I think I found a new Life-like rule.

[LittleLWSS]

Rule algorithm is Quicklife or Hashlife on my Golly.

Rule String is B37/S238.

I tried to evolve a 20x20 soup on it, then it tells me that is a methuselah. I think I'm very easy to found a methuselah in this rule!(So I call it Methuselah-life.)

[b-engine]

Rule algorithm is Quicklife or Hashlife on my Golly.

Rule String is B37/S238.

I tried to evolve a 20x20 soup on it, then it tells me that is a methuselah. I think I'm very easy to found a methuselah in this rule!(So I call it Methuselah-life.)

Most Life-like (or outer-totalistic) B3 rules are known, including this rule, that should be called DryEightLife (Hybrid of DryLife and EightLife).

Typical soup:

Code: Select all

#R B37/S238
!
[[ RANDOMIZE ]]

The rule is explosive, and nothing interesting in general.
The methuselah you called is actually explosion. (Methuselahs aren't interesting in general.)
I reported the thread for the reason of not notable.

[Drelectron8]

Code: Select all

x = 64, y = 64, rule = B37/S238
3b3o7bo5bo2bo2bo2b2o2bobobob3obo2bo2bob2ob3ob2o2bobo$bo2b2o2bob2o4bob
5ob3o4b4obobob2obob3obo3b6o2b3o$4ob2obo4b4o3b4o3bo2bob2obo3bo2b3ob3ob
obobo2bo2bo2bo$b3obo2b2o3b2o12bo2bob5ob3ob4o2b2obobob9o$2obo2bobobob3o
bobob2ob3o3b2o6b2o3b4ob3o2b3ob4o2bo$bo4bo2b2ob2obo3bo2bo3bobo2b2obobo
bo2b4obob2o2b4obo2bobo$2bo3b3ob6ob4o3bob4o4b3o2bo2bo2bo2bo2bo4b3ob2o$
ob5o5b4o2b2o2b4o2b3o2b2o2b4obobo4b7o3bo2b2o$2bobob2obo4b10obo6b2o2bo2b
3o2bo4b2o3bo3b2o3bo$4obobo3bob3o2b2o4bo2b3o7b2o7bo3b2o2b2o2b2o2bo$b3o
b2ob3ob5o3b2o3bo4bob2o2b2o2b2ob2o4bob3ob8o$2b3ob2ob2o3b2o3bob2o4bo2b2o
b3obo2bo3b2o2bobo2bob2o4b2o$5bo3b2o2b2obo2bobo2b3o5b2obob2o2bobobo2bo
2bobo8b2o$b2ob3o2b3o2bo3b2o3b2obobo2b2o4bobo2bo4bob2ob5o2b3o$b2ob2obo
4bo3b2ob5o3bo2bo3bobobobob3o2b3obo2bo3b3ob2o$2o3b2o4b3ob2o3b2ob4obob2o
b3o3bobo3b2obo8bobo3bo$4b3o5b2o3b3o2b3obobobobobobob4ob2obob5o2b2ob2o
bobo$obob3o2b2obob2o3bo4bo2bob3obo5bob2ob3o3b2o2b5o2bobo$o6bo2bob6obo
b2o3bobobo3bob3ob2ob3o4bobo5b3obo$3ob3o2b2o4b2obo3b3o2b3o3bobobob3o2b
3ob3obo3bo2b3obo$obo2bobobob3o3bob6ob3o2bo3bob6ob2o6b2o5bo3bo$3o2b2ob
2obob2obob3ob5o2bo2b2obo2bo2b2obobobobo2bob2o2bo2bo$3bo3bob2obob4obo5b
o2bob4o2b2obob4o2bob2obobo2b2obo$o3bo5bo2bo3bobob2o2bob2ob3o2b2o7bo4b
2o3b4o$ob2ob3o4b2obob3obob2obo3bob5obob3o3bob2obob3ob2ob2obo$2obo2b2o
3b7o8bob2o3b2o4b2obobo3b3obo2b3ob2ob2o$obo2bo4bo6b2o2bo3b4obo4bo2b3ob
