[Planktonne]

If the time and accuracy comparisons are unfair, then they shouldn't have been made in the first place. Being corrected on a claim that isn't true isn't grounds for outrage.

What I wrote was factual; there are all sorts of reasons to use such machines other than being faster and more accurate than the best human archers, but it still is not correct to claim that they are.

[lelanthran]

> What I wrote was factual;

I disagree; I didn't say that it was less accurate than archers, I said that it was less accurate than a #1 ranked archer in the world.

IOW, this machine is faster than a #1 ranked archer, while being almost as accurate (15 arrows/target) vs 11 arrows/target.

What you wrote implied that this machine was less accurate than archers, not less accurate than a #1 ranked archer. I don't think that the skill level of archers are all clustered around the top. It's more likely a bell curve so the clear majority of archers are going to be both slower than and less accurate than the machine that was tested.

[Planktonne]

You're misquoting yourself and misreading me.

> if it was faster and just as accurate as the worlds number one ranked recurve archer

You said it was 'just as accurate' as the number 1 ranked archer; it isn't. I didn't say anything about other archers or archery in general; I disagreed with your initial incorrect claim.

[lelanthran]

What did you think my point was?