Hull FC and Hull KR to merge...

[scotchy]

I do believe there may be differences. You ask me to provide evidence. You use anecdotal evidence, so presumably I can. I have family, friends and ex-colleagues all over aus. I also know a lot of hullites. They have very different outlooks on all kinds of things (including Rl) - and the hull people tend to agree with each other, as do the Aussies. However, I am willing to acknowledge that is is only a small portion of these people, and so overall the trends maybe different. If your analysis is that there is no difference because you know some from each party then so be it. But I think that we'll have to leave it their. You maybe right and your assumption may be valid but I remain far from convinced.

Incidentally that is three options - yes no or maybe

maybe was included. It took a long time, but at least now we know those fundamental differences are.....they just are.

[zorquif]

I always acknowledged that they might not be fundamental differences. But the same could be levelled at you - there just aren't any differences. Sydney 1997 applies to hull 2015 because it just does.

[scotchy]

I always acknowledged that they might not be fundamental differences. But the same could be levelled at you - there just aren't any differences. Sydney 1997 applies to hull 2015 because it just does.

How did you acknowledge there may not be fundamental differences then list them?

 

You are going to have to go back on one of your arguments here. Either time and location are fundamental differences in which case you cannot acknowledge there might not be fundamental differences, or you retract your claim that time and location are fundamental differences.

 

or you can wriggle a bit more.

[zorquif]

i don't think I said they are fundamental differences. Or if I did I have made it pretty clear in several posts that they are examples of big differences that could be fundamental but I'm happy to be shown otherwise. So I don't have to take any of the routes you suggest. And that isn't wriggling. Everything seems very black and white to you. Not once did I say there definitely are fundamental differences that means that what happened in sydney in 1997 does not apply to hull in 2015.

Essentially I just want to know - why is the assumption that what happened in Sydney in 1997 is applicable to hull in 2015.

[scotchy]

So when asked what the fundamental differences were you listed two, When accused of not being able to list these fundamental differences you repeatedly state you have listed two. You are now saying these aren't fundamental differences.

It was your claim that Sydney wasn't or may not be applicable to Hull. It is up to you to back up your claim. Not mine to prove a negative. However many times you try and push this fallacy. Nobody is falling for it.

[zorquif]

I am not sure I ever said that it wasn't applicable. So that is never my claim to support. Please provide the quote where I have said that. 

 

I have said that I am not sure it is applicable, and questioned why it is. As such, that is pretty clear that I am undecided. As such, I am not required to back up either position. However, you appear to believe that it is, and so we are still in the position where you are indulging in the informal fallacy of arguing from ignorance. 

 

I apologise if I wasn't clear that I meant that these could be seen as fundamental differences, not that they are fundamental differences. I have stated many times that I meant that they could be seen as fundamental differences but I am happy to listen to reasons why they are not. Again, sorry for any confusion, but I hope that helps clear up my position.

 

You keep pushing that I am arguing a fallacy. However, I moved away from the point that you claimed was a fallacy. I asked what there is to support that the situation from Sydney in 1997 is applicable to Hull in 2015. And I can't remember any point where you have said anything in response to this. All you say is that it is up to me to show that it isn't which is both classic argument from ignorance (it is true until proven false) and also attributing a position to me that I not only haven't held, but have repeatedly told you I don't hold.

 

Can I ask you a simple yes or no question - do you believe that the situation in Sydney in 1997 is applicable to that in Hull in 2015, with respect to the mergers of clubs? And if so, why.

[scotchy]

1.I am not sure I ever said that it wasn't applicable. So that is never my claim to support. Please provide the quote where I have said that.

I have said that I am not sure it is applicable, and questioned why it is. As such, that is pretty clear that I am undecided. As such, I am not required to back up either position. However, you appear to believe that it is, and so we are still in the position where you are indulging in the informal fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

I apologise if I wasn't clear that I meant that these could be seen as fundamental differences, not that they are fundamental differences. I have stated many times that I meant that they could be seen as fundamental differences but I am happy to listen to reasons why they are not. Again, sorry for any confusion, but I hope that helps clear up my position.

2.You keep pushing that I am arguing a fallacy. However, I moved away from the point that you claimed was a fallacy. I asked what there is to support that the situation from Sydney in 1997 is applicable to Hull in 2015. And I can't remember any point where you have said anything in response to this. All you say is that it is up to me to show that it isn't which is both classic argument from ignorance (it is true until proven false) and also attributing a position to me that I not only haven't held, but have repeatedly told you I don't hold.

