Aug 21st 2018, 4:05:47
I took a look at your news this set DS. You decided to play with a bot name without GDI and you got ABed by a guy who, to Eberts detriment, were ABing bots all set. To me it looks like the guy was targeting bots(putting them in DR and removing their purchasing power) and since Ebert hits bots and sells tech to bots that guy was hurting Eberts chances at a good NW. You have concluded that Ebert must be to blame for the ABs.
Your reasoning reminds me of a great story about two scientists and their experiments on houseflies: The two scientists trained a bunch of flies(methodology unknown) so that when they hit the table the fly would jump and fly around for a few seconds and then land on the table again. They then proceeded with one fly and ripped off its front legs and hit the table, and with some effort at the start the fly lifted and flew for a few seconds and landed with some effort in about the same manner as before. They took the second fly and ripped off its middle legs and in the same manner the fly flew on command and landed as it had before. They took the third fly and ripped off its back legs and the result was ofc the same. Intrigued to know how the the flies anatomy works they took the fourth fly and ripped off its wings, and the result stunned them; as they hit the table and thereby gave the command to the fly to fly, it defied them upon several such injunctions.
The scientists wrote down their results and went home for the day to their respective families, hugged their children and read them their bedtime stories. They then went to bed and lay awake pondering what had happened for what seemed like forever until they fell asleep. They woke up the next day filled with a seemingly unquenchable thirst for further investigation. When they arrived at work they each had some good ideas and some rapid brainstorming during the morning meeting resulted in a plan of attack that seemed very reasonable; First they would make sure that the flies from yesterday behaved the same way today, subjecting each of the four flies to the same trial as yesterday. Secondly, they would replicate each of the experiments with another housefly. Said and done, after subjecting the flies to the same trials as yesterday, the results were unchanged; the housefly without wings refused to fly. And the experiment was perfectly replicated with the four new houseflies as well; The flies missing one pair of legs flew and came back, just as they were taught, and the housefly with no wings didn't.
Another brainstorming session between the scientist ensued; Theories from wild to reasonable were scrutinized, attacked and defended from every angle, this was truly their most productive, creative and inspired work by far. After hours, with the dust from the chalkboard as a dense fog in the meeting room, they had settled on the most reasonable theory, in fact the only one that stood up to their rigorous scrutiny; The housefly has it's hearing in it's wings and therefore those that lost them failed to hear the command to fly when it was given.
The scientists proceeded to apply for money to develop a hearing aid for houseflies....
Your reasoning reminds me of a great story about two scientists and their experiments on houseflies: The two scientists trained a bunch of flies(methodology unknown) so that when they hit the table the fly would jump and fly around for a few seconds and then land on the table again. They then proceeded with one fly and ripped off its front legs and hit the table, and with some effort at the start the fly lifted and flew for a few seconds and landed with some effort in about the same manner as before. They took the second fly and ripped off its middle legs and in the same manner the fly flew on command and landed as it had before. They took the third fly and ripped off its back legs and the result was ofc the same. Intrigued to know how the the flies anatomy works they took the fourth fly and ripped off its wings, and the result stunned them; as they hit the table and thereby gave the command to the fly to fly, it defied them upon several such injunctions.
The scientists wrote down their results and went home for the day to their respective families, hugged their children and read them their bedtime stories. They then went to bed and lay awake pondering what had happened for what seemed like forever until they fell asleep. They woke up the next day filled with a seemingly unquenchable thirst for further investigation. When they arrived at work they each had some good ideas and some rapid brainstorming during the morning meeting resulted in a plan of attack that seemed very reasonable; First they would make sure that the flies from yesterday behaved the same way today, subjecting each of the four flies to the same trial as yesterday. Secondly, they would replicate each of the experiments with another housefly. Said and done, after subjecting the flies to the same trials as yesterday, the results were unchanged; the housefly without wings refused to fly. And the experiment was perfectly replicated with the four new houseflies as well; The flies missing one pair of legs flew and came back, just as they were taught, and the housefly with no wings didn't.
Another brainstorming session between the scientist ensued; Theories from wild to reasonable were scrutinized, attacked and defended from every angle, this was truly their most productive, creative and inspired work by far. After hours, with the dust from the chalkboard as a dense fog in the meeting room, they had settled on the most reasonable theory, in fact the only one that stood up to their rigorous scrutiny; The housefly has it's hearing in it's wings and therefore those that lost them failed to hear the command to fly when it was given.
The scientists proceeded to apply for money to develop a hearing aid for houseflies....