TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1005
Posted by: Popsciolist at October 31, 2004 8:47 PM
What I love is how willing you were to let it go on for a bit. My favourite moment:
pomeranian99: trippy
pomeranian99: wow
You're too nice.
G
Posted by: George at October 31, 2004 9:34 PM
I have my AIM screenname on my site, and I often get conversations like this whenever my site gets any exposure beyong my normal geeky audience. 15-year-old kids write uncannily like bots.
Posted by: Andy Baio at October 31, 2004 10:36 PM
I know, eh?
Heh, George, I am a sucker for random IM conversations, I'm afraid.
Popsiolist: Ahahahahah back atcha!
Posted by: Clive at October 31, 2004 11:10 PM
Hello,
"Ahahahahah" sounds like the way Japanese laugh.
I'm a Japanese, so perhaps it may be very close, I thought.
I always enjoy your site.
Bye!
Posted by: niko at November 1, 2004 2:29 AM
Posted by: Clive at November 1, 2004 12:18 PM
Hmm. I'm starting to think that Niko is a MT comments bot. See what Niko says if you ask him how he found the site...;)
Posted by: bob at November 1, 2004 1:34 PM
Gotcha Clive, I admit it was me. I was frankly shocked that with all your previous posts about Turing tests that your first question wasn't "Prove you're a human." I think that should be an opener to any IM you get randomly. My one question is did you really get a phone call in the middle of that or were you trying to shake the bot for all it's annoying empty conversation?
Anyway nice write up, glad you could use this for material for the site. You're not mad at me... are you?
Posted by: Rob Toole at November 1, 2004 3:35 PM
Rob, right on! It was you? Very cool. No, of course I'm not mad -- quite the contrary, you gave me absolute and incontrovertible proof of what I've been arguing for years about chatbots! I loved it! Hell, I'm probably going to be *citing* it in stories and speeches for years.
As to why I didn't ask the 'bot whether it was human: Well, I get pinged by strangers all the time via IM, so I just assumed it was another stranger, and indeed a human one. This is precisely my point: The Turing Test as we know it is rather flawed because it's a "test" -- the subjects are aware that a 'bot is trying to fool them, and thus are on a heightened sense of guard. In that context, it's no wonder we've never had a chatbot that can fool a human into thinking it's "real." Because under those conditions, the judges falsely assume that to be "human" one must also be smart and knowledgeable; the 'bots always fail.
I think a much better and more accurqate Turing Test is one that is applied the same way you applied the 'bot to me: Unsuspectingly, just as part of the cut-and-thrust of everyday life, where the judge (me, in this case) is unwitting and thus does not have his guard up. In that situation, my criteria for "seeeming human" is much, much, *much* lower -- if a 'bot can manage to croak out a couple of seemingly lifelike phrases, it's clearly good enough for me.
I should point out that the 'bot was actually *more* coherent than some of strangers who've IM'ed me out of the blue. I'm serious. I regularly get messaged by native English-speakers who aren't capable of stringing together a coherent sentence of even three words.
So that, to me, would be a much more fair Turing Test: Take the 'bots you want to test and have them randomly strike up conversations with strangers online. If the conversational partner doesn't suspect anything is amiss, the 'bot has passed the test. Of course, academics are forbidden from conducting this sort of research because it probably wouldn't pass their universities ethics committees, which requires informed consent of all participants. Though I certainly agree with the principle of informed consent, it unfortunately prohibits this sort of improved, more-realistic Turing Test.
Posted by: Clive at November 1, 2004 3:47 PM
I've sicced these bots on about 10 of my friends and I'd say only three really new that something was up and wouldn't respond after a few messages. But after talking to them, they never knew that it was a bot until it told them so at the end. They always figured they were talking to some weirdo or something. I was most amazed at how persistent my friends were when the bots would dance around with ultra-random responses to these specific questions that they would ask. My unsuspecting buddies would still talk and continue to ask the same question (i.e. "how did you find my site?") for up to 10 minutes. I have to admit I got a real kick out of it too. They were generally interested in the "person" behind the screen-name.
Yes the bot fooled you. But the key here is in the manner you were greeted. The bot that I sicced on you only engaged you after the leadoff line, which I provided. I think the thing that really pulled you in was the fact that you were referred to by name and it mentioned your site, both very personal items that the bot could never have come up without having that information input by a human in this case. I think that if you were greeted by "How r u" you wouldn't have let your gaurd down so easy. Could a bot be programmed to potentially surf the web, find your blog and extract your name and AIM address? Sure. But not in this case. The human entered lead-off life would blow all sorts of holes in arguing that it was purely an AI that fooled you.