Can I ask you a simple yes or no question - do you believe that the situation in Sydney in 1997 is applicable to that in Hull in 2015, with respect to the mergers of clubs? And if so, why.

1. So you aren't saying that it isn't or may not be applicable but you are saying your not sure it is applicable? You do realise that for you to be not sure it is applicable you are also saying it may not be don't you?

You are also saying that these things may be fundamental differences but you aren't saying there are or may be fundamental differences.

2. You are still on that fallacy. And it is ridiculous because I have repeatedly said I'm not claiming that what happened in Sydney applies to hull in a major way only in the sense that by proving successful mergers are possible it proves that a merger won't fail 'because merger' something you have already accepted. I have 'read' nothing further on to Hull. So not only are you incorrect about me trying to make the claim first, I'm not even making it now. It is a claim you have invented to avoid having to back up the claim you made and continue to make but pretend you aren't that I challenged.

So yes. It is up to you to prove it, because it is your claim, because your claim isn't falsifiable, and the burden lies with you to prove your claim that there is or may be fundamental differences, not mine to do the impossible and disprove your claim by somehow proving the nonexistance of these differences. It's clear you are only scratching around for a win here, which would be fine if only you were better at it.

[DeadShotKeen]

I always acknowledged that they might not be fundamental differences. But the same could be levelled at you - there just aren't any differences. Sydney 1997 applies to hull 2015 because it just does.

 

My belief (perhaps similar to scotchy's) is that if there was a Hull merger then the people of Hull would go on the same journey as the people of Sydney did with their mergers, which have proven to be successful. 

 

That - I think most would assume - is a logical and sensible belief, based as it is on real events.

 

If you're saying this isn't the case then you need to give some reasoning as to why. This will be theoretical reasoning, which is in itself fine and valid. So let's hear it.

[DeadShotKeen]

Can I ask you a simple yes or no question - do you believe that the situation in Sydney in 1997 is applicable to that in Hull in 2015, with respect to the mergers of clubs? And if so, why.

 

We're asking you why it isn't. That is a more valid question.

 

If I sit on a chair and it doesn't break you will have to make the case as to why it will break the next time I sit on it. I don't have to make the case that it won't. I have actual evidence to suggest that it won't.

 

But if it helps, yes I think that the same factors apply in Sydney as in Hull as in anywhere in the world. I have no reason to believe that they don't. So help me out.

[zorquif]

1. So you aren't saying that it isn't or may not be applicable but you are saying your not sure it is applicable? You do realise that for you to be not sure it is applicable you are also saying it may not be don't you?

You are also saying that these things may be fundamental differences but you aren't saying there are or may be fundamental differences.

2. You are still on that fallacy. And it is ridiculous because I have repeatedly said I'm not claiming that what happened in Sydney applies to hull in a major way only in the sense that by proving successful mergers are possible it proves that a merger won't fail 'because merger' something you have already accepted. I have 'read' nothing further on to Hull. So not only are you incorrect about me trying to make the claim first, I'm not even making it now. It is a claim you have invented to avoid having to back up the claim you made and continue to make but pretend you aren't that I challenged.

So yes. It is up to you to prove it, because it is your claim, because your claim isn't falsifiable, and the burden lies with you to prove your claim that there is or may be fundamental differences, not mine to do the impossible and disprove your claim by somehow proving the nonexistance of these differences. It's clear you are only scratching around for a win here, which would be fine if only you were better at it.

 

1. Yes, but I am asserting neither of these positions. You understand that don't you?

 

2. So you don't think that what happened in Sydney applies to Hull? We discussed the 'just merger' thing. It's not really true. You can only say that they won't fail in Sydney because 'just merger' - unless you think that what happened in Sydeny applies to Hull. But if you don't then you can say 'just merger' in Hull. So, unless you do think that what happened in Sydney applies to Hull, your original premise regarding 'just merger' doesn't make sense.

[The Parksider]

My belief (perhaps similar to scotchy's) is that if there was a Hull merger then the people of Hull would go on the same journey as the people of Sydney did with their mergers, which have proven to be successful. 

