Hull FC and Hull KR to merge...

[scotchy]

3. That is a dictionary definition. I also see, from the Meriam-Webster dictionary: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. I don't see anything to do with exaggeration or metaphor there. Here's another: inaccordancewith,involving,orbeingtheprimaryorstrictmeaningof thewordorwords;notfigurativeormetaphorical. See, figurative in there. Dictionaries are swines like that. Trying to fit it into two lines isn't always helpful. Here's summat that might help you understand a little more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language

4. Birds manage it. 5.I'm not arguing that there is a fundamental difference. I am arguing that there is nothing to show there isn't as such, you can't say that what happened in Sydney in 1997 applies to Hull in 2015. It's like comparing birds to people.

3. Do you have a point here. Cos if you do it doesn't seem a very good one.

4. Are you a bird? Are there some fundemental differences between you and a bird that would what is possible for you and not for a bird?

5. You can indulge in logical fallacies all you want but demanding proof of a negative doesn't support your argument. There may not be evidence that there isn't a fundemental difference between Sydney 97 and hull 15, but there also isn't evidence that we aren't surrounded by invisible pink unicorns.

[scotchy]

I didn't mention a SL application , I said Championship application , so to confirm what you suggest is for there to be 1 club , either FC or HKR , or neither but a new entity in SL and for the RFL to then refuse any application from any new or existing club within a 25 mile radius of Hull for entry into the Championship ?

A similar situation in Wakefield with Trinity,Cas and Fev , 1 club with no future applications ?

If there's lots more then enlighten us

the rfl don't need to refuse an application. I doubt one would be made. I'm not sure what you think one would acheive or why it would be necessary

[zorquif]

3. I was just pointing out that non-literal interpretation need not use metaphor or exaggeration, despite what the first hit of your Google search for the definition of literal says.

4. I think you're missing my point.

5. Which logical fallacy am I indulging in? In any case, let me put it another way. What are the fundamental similarities between the conditions and people in Sydney in 1997 and those in Hull in 2015 that allows you to say that what happened in Sydney in 1997 applies to Hull in 2015. Nice use of reductio ad absurdum again there by the way.

[The Future is League]

If were honest with their academy's joining there is really no need to have 2 teams from Hull in Super League.

What purpose does it serve?

[Krytensmate]

the rfl don't need to refuse an application. I doubt one would be made. I'm not sure what you think one would acheive or why it would be necessary

You doubt one would be made ? , I'd be very surprised if at least 1 wasn't , possibly 2

My point being the area of Hull would have to have just 1 club , as I'd expect fans of both or whichever club was culled to attempt to start a new ' HullFC or HKR ' as soon as they could , which if allowed would then dilute any merged fan,sponsor base again

You could even have a situation where a culled clubs fans would look to go legal to be allowed to start up again

[scotchy]

3. I was just pointing out that non-literal interpretation need not use metaphor or exaggeration, despite what the first hit of your Google search for the definition of literal says.

4. I think you're missing my point.

5. Which logical fallacy am I indulging in? In any case, let me put it another way. What are the fundamental similarities between the conditions and people in Sydney in 1997 and those in Hull in 2015 that allows you to say that what happened in Sydney in 1997 applies to Hull in 2015. Nice use of reductio ad absurdum again there by the way.

3. No, by definition a non-literal interpretation does not use metaphor or exaggeration. That is 'literally' what I said and you were arguing against, and 'literally' what the definition I put forth says.

 

4. I understood your point. Im simply pointing out where your metaphor doesn't work.

 

5. You are indulging in the Russell's teapot logical fallacy (some call it the invisible pink unicorn fallacy). As for the fundamental similarities? Well they are fundamentally the same in pretty much every way you can think of.

[scotchy]

You doubt one would be made ? , I'd be very surprised if at least 1 wasn't , possibly 2

My point being the area of Hull would have to have just 1 club , as I'd expect fans of both or whichever club was culled to attempt to start a new ' HullFC or HKR ' as soon as they could , which if allowed would then dilute any merged fan,sponsor base again

You could even have a situation where a culled clubs fans would look to go legal to be allowed to start up again

They could start up what they want. Copywrite and trademark laws would take care of them.

