I Made a Bible Bot: How and Why?

I’ve long been fascinated by Twitter bots — those seemingly-autonomous bits of
programming that retweet, follow, compose and respond to messages, etc. Truth be told, I’ve always wanted a bot, but since I have little to no knowledge of coding/programming language, I always assumed that creating my own was just a pipe dream. Turns out I was wrong.

In this post I’d like to first introduce you to my bot and then I’ll tell you how I made it.

After experimenting with a few different iterations over the weekend, I launched a “Bible bot” that is currently alive and well in cyberspace, tweeting its little digital heart out and gathering followers (an impressive amount so far, actually). What is it tweeting, you ask? For the most part, just gibberish that it puts together at random from the text of the King James Bible. But occasionally it comes up with something that (unbeknownst to it, of course) is really pretty clever. Here are a few examples:

I’m not sure what, if anything, I will do to hone or improve the bot in the future. It is currently doing exactly what it was designed to do, namely, amuse people in general and me in particular. It’s only been live for a few days now, so I suppose we shall see what the future holds for it.

So how did I set it up?

From start to finish, the process was actually much easier than I thought it would be, mostly because I found someone else who had already done the “heavy lifting.” That someone is Zach Whalen, an Associate Professor of English, Linguistics, and Communication at the University of Mary Washington.

Thanks to a push in the right direction from another of my Twitter pals, I stumbled upon a helpful post on Zach’s blog where he walks you through creating a Twitter bot using a Google spreadsheet that he designed. (Note that this sheet will only allow you to create a bot that posts; if you are interested in building a bot that can retweet, respond to tweets, or follow accounts, you will need to look elsewhere.) Zach’s post is remarkably clear and detailed, so I will refrain from reproducing a step-by-step here (if I can follow it, then trust me, so can you). All you need to get started is a Twitter account for your bot and a Google account for the spreadsheet.

After the initial linking up of the spreadsheet with Twitter (which can be a tad tricky, but stick with it), there are only a couple of parameters to set: frequency of posting and “data sheet.” Frequency is straightforward: how often do you want your bot to post? Every hour? Twice per hour? Once per day? Etc. “Data sheet” refers, essentially, to how you want your bot to compose its tweets.

lfmU5E0pThere are a few different options in this data sheet category, all of which are useful depending on your goals. I chose the “markov” option, meaning that my bot uses an algorithm to generate random text from a supplied body of text. The supplied body of text can be anything. The spreadsheet comes with the full text of Sense and Sensibility so that you can experiment before copying and pasting in your own text.

The text you supply the markov algorithm can be pretty much anything (I think). Because my bot is a Bible bot, my text is the Bible — King James translation. I chose King James for two reasons: 1) because I thought (rightly) that it would be funnier; and 2) because I found the King James Bible in spreadsheet form online, which meant that I could copy and paste the whole thing in about twenty minutes. Win.

With all of the text inputted, I set my bot to post a new tweet every thirty minutes (every fifteen minutes strikes me as excessive, and I got impatient having to wait an hour to see new content) and hit “start.” The results so far have been quite amusing.

And that’s why and how I made a Bible Twitter bot! Follow (or just observe) it on Twitter by clicking here.

And follow me by clicking here!

The Experience that All Researchers Share

There are few things more depressing than thinking of a great idea for a book, doing enough research to be sure that no one has written a book like it in 100 years, and then discovering a book that you didn’t see before that looks to be more or less the same as the book you want to write.

Your heart sinks, and you convince yourself that you’ll find your original idea someday.

But THEN, when you read the introduction to the book you just found, you see on the first page the words “secret brotherhood” and “Jesus.”

That’s when you know that you have discovered a book written by a crazy person.

That’s when you get back to work on your own book.

Another Apple for Wittgenstein

Those familiar with Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations will chuckle at the title of this post while they are reading it. Those not familiar will not get it, but they will still enjoy the post.

Wednesdays at our house, at least this semester, are “papa days.” That is, they are the days that I stay at home, all day, with Jane, the rambunctious two-year-old that I’m proud to call my daughter.

This morning we were hanging out in the living room after Ellen left for work. I started going through what we had to get done before it was time for her nap. “We need to go to Trader Joe’s to pick up some dessert for tonight, and then we are going to the Apple Store to pick up a special cable for my laptop.”

