cool so you admit it.
what is your purpose?
anon, notice thta he who says he is a bot does not answer my rather terse request:
there are a bunch of reasons.
-
yes, he really is a 'bot' which means that someone has 'walked away' and auto bakes. That woudl be evidence that the board is on auto piolet. It's been this way since election day at least.
-
Why should he answer me if he's not a bot becaue I might be a bot too.
evidence does suggest that when they say 'ebake' they mean 'ebake'.
Seriously what does it matter except that it shows us a 'kind of' deception in the 'baking' of breads.
Is this a bad deception, or more like a santa-claus kind of deception?
Also, he says he is a bot.
so if you respect the baker you can believe him.
so I can ask 'baker should we believe you'?
and what would the script (if it is a script) respond?
and probably if the barrage of real pepole asking is large enough some real person gets woken up with an urgent text and . . . they have to make a human response.
Clearly the baking is controlled by a small set or team, and they also have the BO who can also be 'simulated' and will be summoned if needed, as far as they know. But he's clever so if he has stock responses he might just enscript (sic: enscript: a new word, put them in a script) but it's his script, so it's 'him'.
conclusion: if the baker and the BO seem to be a bot, so what?
do you need a live person to connect your phone calls?
anon,
In your little narrative you keep flipping between a 'we' and an 'I'. You use 'we' when you should use 'I'