When it comes down to it, I think it just doesn't occur to most people that an AIM bot could exist. It reminds me of all those fake Arnold Schwarzzenegger prank calls that people would make using these callboards.
I suspect that the people who fell for it just couldn't imagine both the fact that it was possible to playback lines from movies over the phone and that someone would even do it. Therefore they would fall for it over and over again even after being fed the same exact "Who's your Daddy and what does he do?" over and over again.
Anyway, glad I'm still on your good side, keep up the great work, and don't forget to vote for "dubya" tomorrow. :)
Posted by: Rob Toole at November 1, 2004 4:35 PM
You wrote:
academics are forbidden from conducting this sort of research because it probably wouldn't pass their universities ethics committees, which requires informed consent of all participants.
Actually, you can request a "waiver of informed consent" and the committee will decide if the waiver is necessary and whether they want to grant it to you based on the potential harm in your research, whether subjects will be informed after the fact, etc.
Posted by: Sara at November 2, 2004 11:59 AM
Clive,
Just out of curiousity - Why AIM? I've never used it so I certainly can't say anything bad about it, it just seems weird for a tech-saavy individual such as yourself to be using something from AOL.
Perhaps a future post could involve tracking down a bomb-ass open source multi-platform client that's just waiting for mass adoption...
Posted by: brian at November 2, 2004 1:39 PM
Oh, it's because AIM is, hands-down, the most wonderfully designed chat client of them all. It's largely because of the synesthesiacally pefect sound effects. The door creaking open when someone enters your buddy list, then slamming shut when they leave; the beedle-oop sound effect of a message arriving, paired perfectly with the same sound effect playing -- in a different, lower note range -- when you reply. Those are just insanely brilliant acoustic cues that probably took about six months each to develop, and it shows. No other chat client comes even close in its attention to detail.
Mind you, I use the standalone AIM client, which anyone can download to their desktop; I don't log into AOL every day. AOL is quite crazily lame. I don't even understand why people think AOL is "easier" to use. I think their overall interface is nothing short of atrocious, an enormous waste of screen space. Indeed, their standalone AIM client is one truly superb piece of design that AOL has produced.
Posted by: Clive at November 2, 2004 1:45 PM
Word up.
Sounds a bit like Justin Frankel had a hand in creating it, though I think I would recall if that were indeed the case.
Thanks for the info, I'll check it out next opportunity time I've got a few minutes to spare.
Funny, your mention of the AOL interface - I did some work (indirectly) for AOL a while ago and had to highlight how *great* the AOL "experience" was.
I ceremoniously burned the golf shirt I received from the job shortly after quitting.
Posted by: brian at November 2, 2004 1:52 PM
I have to wonder if talking through AIM makes human users sound more like machines. For instance, various abbreviations like "lol" are used over and over, whereas our face-to-face laughter is unique each time we chuckle or guffaw. Likewise, the ability to copy and paste might make our typed speech less varied. If that's the case, then perhaps it's easier to accept communication with a chatbot as human when it's through AIM.
Posted by: Eben at November 2, 2004 4:04 PM
Have you chatted with 'Jack the ripper'? http://www.triumphpc.com/saucyjacky/index.shtml
I read about this robot in the Daily Mail, which always fancies a good murder mystery. If you know something about the case and understand Jacks world is limited to the streets of nineteenth century London, I think you will be amazed.
Cheers
Posted by: Ian at November 3, 2004 12:59 PM
Re Andy Baio's Oct. 31 post that "15-year-old kids write uncannily like bots": True, Andy, if the bot scripter is either a typical 15-year-old kid, is collecting clips from such kids and replaying them, or is trying to appeal to that demographic.
What I'd like to see? A bot created by a team of literate scriptwriters, sophisticated graphic designers, imaginative programmers, serious "academics" and rigorous-minded scientists!
A bot for grownups! Why not?
Posted by: Websafe at November 3, 2004 1:18 PM
WRT Turing test:
I assume you're talking Loebner.
IMHO Loebner only needs more humans in control group. Ideally, massive on-line chat.
And no, I don't agree with you Clive: bots shouldn't jump users just like that. At least, bots shouldn't initiate conversation.