 

(not to mention the more practical aspects like money, somewhere to play, players, etc etc etc)

[zorquif]

3. No, by definition a non-literal interpretation does not use metaphor or exaggeration. That is 'literally' what I said and you were arguing against, and 'literally' what the definition I put forth says.

4. I understood your point. Im simply pointing out where your metaphor doesn't work.

5. You are indulging in the Russell's teapot logical fallacy (some call it the invisible pink unicorn fallacy). As for the fundamental similarities? Well they are fundamentally the same in pretty much every way you can think of.

3. but I was also showing that there's different definitions of literally. That disagree with you. Or did I miss something. Are we just in agreement that you have interpreted the assumptions literally? I just think that such interpretation is to the detriment of sensible discussion.

4. It works but it isn't a metaphor. It's a comparison, and then used in a simile.

5. Those are analogies, not fallacies. And i see you can't name any. The only ones I can are that they are people (which raises more problems than solutions insofar as them acting the same in my opinion) and they like rugby league. And thinking about it those analogies don't even work. By showing that the two groups are fundamentally similar you can show that they don't have fundamental differences

[Krytensmate]

They could start up what they want. Copywrite and trademark laws would take care of them.

(not to mention the more practical aspects like money, somewhere to play, players, etc etc etc)

Who owns a clubs copywrite and trademark ?

How would you prevent a FC Hull forming , or a Kingston Rovers of Hull ?

Players ? , well going from 2 clubs to 1 would result in 30 players being instantly available , let's assume THE Hull club would play at the KC , New Craven Park sits empty ? , money ?

[The Parksider]

But I was also showing that there's different definitions of literally. That disagree with you. Or did I miss something. Are we just in agreement that you have interpreted the assumptions literally? I just think that such interpretation is to the detriment of sensible discussion.. It works but it isn't a metaphor. It's a comparison, and then used in a simile.

Those are analogies, not fallacies. And i see you can't name any. The only ones I can are that they are people (which raises more problems than solutions insofar as them acting the same in my opinion) and they like rugby league. And thinking about it those analogies don't even work. By showing that the two groups are fundamentally similar you can show that they don't have fundamental differences

 

[The Parksider]

Not really, taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration is 'literally' what it means.Also the hull thing doesn't need to be convincing. Simply 'less valid' than the other thing. Which it pretty clearly is. If you fall over a hurdle, it's not the hurdles fault for being there. It's yours for not getting over it. We know that is a hurdle that it is possible to get over. If you don't get over. It's down to you

 

[The Parksider]

I'm perfectly happy with it. You may have struggled to understand it. That doesn't mean it lacked clarity..my sentence suggested nothing of the sort. That is why you needed to reword it to fit with what you wanted it to say. In fact for your all your complaints of confusion it appears your only confusion stemmed from you deciding 1 sentence meant something completely different. And again. Your argument here stems entirely from you deciding on a completely different meaning from what the post said. Even a very very kind reading doesn't support you. There is, almost certainly, a sizeable proportion of the dragons and tigers fans who are young, and it is by no means certain that a sizeable majority of hulk fans would not support a merged side. No it doesn't. Again your issue stems from reading what you want to read. Not what is actually there

 

[The Parksider]

That is a dictionary definition. I also see, from the Meriam-Webster dictionary: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. I don't see anything to do with exaggeration or metaphor there. Here's another:  in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical. See, figurative in there. Dictionaries are swines like that. Trying to fit it into two lines isn't always helpful. Here's summat that might help you understand a little more:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language 

 Birds manage it. I'm not arguing that there is a fundamental difference. I am arguing that there is nothing to show there isn't as such, you can't say that what happened in Sydney in 1997 applies to Hull in 2015. It's like comparing birds to people. 

 

[scotchy]

3. but I was also showing that there's different definitions of literally. That disagree with you. Or did I miss something. Are we just in agreement that you have interpreted the assumptions literally? I just think that such interpretation is to the detriment of sensible discussion.