3o4bobo3bob2o3bo$3bobob6o5b2o4bo2bob2o2bob3obob3o10b5o2b2o$bo2bobo2b4o
2bobo2bobo2bo2bo2b3obob5ob3obo2b5obob2o3bo$ob8obobobob2o7bob3o2b2o2b3o
4bo3bobo2bob4o3b2o$obob2obobo2b2ob3obo2b2obobobo3bo4b4o3b2o2bobo2b3o5b
2o$2bo4b4obob5ob2o3bo3b3o2b2ob3o4b4o2bo3b2obob4o$2b2ob5o2bobo3b5o2bob
ob3obob2ob3o2bobob2o2b2obo4bobobo$o3bo3bo2b2o4bo6bo2bo3bobob3ob2ob4o2b
ob3obo4b2obo$ob3ob6ob3o3b2obob2o4b5obo2bob3ob2o6bo2bobo2b2o$ob2ob3ob2o
b2o4b3o3bobob2ob2o4b2obo3b3o3bo5b3o2b2o$o2bobobobobobo8bo3b2ob2o2bo2b
o4b2ob2obo4b4obobo$b5obo2bob2o2b7obob2o2b2o2b5o5bobobo2bo2b5ob4o$6o2b
11o2b2o2bobob2ob3o3b2o3b4obob4o2bo2bo2bo$3bo4bo2bobo2b3ob2ob3o2bob2ob
2obobobo6b3ob4o3bob2o$obob2obo3b2o5bo2bobob2o3b5o2b2o2b5o3bo3bob5obob
o$2ob3obobob2ob2o3bob3obo2b3o2bob2ob2o5bobob2o3bobobo3b2o$bo2b3o5bo3b
5o2b2obo2b2o2b2ob2ob2o2b7o3b2ob3o2b2o$3bo5bobo2bo3bobobo2b2o2b2o3bo2b
ob5o6bob6obob3o$2b2o4b2o2bo2b4ob2obobobobo3bo4b2ob4obo2b3o3bobobob2o$
3ob2ob2obob2ob2o3b3o2b5ob3ob2o3bo4b3ob3o3bo2bob3o$3bo2bob2ob2ob2o2b2o
4b2obo2b3o2bobob4ob2o2bobo2bo3b3obo$3b3obobo3bobobo2b3obob3o5b2o2b3ob
2ob2obob2ob3obo3b2o$6o2bo4b2obob7ob2obobo2bob4o3b2ob3o5bobob2obobo$bo
bobo3bobo2bobo6bo2b2obob2o5b2o3bob2obo2bo2bo3b3ob2o$2b2o2bob2o3b3o6bo
5b2obobo3bo2bo2b5o2bobobobo2b4o$obo3bo3bo2bo2bo3b2ob3o4bo2bob3ob2ob3o
b2ob2ob2o2b2o2bob2o$2o5b2ob2obob4o2b2obo3bobob9obobob3obob4ob3o3bo$o6b
o3bo8bobobobobob4ob8o2bo4b2ob2o6b2o$2bob2o3bobo3bo3bo2bo2bo3b4obob5o2b
ob2o4b4o2b3obo$4o2b5obo2bo2bo3bobobobobo3bobob2ob3o3b2obobobob3o4bo$b
2o5b6o4b4o2b2o3b3ob4ob3o4bobob2o5b3obob2o$obo3bo2bobobo2bo2bo3bo3b4o4b
ob2o2b2o6b4obobo3bob2o$obo3b3o4b3obo3bob4obobobo2bobo5b2ob3o2b2obob4o
bobo$3b2obo2bo3bo3bob6o3b7o2b2ob2obo2b5o11bo$2bo3b3ob4o2b2o5bobob2obo
2bobobob2obob2obobo2b3ob2o2b3o$bob2o3bob2o3bobob2obobo2bob2obob2obob2o
b3obobobob2ob2ob2o3bo$3o2b5o4b2o2bob3obobobob2o2b4ob2o2bo2bo5bo2b2o2b
2o2bo$3bo2bobo2b2o4bobobo2b2obo2b3o4bo6b5o2bob3o5b2o!

Funny breeder appeared in this soup.

Also, this rule seems pretty easy to come across, and I don't really think this counts as a "new rule". BUT, we can use this subforum as a discussion for discoveries in this rule, maybe objects that cannot be found in other rules but this one?

[LittleLWSS]

Rule algorithm is Quicklife or Hashlife on my Golly.

Rule String is B37/S238.

I tried to evolve a 20x20 soup on it, then it tells me that is a methuselah. I think I'm very easy to found a methuselah in this rule!(So I call it Methuselah-life.)