 

This is of course not at all possible unless the RFL allow the merged club to retain a place in Superleague.

 

It would also need that place to be guaranteed for several seasons as well.

 

By all means dream of a merger - it could be successful.

 

But certainly not under current conditions.

 

So you need to start with a call for a return to licensing, not churning around something that can't currently happen.

[scotchy]

1. Yes, but I am asserting neither of these positions. You understand that don't you?

2. So you don't think that what happened in Sydney applies to Hull?

1. I understand perfectly what you are trying to do. But you are failing at it. You cannot at the same time, not be saying that there is or may be fundamental differences, and that these things may be fundamental differences.

You cannot, at the same time, not be saying it isn't or may not be applicable and that it isn't applicable. You are contradicting yourself and continue to do so

2. I don't know if I can dumb it down anymore but I'll try. I don't believe nor have I said anything further can be 'read on' to hull than the fact that by virtue of being proof of successful mergers, it proves that any prospective failure of a merger in hull is not 'because merger'.

[zorquif]

My belief (perhaps similar to scotchy's) is that if there was a Hull merger then the people of Hull would go on the same journey as the people of Sydney did with their mergers, which have proven to be successful. 

 

That - I think most would assume - is a logical and sensible belief, based as it is on real events.

 

If you're saying this isn't the case then you need to give some reasoning as to why. This will be theoretical reasoning, which is in itself fine and valid. So let's hear it.

 

I'm not saying it isn't the case. I am asking why it should be the case. Your reasoning seems to be that it because it worked in Sydney it will work in Hull. I still question that. But that is your belief. And that is cool, but it doesn't make the (qualified) success of STG-I and Wests proof (or disproof of anything). 

 

We're asking you why it isn't. That is a more valid question.

 

If I sit on a chair and it doesn't break you will have to make the case as to why it will break the next time I sit on it. I don't have to make the case that it won't. I have actual evidence to suggest that it won't.

 

But if it helps, yes I think that the same factors apply in Sydney as in Hull as in anywhere in the world. I have no reason to believe that they don't. So help me out.

 

I don't think it is. 

 

If you sit on a chair and it doesn't break, and I say that will break next time you sit on it, then maybe I have to make a case. However, if you sit on a chair, then we walk across to the other room and say 'I am going to sit on that chair, and it won't break' I can reasonably say 'why not' and you should make the case why it won't break - it shouldn't be up to me to show why it won't break. If you say 'I think it is more or less the same as that one over there', then that is fair enough. But it doesn't mean that I should believe you!

 

Now, if you think that the same factors apply in Sydney and Hull, and that these factors are viewed in exactly the same way by the two groups, then fair play. But again, that isn't proof of anything. 

[zorquif]

1. I understand perfectly what you are trying to do. But you are failing at it. You cannot at the same time, not be saying that there is or may be fundamental differences, and that these things may be fundamental differences.

You cannot, at the same time, not be saying it isn't or may not be applicable and that it isn't applicable. You are contradicting yourself and continue to do so

2. I don't know if I can dumb it down anymore but I'll try. I don't believe nor have I said anything further can be 'read on' to hull than the fact that by virtue of being proof of successful mergers, it proves that any prospective failure of a merger in hull is not 'because merger'.

 

1. I didn't say that there ARE fundamental differences. I said there may be, and you can say there may be fundamental differences and suggest examples. Fair play if you don't get that. Using DSKs excellent metaphor - if I said to him 'I think there might be FUNDAMENTAL differences between these chairs, but I am not sure. For example, that chair has three legs, the other has four; that seems like it may possibly be a fundamental difference between the two', DSK might say 'No zorquif, you misunderstand chairs. That difference is not fundamental to the function of the chair insofar as I want to use it. You see, three legs can adequately provide a stable base for my weight as well as staying balanced, in particular in the arrangement that this chair has'. I hope that clears that up.

 

FWIW I don't think I said it isn't applicable. I've said I don't know why it is applicable. And that it may not be. No contradiction there.

 

2. Likewise, I don't know if I can dumb it down anymore. What happened in Sydney is only proof of successful mergers in Sydney, in 1997. Without any reasoning as to why that should apply to any other merger, that is all it proves. Nothing to do with any merger anywhere else. Now, if you, like DSK just believe that the success of all mergers are down to the same factors and that all people will view these factors the same, forming the same opinions (as a whole) then fair enough. It is your belief that as the Sydney mergers 'succeeded' then the proposed Hull one will do too. However that is not proof. 