You know, of course, that the Apple Store is the place you go to covet all those shiny computers, phones, and tablets. But if you had never been there before, and you had never even heard of such a place, you may imagine that it is a store that sells fruit.

And that is what Jane thought it was: a store that sells fruit.

We hopped in the car and I said, “Where are we going?” She responded, “The Apple Store!”

The whole way there she sang in the back seat (to the tune of Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star), “Apple store, apple store, apple store, apple store” (go on, try it – it’s adorable).

When we got to the Apple Store her enthusiasm waned. “Here we are,” I said. She looked at me with the saddest face I’ve ever seen. “Where the Apples go?”

It was only then that I realized my mistake. I had spent the last hour getting my daughter excited about going to a store filled with one of her favorite foods. She began to cry, so I picked her up and promised that she could have as many apples as she wanted for lunch. I then offered to buy her an iPad. She said no.

Language is powerful. So is innocence.

Obligatory “Most Popular Posts of 2013” Post

Another year in the bank (almost). And that means that it’s time again to look back and see why people continue to wander to this blog that (let’s be honest) has seen better years. So without delay, I give you some of the most posts of 2013, none of which were written in 2013.

  1. Using Scrivener with Bibliographic Software — This is the single most read post on this blog, receiving more hits per day than every other post in this list combined. “Scrivener“, for the uninitiated, is one of the greatest pieces of word processing software in existence. Without it, I would still be stuck in the drafting stages of my dissertation. If writing is a part of your livelihood, you need to take a look at Scrivener. This post was intended for academic authors (like me) who use Scrivener in conjunction with bibliographic software. The title is somewhat deceptive, I suppose, as the only bibliographic software I talk about in the post is Bookends, another “must-have” for (mac-using) academic authors. I hope that the amount of traffic to this post means that people have found it useful!
  2. Ron Swanson’s Pyramid of Greatness — In second place we have an entirely non-original post from almost three years ago. So far as I can tell, the reason this post is so popular is that 1) the image I have posted is one of the higher quality ones out there and 2) a few people “pinned” this post, causing it to shoot up the ranks in Google image search. Click on the link above if you have no idea who Ron Swanson is or why you should care about his pyramid of greatness.
  3. The Shadow of the Galilean (Review) — This post receives pretty insignificant traffic for most of the year, but it peaks toward the middle and end of the fall and spring semesters (when papers are due). I think I’ve mentioned this phenomenon before. My guess is that I am not the only one who assigns it for reading in a college-level New Testament class.
  4. Why Writing a Dissertation is Harder than Having a Baby — Like post #2 (above), the content of this entry is also largely not my own work. I posted this in the fall of 2010, just over a year after entering the doctoral program at Marquette. Since that time, I have written a dissertation and watched my wife give birth. I continue to find the post amusing, but I now question the accuracy of its central claim.
  5. How to Write a Paper Proposal — This is the oldest post on this list, written in the summer of 2010. As the title implies, it’s about how to write a paper proposal. I’m not entirely sure that I was qualified in 2010 to write a post like this. Truth be told, I still have some doubts. I leave it up because about once per month I receive a kind e-mail from a stranger telling me that they’ve had a paper accepted at a professional conference and that they used this post as a guide. To me, the central points in it are 1) be bold, 2) be clear, and 3) be concise. Come to think of it, those are pretty good pieces of advice for graduate students in general.
  6. Dissertations, Fonts, and Wasting Time — And finally, a post about one of the greatest time-wasters that continues to taunt ranks of graduate students like myself: choosing a font. This post was written almost exactly two weeks before I began writing my dissertation (I know that because I wrote it on the day before my daughter was born). It originated as a sort of “aha moment”/confessional. You see, I love fonts, and at several points during my graduate career I became convinced that most people cared as much about fonts as I do. Hence, I spent an inordinate amount of time agonizing over which typeface to use for which paper. Does Garamond seem to flashy? Does Gentium Greek go well with Palatino Roman? Ugh. I remain convinced by the wisdom offered at the end of the post: nobody cares. The ironic thing is that people who find this post typically do so with search strings like “what is the best font for a dissertation” or “most impressive dissertation font.” As long as it looks nice (i.e., isn’t too big and has serifs), it just doesn’t matter. You will note that when I spoke of my love for fonts earlier I did so in the present tense (“I love fonts”). You see, I continue to live with my addiction. I still love fonts and I will, on occasion, allow myself to indulge. But then I snap back to the mantra that I used to overcome my tormenter: “Do your work. Don’t be stupid.”