Most Life-like (or outer-totalistic) B3 rules are known, including this rule, that should be called DryEightLife (Hybrid of DryLife and EightLife).

Typical soup:

Code: Select all

#R B37/S238
!
[[ RANDOMIZE ]]

The rule is explosive, and nothing interesting in general.
The methuselah you called is actually explosion. (Methuselahs aren't interesting in general.)
I reported the thread for the reason of not notable.

But I also found the stable-end patterns or even sparky patterns in this. This is just a test. Something is same as GoL, such as a lot of still-lifes, or some oscillators. MWSS becames an exploding pattern and my Golly becames VERY slow.

Note that I also found some explosive rule in my Golly.

[b-engine]

But I also found the stable-end patterns or even sparky patterns in this. This is just a test. Something is same as GoL, such as a lot of still-lifes, or some oscillators. MWSS becames an exploding pattern and my Golly becames VERY slow.

Note that I also found some explosive rule in my Golly.

Almost all explosive rules (without B1c) have non-explosive patterns.
Whenever you want to post a result of your test, please post it here. Don't create a new thread for everything you discovered.

Adding a few transitions to B3/S23 usually retains some patterns and make other patterns unable to work, so those aren't considered interesting.

The forums favor chaotic INT rules (with optional easy components). You can also explore other rulespace with new chaotic rules.

[confocaloid]

[...] BUT, we can use this subforum as a discussion for discoveries in this rule, maybe objects that cannot be found in other rules but this one?

I think a dedicated thread for some specific cellular automaton should not be created until and unless there is available evidence that there is, in fact, something 'interesting' to explore and discover.
Further, a dedicated thread should only be created by someone who understands what these forums is for, and who is prepared to put some nontrivial amount of efforts into investigating the CA.

In other words, new forum threads created by newcomers (who do not attempt to find out what is already known about such-and-such CA, i.e. prior art, and who do not share any evidence of nontrivial exploration with interesting results/findings to show) are derailed right from the start.

Instead of talking about the CA, people are talking about notability and forum rules, here in this thread. The thread is already derailed.
I suggest to move the thread to Sandbox.

[WhiteHawk]

Instead of talking about the CA, people are talking about notability and forum rules, here in this thread. The thread is already derailed.
I suggest to move the thread to Sandbox.

It needs to be merged with Miscellaneous Discoveries in Other Cellular Automota. It is still OCA and belongs in OCA, but not independently.

[confocaloid]

Instead of talking about the CA, people are talking about notability and forum rules, here in this thread. The thread is already derailed.
I suggest to move the thread to Sandbox.

It needs to be merged with Miscellaneous Discoveries in Other Cellular Automota. It is still OCA and belongs in OCA, but not independently.

Not really. This thread doesn't belong in OCA, precisely because it doesn't contain any new interesting on-topic knowledge about OCA.

• The first post says "[...] to evolve a 20x20 soup on it, then it tells me that is a methuselah [...]" but there is no actual pattern, and it's pretty clear that that soup is uninteresting and nonnotable.
• Third post mentions an actual pattern (a quadratic breeder), but it is not a new knowledge, because that quadratic growth was known several years ago:

  B37/S238 is quite interesting. The next pattern is one of the puffers that appears in a section of quadratic growth.

  Code: Select all

  x = 25, y = 59, rule = B37/S238
  5$5bo15bo$5b3o11b3o$3b2ob2o11b2ob2o$4bo2b2o9b2o2bo$5bo15bo$4b2o15b2o$
  5bo3bo7bo3bo$6bo2bo7bo2bo$6b3o9b3o8$8b2o7b2o$7b3o7b3o$6bo13bo$5b3o11b
  3o$6b2o11b2o$7bo11bo4$4b3o13b3o4$7b3o7b3o$7bobo7bobo$6bo3bo5bo3bo$7b2o
  bo5bob2o$8bob2o3b2obo$9b2o5b2o4$8b2o7b2o$7b3o7b3o$8b2o7b2o5$8b3o5b3o$
  7b2ob2o3b2ob2o$7b2obobobobob2o$8bo3bobo3bo$8bo2bo3bo2bo$9b3o3b3o!
  

  [...]

• Fourth post contains an unnecessarily long quote, followed by a short reply without any details (which patterns?)
• All other posts in this thread so far are meta discussion (about forum rules, notability, where to post stuff, etc.), and again do not contribute any new knowledge about cellular automata.