 

It could be said that the success of the Sydney mergers suggests that the proposed Hull one would also succeed, and that people can overcome the rivalry in their towns. But it doesn't prove that.

[ChrisL2]

Whats all this Zorquif, engaging in respectful listening discussion and putting forward nuanced points? This is an internet discussion forum, you're meant to win and be King of the Internet, and all of Rugby League will be great for ever more!

 

Don't we all aspire to be Parky?

[scotchy]

1. I didn't say that there ARE fundamental differences. I said there may be, and you can say there may be fundamental differences and suggest examples. Fair play if you don't get that. Using DSKs excellent metaphor - if I said to him 'I think there might be FUNDAMENTAL differences between these chairs, but I am not sure. For example, that chair has three legs, the other has four; that seems like it may possibly be a fundamental difference between the two', DSK might say 'No zorquif, you misunderstand chairs. That difference is not fundamental to the function of the chair insofar as I want to use it. You see, three legs can adequately provide a stable base for my weight as well as staying balanced, in particular in the arrangement that this chair has'. I hope that clears that up.

FWIW I don't think I said it isn't applicable. I've said I don't know why it is applicable. And that it may not be. No contradiction there.

2. Likewise, I don't know if I can dumb it down anymore. What happened in Sydney is only proof of successful mergers in Sydney, in 1997. Without any reasoning as to why that should apply to any other merger, that is all it proves. Nothing to do with any merger anywhere else. Now, if you, like DSK just believe that the success of all mergers are down to the same factors and that all people will view these factors the same, forming the same opinions (as a whole) then fair enough. It is your belief that as the Sydney mergers 'succeeded' then the proposed Hull one will do too. However that is not proof.

It could be said that the success of the Sydney mergers suggests that the proposed Hull one would also succeed, and that people can overcome the rivalry in their towns. But it doesn't prove that.

1. Yes. You have often said there may be. You have also said that you aren't saying there maybe. Similarly you have said this things may be fundamental differences. And you are also saying that you haven't said there may be fundamental differences. And you can say there may be fundamental differences. You can also say these things may be fundamental differences. But you can't say them and then say you aren't saying there is or maybe fundamental differences which is what you have been saying. Once again, you are either saying there is/maybe fundamental differences or you are saying there isn't fundamental differences. Use any metaphor you wish but you have been contradicting yourself, even if you try to hide behind an indefinite article it won't work because that was dealt with by it being phrased as 'there is or may be fundamental differences' but you continued to contradict yourself.

2. If I freeze water. And it makes ice, then I do it again and again it makes ice. Then I see some water, it is factually correct for me to say 'this water can become ice, whether it does or not will dependent on how it specifically is dealt with'.

I have never said that all factors are the same nor all people are the same. Nor have I said that because Sydney was succesful, Hull also will be. I have simply said that having proved it possible, Sydney has proved Hull could be a success. Not that it will be, simply that they could be and it was under their control.

The simplest explanation which I hope is simple enough for you, if we know mergers can be successful, we know a merger can be successful, and if we know a merger can be successful and it isn't, we know there were reasons beyond 'because merger' why it wasn't.

[zorquif]

1. Yes. You have often said there may be. You have also said that you aren't saying there maybe. Similarly you have said this things may be fundamental differences. And you are also saying that you haven't said there may be fundamental differences. And you can say there may be fundamental differences. You can also say these things may be fundamental differences. But you can't say them and then say you aren't saying there is or maybe fundamental differences which is what you have been saying. Once again, you are either saying there is/maybe fundamental differences or you are saying there isn't fundamental differences. Use any metaphor you wish but you have been contradicting yourself, even if you try to hide behind an indefinite article it won't work because that was dealt with by it being phrased as 'there is or may be fundamental differences' but you continued to contradict yourself.

2. If I freeze water. And it makes ice, then I do it again and again it makes ice. Then I see some water, it is factually correct for me to say 'this water can become ice, whether it does or not will dependent on how it specifically is dealt with'.

I have never said that all factors are the same nor all people are the same. Nor have I said that because Sydney was succesful, Hull also will be. I have simply said that having proved it possible, Sydney has proved Hull could be a success. Not that it will be, simply that they could be and it was under their control.