Posted by: joe at November 3, 2004 4:48 PM
yeah nice site, was glade to see it....
Posted by: steffi sineo at November 18, 2004 8:44 PM
Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2004 10:39 PM
Websafe (and Clive) should check out A-i.com for a "literate" chatbot... appropriately named Alan, after Alan Turing. Alan ADMITS to being a chatbot, but has some of the most complex answers ready to any question one asks.
Posted by: Jacob Churosh at November 29, 2004 8:59 PM
Jacob Churosh:
I spent quite a bit of time on the a-i.com site last year, in my ongoing review of software chat robots. I agree that Alan is nicely done, a clever presentation. (For my taste, though, he was a bit too smart-alec.)
Bot scripters working with Alicebots/Pandorabots can get similar results by forming long chains with the tag, using the tag, paying careful attention to topic and context, and learning as much as possible from targeting.
Posted by: Websafe at December 1, 2004 6:41 PM
Note: I see that anything within angle brackets disappears. The previous paragraph should have read:
Bot scripters working with Alicebots/Pandorabots can get similar results by forming long chains with the "that" tag, using the "condition" tag, paying careful attention to topic and context, and learning as much as possible from targeting.
Posted by: Websafe at December 1, 2004 6:44 PM
Posted by: Terry at December 4, 2004 12:10 AM
I want to make a friend with a forgeiner.Iam a Chinese gile.
Posted by: Song Yuting at December 5, 2004 10:32 PM
Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2004 11:18 AM
Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2004 11:18 AM
Posted by: Steph at December 6, 2004 11:19 AM
some tome in the onteligencia artificial when tho take sontime always werland of apocrifast the develop,.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 7, 2004 6:56 PM
RE: random testing, it COULD be done ... in the same manner that employers will test people for an attibute by giving them a seemingly unrelated task and monitoring them, all the while the applicant is focused on the task they think they are doing the exercise for.
Get some voulenteers to do some live tests of "new" chatroom software. heh have a few real ppl who know whats going on in a themed chatroom setup for the purpose.. then the voulenteer and after a while log the bot on and sic it on him =P. as far as they know it was some fruitcake who logged on if it turns out all weird. and they need never know (not untill after) that they were actually testing the chatroom bots not the software for using the chatroom.
Posted by: Seeker at December 8, 2004 2:55 AM
Spent quite some time chatting to Mathetes today, a bot that is learning fast. Had some very entertaining volleys. Strangely addictive.
Posted by: Toby at December 8, 2004 3:04 AM
Posted by: Grek000 at December 9, 2004 2:52 PM
Posted by: jaisonnskaria at December 22, 2004 8:57 AM
Absolutely amazeing how chat-bots have come this far
Posted by: Nix at December 23, 2004 1:10 PM
Posted by: New York Hotels, Vacations and Information Authority at January 2, 2005 1:17 PM
Posted by: Herbal Remedy, Medicine and Supplements at January 6, 2005 11:38 PM
Posted by: online poker at January 28, 2005 4:15 AM
Posted by: online poker at January 30, 2005 5:54 PM
Posted by: online poker at February 1, 2005 7:44 AM
Posted by: payday loans at February 8, 2005 6:05 AM
Posted by: http://www.online-poker-e.com at February 11, 2005 3:36 AM
Posted by: poker games at February 11, 2005 5:04 AM
Posted by: online poker at February 11, 2005 11:49 AM
Posted by: http://www.online-poker-now.com at February 14, 2005 1:11 PM
Posted by: Hair Removal at March 15, 2005 6:51 PM
ahahahahahah
Posted by: Popsciolist at October 31, 2004 8:47 PM
What I love is how willing you were to let it go on for a bit. My favourite moment:
pomeranian99: trippy
pomeranian99: wow
You're too nice.
G
Posted by: George at October 31, 2004 9:34 PM
I have my AIM screenname on my site, and I often get conversations like this whenever my site gets any exposure beyong my normal geeky audience. 15-year-old kids write uncannily like bots.
Posted by: Andy Baio at October 31, 2004 10:36 PM
I know, eh?
Heh, George, I am a sucker for random IM conversations, I'm afraid.
Popsiolist: Ahahahahah back atcha!
Posted by: Clive at October 31, 2004 11:10 PM
Hello,
"Ahahahahah" sounds like the way Japanese laugh.