The forum thread doesn't contain any new interesting on-topic knowledge about OCA.
The forum thread is derailed from the beginning regarding the most likely topic it could have (the cellular automaton B37/S238), mostly due to a failure to search for the rulestring on the forums, review prior art and mention it in the first post.

Consequently this thread shouldn't remain in the OCA subforum, and shouldn't be merged into any thread in the OCA subforum. It can be moved to Sandbox. It can even be deleted entirely, without losing any on-topic knowledge or anything else important.

[WhiteHawk]

Not really. This thread doesn't belong in OCA, precisely because it doesn't contain any new interesting on-topic knowledge about OCA.

Ok. I suppose deleting it is probably best, I don't feel it fits well into the sandbox at all.

[dvgrn]

Very much along the lines of occasional previous cases, I'm inclined to leave this thread right where it is. It's a fine example of a thread that shouldn't really have been created -- with responses that include a set of good explanations by various people about why it didn't need to be created. Those are useful explanations, and they're all reasonably clear and polite.

So .. if this thread is going to be deleted, some other moderator will have to be found who thinks it's a good idea to delete it.

What I'd like to do here instead is to re-emphasize something very strongly:

These forums are only reluctantly moderated
There have been great piles of implied demands on moderators' time recently, mostly via post report. There are two reports for this thread already. The reports mention various fiddly little actions that moderators are supposed to do, to clean up minor messes.

But in any given case, the cleanup doesn't seem terribly important. Much more important is the job of teaching newcomers how to not keep making the same kinds of messes in the future. That teaching job can't be done by putting in post reports ... because the person whose post is being reported, can't see the post report.

Please, everyone, make a habit of communicating directly with anyone who is making minor "newbie" mistakes -- and skip the post reports. Direct communication works; post reports often just end up being another kind of pointless mess that moderators have to clean up.

Recent experience with post reports
I generally try to keep the number of open post reports down to zero on a daily or at least weekly basis.

For the last couple of weeks, I haven't been dealing with post reports at all. I'm on vacation and won't be doing anything with post reports until at least the end of August.

As a result, there are currently forty-three open post reports. I think that almost every one of them should really have been a direct message to the person who wrote the post -- either a public post or a private message, politely explaining to them why it would be better not to do whatever-it-is.

The fact that there are forty-three open post reports suggests to me that nobody else on the admin/moderator team is much more interested than I am in spending time on these types of complaints.

To put it bluntly, most of the forty-three reports are mis-uses of the reporting system, as calcyman has explained. The community seems to need some more practice at collectively solving their own problems -- and reserving post reports for the much rarer cases where it's really necessary for a moderator to intervene.

What to do with this thread?
Removing this whole thread means that we lose all of the work that people have done to explain the community's expectations for new threads. This is rather subtle and tricky stuff, sometimes quite difficult for newcomers to understand -- so it's good to be really careful not to "bite the newbies" when they don't understand some of it right away!

Unless there's some other way for newcomers to easily find out what they aren't supposed to do, it seems to me that this kind of discussions are exactly what newcomers need to see.

If someone wants to suggest a better place to put these kinds of explanations, where newcomers will actually see them and understand them, then please suggest a specific location and specific wording to put in that location. Discussion about this point might be really helpful.

Failing that, I'd be happy to change the title here to something that makes it clear that this thread is an example and explanation of what not to do. Does anyone have suggestions for a good thread title that would encourage newcomers to click and read through the discussion? I could maybe even make the thread sticky, if people think that that's a good idea.

[confocaloid]

[...] But in any given case, the cleanup doesn't seem terribly important. [...]

I disagree. The cleanup is highly important, because when people see existing "messes" in the environment around them, they are more likely to create more such "messes".

When there are no or few "messes" and the environment is already in a reasonably sane state, people are more likely to [want to] preserve the environment in a reasonably sane state.

[dvgrn]

I disagree. The cleanup is highly important, because when people see existing "messes" in the environment around them, they are more likely to create more such "messes".

I'm sorry you disagree.

I've seen several recent cases where you've carefully and politely posted a public response to a newcomer who is posting something that isn't in line with community rules or standards. You point out the rule that is being broken, and you explain why it would be better not to post things like that in the future.

When you do that, in the great majority of cases that I've seen recently, the newcomer learns from the experience and changes their behavior. Sometimes it takes a few repetitions -- but there's been a consistent pattern of newcomers learning how to follow the rules better. This is all exactly the way the forums are supposed to work.