The simplest explanation which I hope is simple enough for you, if we know mergers can be successful, we know a merger can be successful, and if we know a merger can be successful and it isn't, we know there were reasons beyond 'because merger' why it wasn't.

 

1. That's a hell of a paragraph. Lets see if I can unravel it. I will say it again - I said there may be fundamental differences. Then I gave an example of something that might be a fundamental difference. I have said previously, umpteen times that I always meant to be clear that the differences I pointed to could be fundamental. I even apologised if it wasn't clear. There is no contradiction in saying there may be fundamental differences and giving examples of differences that may be fundamental.

 

2. But that has been proven. That water is water. And that when water is subjected to certain conditions, then it will freeze. However, that is not the same as what is happening here. Hull is not Sydney, 2015 is not 1997. A better metaphor for this would be that if you freeze water and it makes ice, then you see another colourless liquid and say 'if I subject that to the same conditions as I did that water, it will freeze'. I could then reasonably ask why you think that is. 

 

I accept that the merger could be successful. And I accept that the fact that what happened in Sydney shows that not all mergers are doomed to fail. I think I put that many pages back. BUT, it doesn't prove that it is all under the clubs control. Likewise, it doesn't prove that no mergers will fail because of 'just merger'. Unless the situation in Sydney in 1997 is applicable to all mergers at any time. In this case, Hull in 2015.

 

I notice we are creeping into ad hominem. I think we did a bit ago, but I am trying to avoid it. We're all human though. 

 

Anyway, I would say that we know that mergers can be 'successful'. However, it does not follow from that that no merger will fail simply because it is a merger. That is a huge leap.

 

But then, I seem to recall that you basically lump everything at the clubs feet - including the attitude of the Hull rugby fans. I think in this, we may reach an impasse because although I think the clubs can influence fans attitudes, I also believe that there may be some views that no club could ever change. And you clearly do.     

[scotchy]

1. That's a hell of a paragraph. Lets see if I can unravel it. I will say it again - I said there may be fundamental differences. Then I gave an example of something that might be a fundamental difference. I have said previously, umpteen times that I always meant to be clear that the differences I pointed to could be fundamental. I even apologised if it wasn't clear. There is no contradiction in saying there may be fundamental differences and giving examples of differences that may be fundamental.

2. But that has been proven. That water is water. And that when water is subjected to certain conditions, then it will freeze. However, that is not the same as what is happening here. Hull is not Sydney, 2015 is not 1997. A better metaphor for this would be that if you freeze water and it makes ice, then you see another colourless liquid and say 'if I subject that to the same conditions as I did that water, it will freeze'. I could then reasonably ask why you think that is.

I accept that the merger could be successful. And I accept that the fact that what happened in Sydney shows that not all mergers are doomed to fail. I think I put that many pages back. BUT, it doesn't prove that it is all under the clubs control. Likewise, it doesn't prove that no mergers will fail because of 'just merger'. Unless the situation in Sydney in 1997 is applicable to all mergers at any time. In this case, Hull in 2015.

I notice we are creeping into ad hominem. I think we did a bit ago, but I am trying to avoid it. We're all human though.

Anyway, I would say that we know that mergers can be 'successful'. However, it does not follow from that that no merger will fail simply because it is a merger. That is a huge leap.

But then, I seem to recall that you basically lump everything at the clubs feet - including the attitude of the Hull rugby fans. I think in this, we may reach an impasse because although I think the clubs can influence fans attitudes, I also believe that there may be some views that no club could ever change. And you clearly do.

1. That isn't what you were doing, but fine, I have interest in rubbing your nose in it anymore.

2. And to complete the circle the only reason that water would freeze and 'nameless colourless liquid' wouldn't is if there is a fundamental difference between water and 'nameless colourless liquid'. are you now stating again that the is or may be a fundamental difference between Sydney 2997 and Hull 2015? Because if you are. You need to prove it. If you are still going to say time and location then you need to say why that could mean what was possible in Sydney 1997 isn't in hull 2015.

And if you aren't then your analogy doesn't work.

[ChrisL2]

'Sydney has proved Hull could be a success.'

 

Sydney 'suggests' Hull could be a success.  'Proving' something 'could' is a meaningless statement.