4. It works but it isn't a metaphor. It's a comparison, and then used in a simile.

5. Those are analogies, not fallacies. And i see you can't name any. The only ones I can are that they are people (which raises more problems than solutions insofar as them acting the same in my opinion) and they like rugby league. And thinking about it those analogies don't even work. By showing that the two groups are fundamentally similar you can show that they don't have fundamental differences

3. you haven't shown a definition of literally which is matching your use of it, and im not sure how you showing there are different definitions by showing the same one. But anyway, no, you are wrong. I think it perfectly reasonable to stretch the meaning of what was said to a sizeable proportion and a vast majority. I think any further and its just something different.

 

4. it doesn't work because there is a fundamental difference between you and bird that makes it impossible for you to fly.

 

5. It was neither. It was a name.  And no, it doesn't work. That is another fallacy. Showing two groups are fundamentally similar does not show they don't have fundamental differences. Fundamentally there are huge fundamental similarities between you and an Orangutang. You are both mammals, you are both hominids, you are both primates, you both have a varied diet, you both lack a vestigial tail, you both have opposable thumbs, you can both use tools. I wouldn't be so crass as to fail to point out there are also some fundamental differences.

[scotchy]

Who owns a clubs copywrite and trademark ?

How would you prevent a FC Hull forming , or a Kingston Rovers of Hull ?

Players ? , well going from 2 clubs to 1 would result in 30 players being instantly available , let's assume THE Hull club would play at the KC , New Craven Park sits empty ? , money ?

The club almost certainly owns the copywrite and trademark.

 

I would argue that there was a reasonable chance those business could be confused with those I owned the copywrite and trademark for. The same way I couldn't set up a business called appel that made electronics and had a granny smiths as its logo.

 

So this 'club' is going to set itself up, sign all the players who were released, rent NCP with magic money, and then they launch a legal action to demand the RFL put them in SL for yet to be determined legal reasons. And all this is done by angry fans

[The Parksider]

you haven't shown a definition of literally which is matching your use of it, and im not sure how you showing there are different definitions by showing the same one. But anyway, no, you are wrong. I think it perfectly reasonable to stretch the meaning of what was said to a sizeable proportion and a vast majority. I think any further and its just something different. it doesn't work because there is a fundamental difference between you and bird that makes it impossible for you to fly. It was neither. It was a name.  And no, it doesn't work. That is another fallacy. Showing two groups are fundamentally similar does not show they don't have fundamental differences. Fundamentally there are huge fundamental similarities between you and an Orangutang. You are both mammals, you are both hominids, you are both primates, you both have a varied diet, you both lack a vestigial tail, you both have opposable thumbs, you can both use tools. I wouldn't be so crass as to fail to point out there are also some fundamental differences.

 

 

The club almost certainly owns the copywrite and trademark.I would argue that there was a reasonable chance those business could be confused with those I owned the copywrite and trademark for. The same way I couldn't set up a business called appel that made electronics and had a granny smiths as its logo.So this 'club' is going to set itself up, sign all the players who were released, rent NCP with magic money, and then they launch a legal action to demand the RFL put them in SL for yet to be determined legal reasons. And all this is done by angry fans

 

Good evening and welcome to Pseud's Corner.

[Krytensmate]

The club almost certainly owns the copywrite and trademark.

 

I would argue that there was a reasonable chance those business could be confused with those I owned the copywrite and trademark for. The same way I couldn't set up a business called appel that made electronics and had a granny smiths as its logo.

 

So this 'club' is going to set itself up, sign all the players who were released, rent NCP with magic money, and then they launch a legal action to demand the RFL put them in SL for yet to be determined legal reasons. And all this is done by angry fans

Which is why I asked you if the RFL would have to take the stand of refusing to accept applications from a new entity to play in the Championship ?

A simple question , that for some strange reason you didn't want to answer , if the answer is yes then so far within the Hull and Wakefield area's you've lost 3 clubs , so which others merge and who else gets consigned to history , we could end up with 20 clubs

So which others ?

[Krytensmate]

The club almost certainly owns the copywrite and trademark.

 

I would argue that there was a reasonable chance those business could be confused with those I owned the copywrite and trademark for. The same way I couldn't set up a business called appel that made electronics and had a granny smiths as its logo.

 

So this 'club' is going to set itself up, sign all the players who were released, rent NCP with magic money, and then they launch a legal action to demand the RFL put them in SL for yet to be determined legal reasons. And all this is done by angry fans

So your assumption is that the clubs owners/management are complicit with the club they own and run being shut down , given that generally the owners are fans as well do you think that is likely ?

