Much like a religious document, the paper in which Alan Turing first described what we know today as the Turing Test has inspired endless debate over what he really meant. Arguments hinge on seemingly insignificant choices of words or phrases. Did Turing really mean "immaterial soul" instead of "immortal soul" when he describes the theological objections to thinking machines? Did Turing really mean "think" or the actions that result from thinking? Stevan Harnad has published a new essay titled, "The Annotation Game: On Turing (1950) on Computing, Machinery, and Intelligence" (PDF format). To a large extent, this paper is concerned with listing all the unfortunate wording, lack of definitions, and general annoyances found in Turing's original paper. There are some interesting points raised, however, such as noting that a reasonable definition of "machine" as used by Turing could be "any dynamical, causal, system", which means both toasters and humans qualify as machines.