> This is incredibly naive. No, it's based on all the existing evidence currently out there. > It could be the case that this was a setup. This is based on

> This is incredibly naive. No, it's based on all the existing evidence currently out there. > It could be the case that this was a setup. This is based on speculation. > And it would be very easy to set such a thing up. It's easy to do lots of things. > And there's an entire industry with a lot of old money invested in that industry continuing. So? Any evidence? Anything other than liking Airbnb/YC to suspect this? > That means motive. You've shown the hotel industry has motive. Not EJ. This is irrelevant. > Nobody here can say yet with 100% confidence what really did or did not happen. Nobody can say anything with 100% confidence when two stories conflict. We don't even require juries to be 100% confident, we ask them to be sure beyond "reasonable doubt." What you have here is not a reasonable doubt. It is concocted > Could it have really happened in a non-setup fashion? Of course, and arguably it is/was inevitable. Yes, it was inevitable. This is a good reason to suspect > Could it also have been a "hit job"? You bet. My water could have been poisoned by my next-door neighbor because I had a loud party one night. I have no reason to believe this, but it could be happening! In fact, that silly scenario has better motive (which you emphasize) than your concoction since it actually ties the accused to the motive, which you haven't done. > Whenever you've got people in one camp with millions if not billions in existing revenue on the line, you have a motive. And the means and method are both easy and obvious. That's a delightful story, but again... you've presented nothing but pure speculation.