I think there's a scientific way to appraise an experiment prior to reflecting on the significance of its results. I'm not really the best person for this, but in this case: 1) Were the organisers of the experiment 'professionally neutral' about the result they wanted from the experiment, or were they hoping for one result rather than the other? If the latter, did this bias the arrangements for the experiment? 2) Which people were used as 'perceivers' and which as 'humans responding in the dialogues' and what, if any, connection did they have with the organisers? 3) were the 'humans responding in the dialogues' asked to distinguish themselves as humans as best they could, dialogue normally, or try to disguise their human nature?, 4) what was the independent invigilator actually invigilating? 5) was the successful computer program hiding behind a claimed 'junior, naïve, in second language' persona in order to max its probability of being seen as a human, albeit a limited one? The laboratory notebooks should be made available - and not in a year's time after we've all forgotten the circumstances of this experiment. And, even if the claimed result was as it appears, what is the significance of it. The Turing Test is not reckoned to be Turing's best work by any means. Guy Haworth