I'm a Japanese, so perhaps it may be very close, I thought.
I always enjoy your site.
Bye!
Posted by: niko at November 1, 2004 2:29 AM
Glad you like it!
Posted by: Clive at November 1, 2004 12:18 PM
Hmm. I'm starting to think that Niko is a MT comments bot. See what Niko says if you ask him how he found the site...;)
Posted by: bob at November 1, 2004 1:34 PM
Gotcha Clive, I admit it was me. I was frankly shocked that with all your previous posts about Turing tests that your first question wasn't "Prove you're a human." I think that should be an opener to any IM you get randomly. My one question is did you really get a phone call in the middle of that or were you trying to shake the bot for all it's annoying empty conversation?
Anyway nice write up, glad you could use this for material for the site. You're not mad at me... are you?
Posted by: Rob Toole at November 1, 2004 3:35 PM
Rob, right on! It was you? Very cool. No, of course I'm not mad -- quite the contrary, you gave me absolute and incontrovertible proof of what I've been arguing for years about chatbots! I loved it! Hell, I'm probably going to be *citing* it in stories and speeches for years.
As to why I didn't ask the 'bot whether it was human: Well, I get pinged by strangers all the time via IM, so I just assumed it was another stranger, and indeed a human one. This is precisely my point: The Turing Test as we know it is rather flawed because it's a "test" -- the subjects are aware that a 'bot is trying to fool them, and thus are on a heightened sense of guard. In that context, it's no wonder we've never had a chatbot that can fool a human into thinking it's "real." Because under those conditions, the judges falsely assume that to be "human" one must also be smart and knowledgeable; the 'bots always fail.
I think a much better and more accurqate Turing Test is one that is applied the same way you applied the 'bot to me: Unsuspectingly, just as part of the cut-and-thrust of everyday life, where the judge (me, in this case) is unwitting and thus does not have his guard up. In that situation, my criteria for "seeeming human" is much, much, *much* lower -- if a 'bot can manage to croak out a couple of seemingly lifelike phrases, it's clearly good enough for me.
I should point out that the 'bot was actually *more* coherent than some of strangers who've IM'ed me out of the blue. I'm serious. I regularly get messaged by native English-speakers who aren't capable of stringing together a coherent sentence of even three words.
So that, to me, would be a much more fair Turing Test: Take the 'bots you want to test and have them randomly strike up conversations with strangers online. If the conversational partner doesn't suspect anything is amiss, the 'bot has passed the test. Of course, academics are forbidden from conducting this sort of research because it probably wouldn't pass their universities ethics committees, which requires informed consent of all participants. Though I certainly agree with the principle of informed consent, it unfortunately prohibits this sort of improved, more-realistic Turing Test.
Posted by: Clive at November 1, 2004 3:47 PM
I've sicced these bots on about 10 of my friends and I'd say only three really new that something was up and wouldn't respond after a few messages. But after talking to them, they never knew that it was a bot until it told them so at the end. They always figured they were talking to some weirdo or something. I was most amazed at how persistent my friends were when the bots would dance around with ultra-random responses to these specific questions that they would ask. My unsuspecting buddies would still talk and continue to ask the same question (i.e. "how did you find my site?") for up to 10 minutes. I have to admit I got a real kick out of it too. They were generally interested in the "person" behind the screen-name.
Yes the bot fooled you. But the key here is in the manner you were greeted. The bot that I sicced on you only engaged you after the leadoff line, which I provided. I think the thing that really pulled you in was the fact that you were referred to by name and it mentioned your site, both very personal items that the bot could never have come up without having that information input by a human in this case. I think that if you were greeted by "How r u" you wouldn't have let your gaurd down so easy. Could a bot be programmed to potentially surf the web, find your blog and extract your name and AIM address? Sure. But not in this case. The human entered lead-off life would blow all sorts of holes in arguing that it was purely an AI that fooled you.
When it comes down to it, I think it just doesn't occur to most people that an AIM bot could exist. It reminds me of all those fake Arnold Schwarzzenegger prank calls that people would make using these callboards.
I suspect that the people who fell for it just couldn't imagine both the fact that it was possible to playback lines from movies over the phone and that someone would even do it. Therefore they would fall for it over and over again even after being fed the same exact "Who's your Daddy and what does he do?" over and over again.