By contrast, based on recent experience, adding post reports to newcomers' messages has very seldom done any good at all. Only moderators can see the reported posts, so the person writing the post has no idea that the post is objectionable.

Once a public response has been added to a questionable post, it seems that moderators generally don't think that anything further needs to be done.

If people see rule-breaking posts on the forums, and each such post is followed up immediately by a polite explanation by a community member of why the post breaks a forum rule, then in my opinion that provides very good feedback for newcomers -- much better than simply deleting posts or entire threads, or moving them to some other thread, and leaving no evidence of that community feedback.

[confocaloid]

[...] If people see rule-breaking posts on the forums, and each such post is followed up immediately by a polite explanation by a community member of why the post breaks a forum rule, then in my opinion that provides very good feedback for newcomers -- much better than simply deleting posts or entire threads, or moving them to some other thread, and leaving no evidence of that community feedback.

When people see too many rule-breaking posts and other "messes" on the forums, and when people see that apparently nobody cares about cleaning up those "messes",
the environment degrades to the point where new members are effectively encouraged to create more and more such "messes", instead of caring about the shared environment that is supposed to be a place to discuss Life/CA-related topics.

Further, it's rarely possible to ensure that "each such post is followed up immediately by a polite explanation" (as you express it).
More often, it happens that several other posts are already created in a thread after a problematic post, before someone who could see and explain the problem with that post sees it.
Even if a problematic post is seen immediately or quickly, discussing forum rules / notability / etc. in a forum thread that is devoted to some Life/CA-related topic is offtopic in that thread, and such a "meta discussion" derails that thread, i.e. is disruptive to the local environment.

In other words, I believe your strategy of "just leaving problematic things where they are" actually encourages people to create more and more "messes" of different kinds, instead of encouraging people to stay on-topic, avoid low-effort low-contribution posts, and otherwise care about keeping things in a sane state.
By refusing to do cleanup, you are essentially telling people that the mess is not problematic. But that's not true. The mess is problematic.

[unname4798]

[...] If people see rule-breaking posts on the forums, and each such post is followed up immediately by a polite explanation by a community member of why the post breaks a forum rule, then in my opinion that provides very good feedback for newcomers -- much better than simply deleting posts or entire threads, or moving them to some other thread, and leaving no evidence of that community feedback.

When people see too many rule-breaking posts and other "messes" on the forums, and when people see that apparently nobody cares about cleaning up those "messes",
the environment degrades to the point where new members are effectively encouraged to create more and more such "messes", instead of caring about the shared environment that is supposed to be a place to discuss Life/CA-related topics.

Further, it's rarely possible to ensure that "each such post is followed up immediately by a polite explanation" (as you express it).
More often, it happens that several other posts are already created in a thread after a problematic post, before someone who could see and explain the problem with that post sees it.
Even if a problematic post is seen immediately or quickly, discussing forum rules / notability / etc. in a forum thread that is devoted to some Life/CA-related topic is offtopic in that thread, and such a "meta discussion" derails that thread, i.e. is disruptive to the local environment.

In other words, I believe your strategy of "just leaving problematic things where they are" actually encourages people to create more and more "messes" of different kinds, instead of encouraging people to stay on-topic, avoid low-effort low-contribution posts, and otherwise care about keeping things in a sane state.
By refusing to do cleanup, you are essentially telling people that the mess is not problematic. But that's not true. The mess is problematic.

the increased member count will crash the forums, resulting in "waves" of activity.

[dvgrn]

Here's a case in point. The post above by unname4798 was reported. The report was

"Overly long, unnecessary quote, followed by a short reply."

unname4798 had no way to see that complaint. Until someone publicly mentions the problem, or sends unname4798 a private message mentioning the problem, there's no way for unname4798 to guess that they should change their behavior.

Now that I've made the complaint public, there's a chance for unname4798 to be more careful about overly long quotes in the future -- e.g., simply hit the "Reply" button instead of the "Quote" button when replying.

Reporting an overly long quote is a mis-use of the reporting system

Overly long quotes are against the forum rules, but they are not a reportable offense. That type of mistake is much too minor for a post report.

It's the responsibility of the community at large, to communicate with anyone who persistently creates posts with overly long quotes. Moderators are not going to do that job, because there's no reason that a moderator has to be the one to communicate that message.