[Krytensmate]

The club almost certainly owns the copywrite and trademark.

 

I would argue that there was a reasonable chance those business could be confused with those I owned the copywrite and trademark for. The same way I couldn't set up a business called appel that made electronics and had a granny smiths as its logo.

 

So this 'club' is going to set itself up, sign all the players who were released, rent NCP with magic money, and then they launch a legal action to demand the RFL put them in SL for yet to be determined legal reasons. And all this is done by angry fans

Can't you read ? , again you mention SL ? , all through this line of discussion I have stated Championship , you know , that competition just below SL

[zorquif]

3. you haven't shown a definition of literally which is matching your use of it, and im not sure how you showing there are different definitions by showing the same one. But anyway, no, you are wrong. I think it perfectly reasonable to stretch the meaning of what was said to a sizeable proportion and a vast majority. I think any further and its just something different.

4. it doesn't work because there is a fundamental difference between you and bird that makes it impossible for you to fly.

5. It was neither. It was a name. And no, it doesn't work. That is another fallacy. Showing two groups are fundamentally similar does not show they don't have fundamental differences. Fundamentally there are huge fundamental similarities between you and an Orangutang. You are both mammals, you are both hominids, you are both primates, you both have a varied diet, you both lack a vestigial tail, you both have opposable thumbs, you can both use tools. I wouldn't be so crass as to fail to point out there are also some fundamental differences.

3. What was my use of literal that didn't agree with anything? And I gave two different dictionary definitions.

4. Exactly. That's why it works.

5. You named two things as fallacy, but the things you named aren't fallacies but analogies. As to your example, they are different cases. With the present discussion the fundamental similarities would be in the same characteristics as the fundamental similarities. Which you still can't point to.

[zorquif]

The club almost certainly owns the copywrite and trademark.

I would argue that there was a reasonable chance those business could be confused with those I owned the copywrite and trademark for. The same way I couldn't set up a business called appel that made electronics and had a granny smiths as its logo.

So this 'club' is going to set itself up, sign all the players who were released, rent NCP with magic money, and then they launch a legal action to demand the RFL put them in SL for yet to be determined legal reasons. And all this is done by angry fans

It's copyright and what copyright would the club own that would prevent another club starting up?

Also the trademark has to be identical or there be a likelihood of confusion for the average consumer. Provided they don't exactly replicate the names and that I think that'd be a low hurdle given the average consumer would be an Rl fan and so well versed in what's happened at hull

[Krytensmate]

It's copyright and what copyright would the club own that would prevent another club starting up?

Also the trademark has to be identical or there be a likelihood of confusion for the average consumer. Provided they don't exactly replicate the names and that I think that'd be a low hurdle given the average consumer would be an Rl fan and so well versed in what's happened at hull

As in Kingston Rovers of Hull as opposed to Hull Kingston Rovers ?

I applaud your stamina and diligence on this thread Zorquif

[zorquif]

Thanks Kryters! Well I wouldn't want to put my mortgage on it but it worked for fcum didn't it?

[DeadShotKeen]

Merge and...

 

1. Lose SL status

2. Re-start in CC1 and lose most fans

3. Cut off a professional pathway for a poor academy anyway

4. Lose the KC stadium deal and 

5. Ship out all the current top players

 

 

Speculation and scaremongering of the highest order.

 

You're better than that.

[DeadShotKeen]

My point being the area of Hull would have to have just 1 club , as I'd expect fans of both or whichever club was culled to attempt to start a new ' HullFC or HKR ' as soon as they could , which if allowed would then dilute any merged fan,sponsor base again

 

A bunch of disgruntled Man Utd fans formed FC United. It doesn't seem to have derailed the Man Utd juggernaut much, does it?

 

The new team would be in a franchised elite league so the new/old team you hint at would not be a genuine competitor. But I have said time and time again that I would welcome the retention of the existing clubs at a lower level. The new team would then effectively be pitching at fans with the option to follow 2 teams in different strata, which is essentially very healthy. We could even keep the derbies, just with the new recognition that they are no longer elite. Which they haven't been for over 30 years and never will be again anyway. Which brings us to this weekend....