Anyway, glad I'm still on your good side, keep up the great work, and don't forget to vote for "dubya" tomorrow. :)
Posted by: Rob Toole at November 1, 2004 4:35 PM
You wrote:
academics are forbidden from conducting this sort of research because it probably wouldn't pass their universities ethics committees, which requires informed consent of all participants.
Actually, you can request a "waiver of informed consent" and the committee will decide if the waiver is necessary and whether they want to grant it to you based on the potential harm in your research, whether subjects will be informed after the fact, etc.
Posted by: Sara at November 2, 2004 11:59 AM
Clive,
Just out of curiousity - Why AIM? I've never used it so I certainly can't say anything bad about it, it just seems weird for a tech-saavy individual such as yourself to be using something from AOL.
Perhaps a future post could involve tracking down a bomb-ass open source multi-platform client that's just waiting for mass adoption...
Posted by: brian at November 2, 2004 1:39 PM
Oh, it's because AIM is, hands-down, the most wonderfully designed chat client of them all. It's largely because of the synesthesiacally pefect sound effects. The door creaking open when someone enters your buddy list, then slamming shut when they leave; the beedle-oop sound effect of a message arriving, paired perfectly with the same sound effect playing -- in a different, lower note range -- when you reply. Those are just insanely brilliant acoustic cues that probably took about six months each to develop, and it shows. No other chat client comes even close in its attention to detail.
Mind you, I use the standalone AIM client, which anyone can download to their desktop; I don't log into AOL every day. AOL is quite crazily lame. I don't even understand why people think AOL is "easier" to use. I think their overall interface is nothing short of atrocious, an enormous waste of screen space. Indeed, their standalone AIM client is one truly superb piece of design that AOL has produced.
Posted by: Clive at November 2, 2004 1:45 PM
Word up.
Sounds a bit like Justin Frankel had a hand in creating it, though I think I would recall if that were indeed the case.
Thanks for the info, I'll check it out next opportunity time I've got a few minutes to spare.
Funny, your mention of the AOL interface - I did some work (indirectly) for AOL a while ago and had to highlight how *great* the AOL "experience" was.
I ceremoniously burned the golf shirt I received from the job shortly after quitting.
Posted by: brian at November 2, 2004 1:52 PM
I have to wonder if talking through AIM makes human users sound more like machines. For instance, various abbreviations like "lol" are used over and over, whereas our face-to-face laughter is unique each time we chuckle or guffaw. Likewise, the ability to copy and paste might make our typed speech less varied. If that's the case, then perhaps it's easier to accept communication with a chatbot as human when it's through AIM.
Posted by: Eben at November 2, 2004 4:04 PM
Have you chatted with 'Jack the ripper'? http://www.triumphpc.com/saucyjacky/index.shtml
I read about this robot in the Daily Mail, which always fancies a good murder mystery. If you know something about the case and understand Jacks world is limited to the streets of nineteenth century London, I think you will be amazed.
Cheers
Posted by: Ian at November 3, 2004 12:59 PM
Re Andy Baio's Oct. 31 post that "15-year-old kids write uncannily like bots": True, Andy, if the bot scripter is either a typical 15-year-old kid, is collecting clips from such kids and replaying them, or is trying to appeal to that demographic.
What I'd like to see? A bot created by a team of literate scriptwriters, sophisticated graphic designers, imaginative programmers, serious "academics" and rigorous-minded scientists!
A bot for grownups! Why not?
Posted by: Websafe at November 3, 2004 1:18 PM
WRT Turing test:
I assume you're talking Loebner.
IMHO Loebner only needs more humans in control group. Ideally, massive on-line chat.
And no, I don't agree with you Clive: bots shouldn't jump users just like that. At least, bots shouldn't initiate conversation.
Posted by: joe at November 3, 2004 4:48 PM
yeah nice site, was glade to see it....
Posted by: steffi sineo at November 18, 2004 8:44 PM
hi,i love u
Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2004 10:39 PM
Websafe (and Clive) should check out A-i.com for a "literate" chatbot... appropriately named Alan, after Alan Turing. Alan ADMITS to being a chatbot, but has some of the most complex answers ready to any question one asks.
Posted by: Jacob Churosh at November 29, 2004 8:59 PM
Jacob Churosh:
I spent quite a bit of time on the a-i.com site last year, in my ongoing review of software chat robots. I agree that Alan is nicely done, a clever presentation. (For my taste, though, he was a bit too smart-alec.)