Thanks as always for reading, and best wishes to you and yours in this new year.

Looking Toward Marriage 5

We’re back with another episode of Looking Toward Marriage. See the original post here, and get caught up on the others here, here, and here.

Today we have a wonderful entry from chapter 4, ” ‘Choice’ Advice.” Enjoy:

Of course you want to be proud of the appearance of the person you marry; that goes with out saying. The point that may need a little explanation is just what we mean by physical attractiveness. A Zulu with a nose ring would not qualify in Hollywood, but according to jungle standards [did I mention these posts are for entertainment value only?!] might be a glamour girl. After all, beauty is largely a matter of racial convention.

A classic arrangement of eyes, nose, ears, and teeth, which to some people spells beauty, is not the whole answer even in our country. Legend speaks of the face that launched a thousand ships; maybe the one you select wouldn’t even launch a canoe, but don’t let that bother you; the person may have another type of beauty which is even more important.

The most effective beauty treatments for any face are inner radiance, enthusiasm, kindliness, and good health. Paint your face from the inside. A person whose inner mechanisms are ticking with precision and balance has a better chance to be attractive than one whose organs or glands have lost equilibrium, because the normal person is neither overweight nor underweight, has a good healthy color, and a fetching sparkle in the eye. Do we hear some of you still persist in glorifying a handsome or a pretty face?

Looking Toward Marriage 4

We’re back with another edition of Looking Toward Marriage. Click here if you’re just joining us, and be sure to catch up on entries two and three.

Today we have another piece of advice from chapter 3, “Data for Dating,” as I realize that the third installment on “heavy petting” may have left many of you wanting more (so to speak).

As a boy, you should protect the girl from both your emotions and her own. Learn your own limits of self-control and go home before you reach those danger zones. Of course, if you go in for prolonged petting, you’re definitely asking for trouble. Develop those qualities of manliness and courage which will enable you to treat all girls in such a way that they will never have any heartaches for having known you.

Intermission: For any men reading this, I do think that last sentence conveys timeless wisdom.

And what about the responsibilities of the girl in the case? As a girl, you should develop a technique for avoiding circumstances which lead to heavy petting. Many girls are as much to blame as boys when catastrophes occur. Again we say, set your standards and let the boy know what they are. If the boy himself is fundamentally decent, he’ll respect them. If he is not, why go with him? To combat the overtime parking problem, suggest hamburgers at the drive-in, or make it a policy to encourage foursomes instead of twosomes. A clever girl can make an evening the kind she wants it to be.

All this may sound as if the world were a pretty difficult sort of place for nice people, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Dating is fun — it’s normal — and the quota of petting is usually just enough to blend in nicely with the music and the food and give a bit of romance to the end of an evening.

Thus ends the fourth installment of Looking Toward Marriage. Look for number five on Monday. Have a great weekend.

Looking Toward Marriage 3

Welcome to another installation of Looking Toward Marriage. See the second entry here, and more importantly, the rationale for this series here. If you are just joining us, please be warned that these posts are for entertainment purposes only.

Today’s advice on “petting” comes from chapter 3, “Data for Dating”:

There are two kinds of petting — the milder, hand-holding, kiss-on-the-cheek variety and the other more dangerous type usually labeled, for lack of a better name, “heavy petting.” The first includes words of love, light caresses. There isn’t much of a problem here, but the second kind of petting presents quite a different situation.

As we sat, trying to define it in so many words, we turned for help to a huge pile of papers written by graduating seniors in a large metropolitan high school “The problem belongs to them,” we thought. “What do they have to say about it?” Maybe you would be interested in some frank, word-for word quotations:

Bill H. — “A composite of kissing, necking, and going as far as one dares without violating chastity.”

Bob W. — “Embracing — and perhaps going much farther than a kiss.”

Margery L. — “Indulging in love-making merely to get a sensation.”

John R. — “Physical love-making which, if carried too far, can do harm both physically and mentally.”

No matter how you say it, “heavy petting” spells danger.