Eberya Ting Bager

It was during President Obama’s March 2009 stimulus of over one trillion dollars that MIT Professor of Mathematical Metaphysics Ting Xiaojing Ting received over twenty million dollars in largely unrecorded grants to address the Gregford Gordon Corollary through the application of modern science. While the ensuing scandal called into question Professor Ting’s research, the pattern of thought within the research itself brought debate to the possibilities of the nature of man’s understanding of the Everything Bagel. Since the beautiful poetic insights of Wilfred Cummings to the ascetic and monastic ponderings of Gregford Gordon, man had simply marveled at the Everything Bagel, but Professor Ting’s corrupted foray into the philosophical scene may well change the nature of man’s disposition toward understanding the Everything Bagel from Can We to Should We.

The Gregford Gordon Corollary brought to light the conflicts of nothing at the center of everything or said in the terms of its logical corollary – void surrounded by mass, only itself to be re-surrounded by void. From its creation in the mid 1980’s until the time of Professor Ting’s research, the postulation had largely been relegated to the qualitative domains of religion and philosophy. Professor Ting’s research was meant to thrust man’s understanding of the Everything Bagel into mainstream science by mathematically proving or disproving various qualities that had traditionally been ascribed to it. However, by the time of publication such quantitative models proved nascent to non-existent and the centerpiece of Professor Ting’s research was a timeline of the distribution of sesame seeds on the population of Everything Bagels. Professor Ting maintained that most mathematical modeling of the Everything Bagel would be impossible because, as he stated in an interview, “I wa ger in the sker. In er mattamatic I memorize how to do aller probrems. Witt der Eberya Ting Bager, there a er no answers in er back a boo.” It was only later argued that Professor Ting’s research was negatively influenced by interests that sought to make political statements out of an alleged uneven distribution of sesame seeds on Everything Bagels.

Ting Caught In Mid-Bagel-Analysis

Prof. Ting Hard at Work

Ting’s research concluded that since roughly the time of the development of the Gregford Gordon Corollary, the distribution of items on the Everything Bagel had become increasingly altered; namely, the number of sesame seeds had increased in a hockey stick like fashion at the expense of other toppings and that without swift and decisive regulatory intervention the nature of Everything Bagels would be permanently altered and mankind’s ability to study its nature would be compromised. As an anonymous bureaucrat stated to the New York Times about the toppings, “The white ones have too much influence and must be reduced in rank through state-supported systematic discrimination, just like in the civil rights movement.” However, some groups, such as economists were quick to dismiss the conclusions, saying that the idea that the Everything Bagel was turning into a sesame seed bagel was simply insane from a marketing perspective. Labor parties used the research to underscore their desire to see the nation decrease its dependency on foreign Everything Bagels. Religious interests said the scientists were playing god. Still other groups addressed the implications of the conclusions. In particular, the “lunatic Bagel fringe,” as they were popularly called, said that every Everything Bagel was unique and indeed some may have more of one topping than others but that an attempt to dictate uniformity to a population of uniquely toppinged Everything Bagels might have unintended consequences not only for the nature of Everything Bagels, but also for society as a whole as it would inevitably lumber under the yoke of central administration and the sacrifices necessary to support the efforts of imposing uniformity over Everything Bagels.

Regardless of the aforementioned arguments, research by other scientists and internal correspondences cast serious doubt on the validity of Professor Ting’s sesame seed data series. It has since been suggested that the political motives behind the corrupted data were actually to bring preservation of the Everything Bagel under the purview of the Food and Drug Administration, which, while rewarding oligopoly profits to privileged corporate interests, would simultaneously ensure a steady supply of identical Everything Bagels for research by the NSA, CIA and TSA, agencies which were primarily interested in the application of theoretical insights for everything from weapons systems to domestic spying technology.

While Ting’s research and its hidden agendas floundered, the popular arguments remained. Do we want equal Everything Bagels or do we want Everything Bagels that are left to the whims and chances of a brutish reality? Can man improve on “god’s image” of the Everything Bagel? If so, should not the state, the center of human power, be employed in a progressive fashion to mold and shape the Everything Bagel for a better tomorrow? Or, if men are the apes of a cold god, are Everything Bagels simply the impure creations of those apes and hence forever doomed to mediocrity?

But early 21st century Americans had no answers because they were asking the wrong questions. In actuality, Professor Ting shed no light on the question of “Can man harness the Everything Bagel?” But his failed pseudoscience and the ensuing arguments helped raise the question, for the first time, “Should we harness the Everything Bagel?” This question had never been asked before. Superficially, the dualities of the popular “should we” arguments reflected the dualities of the Everything Bagel itself. After all, as the Gregford Gordon Corollary might pose the question: Would god speak through the hole of the Everything Bagel, or would he speak through the whole of the Everything Bagel? But if we look deeper, this is not a duality, it is a totality. Mankind and their problems may be mired in a finite world, but the Everything Bagel is at the same time both everything and nothing. Its surfaces represent the beginning and the end. Rather than spend his efforts trying to conquer infinite, mankind might be better off dealing with finite matters, while taking inspiration from the beautiful infinite nature of the Everything Bagel. Wilfred C. Cummings didn’t have a problem with that, and as a matter of fact, neither do I.

 

- bionic

3 comments

  1. Almira says:

    i loved this text from you, helped me a lot. i am really grateful.http://www.simbolodamusica.com

  2. Chaiane says:

    thanks for posting this post. i would like to get more information on this.http://www.novelainsensatocoracao.net

  3. hot penny stocks says:

    hot penny stocks I think animating will certainly wipe out this idea. The photos require person to visualise what is going on in which in which picturing ‘s what ends in the actual humor. It’s as being a challenging, sophisticated joke should you describe the idea, as opposed to permitting the target audience “have itInch, the idea spoils the actual humor. Every person’s a skill movie director.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>