[zorquif]

1. It is, and I said that several times. Even if I put it too strongly originally, I apologised and corrected myself on several occasions.

 

2. I am saying that there may be. Not is or may be. May be. And I disagree with your apportioning the burden of proof in your favour. You are saying that what happens in Sydney in 1997 (water) proves something about Hull in 2015 (colourless liquid). I am asking why. In my example above, that would be like adding the following - me asking you why and you saying 'prove that it isn't water'. That is why my analogy does work, and it is an argument from ignorance. A more reasonable response from you would be 'because they both boil at 100 degrees C under normal pressure', or 'they both have the empirical formula'. It is not for me to prove they are different. That was never my assertion; I said they might be different. It is for you to support that they are the same, or have similarity enough to support your assertion. That your premise has basis. 

[scotchy]

'Sydney has proved Hull could be a success.'

Sydney 'suggests' Hull could be a success. 'Proving' something 'could' is a meaningless statement.

I'd think 'Sydney suggests Hull could be a success' would be saying that something common between hull and Sydney was suggesting success was likely.

Sydney proving Hull could be a success, would be saying Sydney's success proves success is a possibility for Hull

[zorquif]

I'd think 'Sydney suggests Hull could be a success' would be saying that something common between hull and Sydney was suggesting success was likely.

Sydney proving Hull could be a success, would be saying Sydney's success proves success is a possibility for Hull

 

I disagree with the first sentence. Could doesn't mean likely. It means that the chances of success are non-zero.

 

And it certainly says nothing about the reasons for success or failure.

 

Is that not why it is meaningless? Proof suggests an absolute. Possibility suggests not absolute. So, even though Sydney succeeded, you are happy to concede that a Hull merger could fail? In that case, why not because 'just merger'?

[ChrisL2]

Yep, the word 'suggests' doesn't imply anything about the relationship between Sydney and Hull other than something happened in one place that could happen in another.  Or might not.

[scotchy]

1. It is, and I said that several times. Even if I put it too strongly originally, I apologised and corrected myself on several occasions.

2. I am saying that there may be. Not is or may be. May be. 3.And I disagree with your apportioning the burden of proof in your favour. You are saying that what happens in Sydney in 1997 (water) proves something about Hull in 2015 (colourless liquid). I am asking why. 4.In my example above, that would be like adding the following - me asking you why and you saying 'prove that it isn't water'. That is why my analogy does work, and it is an argument from ignorance. A more reasonable response from you would be 'because they both boil at 100 degrees C under normal pressure', or 'they both have the empirical formula'. It is not for me to prove they are different. That was never my assertion; I said they might be different. It is for you to support that they are the same, or have similarity enough to support your assertion. That your premise has basis.

1. Fine.

2. You are still insisting this isn't contradictory?

3. I'm assuming nothing. We know so far three things. That both are colourless, both are liquids, and it is possible for colourless liquids to freeze. So unless there is some fundamental difference between water and nameless colourless liquid we know it is possible for nameless colourless liquids to freeze. If you are suggesting there is. Show it.

4. It is for you to show they are different because you are claiming they are or could be different.

If you have two liquids. One is water, on is nameless colourless liquid. You know it is possible for water to freeze. Is it possible for nameless colourless liquid to freeze? The answer 'unless there is some fundamental difference between water and nameless colourless liquid, then yes'. That is a factually correct statement. It is a factually correct argument. It isn't an argument from ignorance.

If you say, 'it might not freeze' then you are stating there is or may be a fundamental difference and it is up to you to show them.

All I have said is that Sydney proves the possibility of success. You are saying success might not be possible. The only reason that success might not be possible is if there is some fundamental difference between hull and Sydney ergo it is your claim there is or maybe some fundamental difference that would make success impossible. It is not my job to disprove a fundamental difference you have decided may or may not apply and you refuse to tell us what it is. It is yours to prove that it could.

[scotchy]

I disagree with the first sentence. Could doesn't mean likely. It means that the chances of success are non-zero.

And it certainly says nothing about the reasons for success or failure.

Is that not why it is meaningless? Proof suggests an absolute. Possibility suggests not absolute. So, even though Sydney succeeded, you are happy to concede that a Hull merger could fail? In that case, why not because 'just merger'?

No it is not meaningless. Proving something is a possibility is a pretty important thing. There are lots of things thought to be impossible only to be proven possible.