Please, everyone, save post reports for actual spam, or offensive content, or other things that are severely inappropriate.

In other words, I believe your strategy of "just leaving problematic things where they are" actually encourages people to create more and more "messes" of different kinds, instead of encouraging people to stay on-topic, avoid low-effort low-contribution posts, and otherwise care about keeping things in a sane state.
By refusing to do cleanup, you are essentially telling people that the mess is not problematic. But that's not true. The mess is problematic.

The mess is indeed a problem. It's just not a problem that can be solved by mis-using the reporting system.

Mis-use of the reporting system is also problematic. When you make a large number of trivial post reports, it has the effect of flooding the reporting system and making it harder for moderators to see or respond to legitimate reports.

@confocaloid, I'm saying "When you make a large number of trivial post reports" very deliberately. Just at the moment you've made thirty-five out of the last forty post reports -- and that's just in the past month since I've temporarily stopped dealing with post reports.

That's far too many post reports. Nobody else is reporting the types of posts that you've been reporting recently. It seems as if everyone else in the community is listening to moderators' requests to avoid over-using the reporting system.

Please reduce your post report rate by an order of magnitude or so. If a post really needs to be reported, let someone else report it.

[confocaloid]

[...] Moderators are not going to do that job, because there's no reason that a moderator has to be the one to communicate that message. [...]
[...]
[...] Just at the moment you've made thirty-five out of the last forty post reports -- and that's just in the past month since I've temporarily stopped dealing with post reports. [...]

When someone reports a forum post, while at the same time someone else believes that it is unnecessary to report that post, that might be for various reasons, including miscommunication/confusion from one or both sides and/or existing nontrivial disagreement on the matter.

I'm saying "someone" very deliberately, because there were multiple earlier cases of different people essentially disagreeing on what constitutes a "reportable offence".

@dvgrn
Just at the moment, you are basically speaking for the entire mod team -- as if somehow you were the only moderator who cares about post reports (on these forums, where there are several active moderators). No matter whether or not that is the case, this observable repeating pattern of one particular moderator speaking for the entire mod team does not feel like a sane state of affairs, to at least one non-moderator user. There are good reasons why there is a mod team (and not just one admin).

[dvgrn]

@dvgrn

Just at the moment, you are basically speaking for the entire mod team -- as if somehow you were the only moderator who cares about post reports (on these forums, where there are several active moderators). No matter whether or not that is the case, this observable repeating pattern of one particular moderator speaking for the entire mod team does not feel like a sane state of affairs, to at least one non-moderator user. There are good reasons why there is a mod team (and not just one admin).

Any moderator is generally welcome to speak for the entire moderator team, on any topic for which there seems to be good agreement among all members of the team.

So far, in the entire history of the conwaylife.com forums, there haven't been any serious cases of long-term disagreement between moderators. Generally minor differences of opinion about what should or could be done in a particular case get worked out via private messages or the moderator board.

You can safely assume that there's a consensus on any point that any single moderator makes a statement about -- unless other moderators speak up to say something different. Until that happens, it's probably not worth worrying about the possibility of other moderators disagreeing but not saying anything.

In this particular case, on July 16th I let the team know that I would be taking a break from dealing with post reports until the end of August, due to vacation and travel plans.

If any other moderator had wanted to step in and fill the gap of dealing with the dozens of post reports you've been making, then there would not now be forty-five open post reports in the reporting queue.

Available evidence seems to indicate that nobody on the admin/mod team has the time or inclination to deal with the types of post reports that you (and only you) have been repeatedly flooding the system with.

I suspect I'll have to go through and sort them all out and close them in September -- but I did volunteer to do that in my July 16th message, so this isn't unexpected!

[CasperWen8805181]

uhh... so this is just an arguing thread now? (Not to me rude/mean or anything, but you guys could move this to private message, I don't want newcomers to have a bad look on this website.)
also, 238 users online!?

[confocaloid]

uhh... so this is just an arguing thread now? (Not to me rude/mean or anything, but you guys could move this to private message, I don't want newcomers to have a bad look on this website.)

For the record, I don't want newcomers to misunderstand what these forums are about, either.

Unfortunately, not everyone supports the idea of cleaning up useless messes (such as this thread) that don't contribute anything to the existing knowledge and understanding of Life/CA --

Very much along the lines of occasional previous cases, I'm inclined to leave this thread right where it is. [...]