitions, your statement is meaningless.

hmm... "cannot be proven scientifically"?
Sorry, I have to take issue. I think you will find that, in a strictly logical sense, that is in error: see intro on and links from http://www.geocities.com/sector114/htm/proof.htm for 14 pages of positively migraine-inducing 3rd order modal logic that apparently constitutes formal proof.
Or http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html for a well-considered (and considerably less painful) analysis.

It tells us very little about the nature of God of course (force/entity/equation/?) but that's another matter. Though if God is that salt shaker then don't whatever you do open it! You've seen Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark I'm sure. And the lesson is don't mess with the hoodoo stuff!

The raw proof's waaaaaaaay over my head (though it makes a wicked T-shirt,) but I've never met a logician who disagreed. I have met several whose opinions I trust, and who find it compelling.

But you're right about the assumptions and definitions. And also that this is drifting off-topic

Thank you psimagus, so well put! And I think I want the T shirt.