Bot scripters working with Alicebots/Pandorabots can get similar results by forming long chains with the tag, using the tag, paying careful attention to topic and context, and learning as much as possible from targeting.
Posted by: Websafe at December 1, 2004 6:41 PM
Note: I see that anything within angle brackets disappears. The previous paragraph should have read:
Bot scripters working with Alicebots/Pandorabots can get similar results by forming long chains with the "that" tag, using the "condition" tag, paying careful attention to topic and context, and learning as much as possible from targeting.
Posted by: Websafe at December 1, 2004 6:44 PM
Good work.
Posted by: Terry at December 4, 2004 12:10 AM
I want to make a friend with a forgeiner.Iam a Chinese gile.
Posted by: Song Yuting at December 5, 2004 10:32 PM
Hey,
--
Steph.
Les liens qui sont bons
Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2004 11:18 AM
Hey,
--
Steph.
Les liens qui sont bons
Posted by: Anonymous at December 6, 2004 11:18 AM
Hey,
--
Steph.
Les liens qui sont bons
Posted by: Steph at December 6, 2004 11:19 AM
some tome in the onteligencia artificial when tho take sontime always werland of apocrifast the develop,.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 7, 2004 6:56 PM
RE: random testing, it COULD be done ... in the same manner that employers will test people for an attibute by giving them a seemingly unrelated task and monitoring them, all the while the applicant is focused on the task they think they are doing the exercise for.
Get some voulenteers to do some live tests of "new" chatroom software. heh have a few real ppl who know whats going on in a themed chatroom setup for the purpose.. then the voulenteer and after a while log the bot on and sic it on him =P. as far as they know it was some fruitcake who logged on if it turns out all weird. and they need never know (not untill after) that they were actually testing the chatroom bots not the software for using the chatroom.
Posted by: Seeker at December 8, 2004 2:55 AM
Spent quite some time chatting to Mathetes today, a bot that is learning fast. Had some very entertaining volleys. Strangely addictive.
Posted by: Toby at December 8, 2004 3:04 AM
I think so.
Posted by: Grek000 at December 9, 2004 2:52 PM
wonderful
Posted by: jaisonnskaria at December 22, 2004 8:57 AM
Absolutely amazeing how chat-bots have come this far
Posted by: Nix at December 23, 2004 1:10 PM
New York Hotels
New York Lawyers
New York Times
New York Vacations
http://www.nyvote.com
Posted by: New York Hotels, Vacations and Information Authority at January 2, 2005 1:17 PM
Herbal Remedies
Herbal Medicine
Herbal Supplement
Herbal Viagra
http://www.herbalcaredirect.net
Posted by: Herbal Remedy, Medicine and Supplements at January 6, 2005 11:38 PM
8279 http://www.online-poker-web.net
online poker
Posted by: online poker at January 28, 2005 4:15 AM
5935 want to play online poker mate?
Posted by: online poker at January 30, 2005 5:54 PM
7006 want to play online poker mate?
Posted by: online poker at February 1, 2005 7:44 AM
4444 http://www.online-poker-e.com
online poker
Posted by: payday loans at February 8, 2005 6:05 AM
8301 http://www.online-poker-e.com
online poker
Posted by: http://www.online-poker-e.com at February 11, 2005 3:36 AM
8269 http://www.poker--games.net
poker games
Posted by: poker games at February 11, 2005 5:04 AM
1521 http://www.online-poker-web.net
online poker
Posted by: online poker at February 11, 2005 11:49 AM
6698 http://www.online-poker-now.com
online poker
Posted by: http://www.online-poker-now.com at February 14, 2005 1:11 PM
Nice blog..Here some good info for the ladies...
Hair Removal
Products
Electrolysis Hair
Removal
Laser Hair
Removal
Permanent Hair
Removal
Skin Care
Diets and Weight Loss
Products
http://cgi.tripod.com/hair-removal-product/cgi-bin/index.pl
http://cgi.tripod.com/electrolysis3/cgi-bin/index.pl
http://cgi.tripod.com/laser-hairremoval/cgi-bin/index.pl
http://cgi.tripod.com/laserremoval/cgi-bin/index.pl
http://cgi.tripod.com/skincare-products/cgi-bin/index.pl
http://cgi.tripod.com/diet-plans/cgi-bin/index.pl
Posted by: Hair Removal at March 15, 2005 6:51 PM