Hull FC and Hull KR to merge...

[Rover and out]

Would there be enough money to support a newly merged side that in my opinion would struggle with fans and therefore sponsors for a good few years. Who would pick up the bill during this period?

[scotchy]

Would there be enough money to support a newly merged side that in my opinion would struggle with fans and therefore sponsors for a good few years. Who would pick up the bill during this period?

Well that would be a consideration and as I said the deciding factors for success would be the specific detail of how that merger is implemented and club run. This would be one of them.

[zorquif]

2. If you say may be. Which you have said numerous times. It is factually correct to say "you said is or may be".

3.So you said it may not be applicable in Hull. Prove it may not be applicable in Hull. That is your claim.

4. No it isn't. The statement I made was self evident. If 1 single merger ever was successful. It disproves that the sole reason a merger fails is because it was a merger.

It is not up to me to give you an example of your claim.

I only bring this up because of your previous pedantry but you clearly don't understand falsifiability. You are using them in the wrong way around. My claim is entirely falsifiable. You can prove my claim (that there are no fundamental differences) false by providing 1 example of a fundamental difference (to be specific a fundamental difference which would make what happened in Sydney impossible in Hull). It is your claim (that there may be fundamental differences) which is unfalsifiable. All the examples in the world will not prove that that there isn't somewhere a fundamental difference. Unfalsifiable doesn't mean that you can't find an experiment to prove your claim. It means you can. And it is possible for you to do so.

I'll even give you one. The merger between Sheffield and Huddersfield was fundamentally different to that which happened in Sydney in 1997 because no real attempt was made to keep Sheffield a meaningful part or that merger. Whereas the mergers in Sydney were two equal parties in the same area joining together, the Huddersfield-sheffield merger was in practice, a side from one city taking the club of another.

5. Yes, if there are fundamental differences between two things then you cannot 'read on' from one to another. In the absence of those differences then you can. You are saying there may be those fundamental differences away you go...

6. By just merger I mean the sole reason for the failure is by virtue of them being merged. What else could 'just merger' mean other than the merger in isolation and in and of itself?

7. I think it to be an impossibility for anyone to say it is impossible for these fundamental differences to exist. These fundamental differences are unfalsifiable, that is they can never be proven to not exist. There will always be the possibility they do exist. But it is up to those claiming they may exist to show them.

8. It is easy to show a fundamental difference. If you were to suggest that leeds and Oxford merge for instance. I would argue that the difference in size between Leeds and Oxford, as well as the distance between them would likely leave Oxford swallowed up by leeds and as such would be fundamentally different from a merger between St George and Illawara.

And you could give a long list of differences and they could be dismissed as not fundamental. Because you could give a long list of differences which aren't fundamental. It is up to you to prove a strong argument that one is.

9. My argument is that we can 'read on' Sydney to hull in absence of fundamental differences. Not because of fundamental similarities. If you are arguing there are or aren't fundamental similarities you are doing that with someone else.

 

2. I'm not sure that I am clear what you are saying. Do you mean that you think that it is factually correct to say that if someone says 'may be' it is factually correct to say 'you said is or may be'? Or are you saying that I actually said 'is or may be'? When did I say that without correcting myself? I don't think I did... Just post the quote.

 

3. You agreed that it may not be applicable in Hull. You said it isn't applicable if there are fundamental differences. So, it may not be applicable in Hull. It isn't then for me to show that it isn't applicable in Hull. 

 

4. But that is not self-evident. It is not true. All it shows is that the merger in question didn't fail because just merger.

 

No, I can't. Not within a reasonable use of resources. In order to show a fundamental difference, we must either agree on something that could be considered a fundamental difference, or a whole system be run, fail and analysed in order to show that the difference is fundamental. What I was saying was that from your previous responses it seems that you would never consider a difference to be fundamental. If you would never consider or agree that a possible difference would be fundamental then you can't show a fundamental difference. You appear to have at least changed tack on this. Unfalsifiable means that you can find an experiment to prove your argument? Can you provide a link to that definition?

 

 

5. Again, I said may be, not are.

 

But lets look at this: In point 5, you say 'Yes, if there are fundamental differences between two things then you cannot 'read on' from one to another'

 

in your post timed 11.31, you concede that the league structure is a fundamental difference.

 

As such, you agree that what happened in Sydney in 1997 cannot be read onto Hull in 2015 (the structure will not be changed this year).

 

That further means that you cannot say that what happened in Sydney in 1997 disproves that a proposed merger in Hull in 2015 will not fail because just merger because you cannot 'read on' from Sydney in 1997 to Hull in 2015.

 

As such, you cannot say that Sydney in 1997 disproves that a merger will fail because 'just merger' as you have identified yourself a situation in which it could.

 

6. So do you mean the situation that I mentioned? 

 

7. So you agree that it is possible that such fundamental differences exist. If such differences exist, then you said that such agree that Sydney in 1997 does not apply to that merger. As it is possible that the fundamental possibilities exist, it is likewise possible that there are mergers wherein Sydney in 1997 does not apply to that merger. As such, it is possible that they may fail because 'just merger' (what ever that term means). Accordingly, Sydney in 1997 does not disprove that a merger will fail because 'just merger'. Rather it gives some conditions in which it will not.

 

8. It isn't easy to show a fundamental difference if the person on the other end will not accept it. That was my point. The earlier things that were suggested as potentially fundamental were dismissed out of hand. 

 

9. You have conceded that there are fundamental differences in a merger between Hull KR and Hull FC in 2015 and those in Sydney in 1997. As such you have shown that Sydney in 1997 does not disprove that a merger will fail because 'just merger'. 

 

The similarities thing was just a different point of view. Forget it. 

 

However, if you want to agree that what happened in Sydney in 1997 disproves that a merger with no fundamental differences will fail because just merger, then I am happy to agree.

[zorquif]

brilliant. Finally someone who understands it.

I would agree under the current league structure there is no point. That is a fundamental difference (one I mentioned before) but it is something that can be changed.

I'm not sure the governing body will make all that much difference. I'm not sure the location makes any difference whatsoever.

I would say that the initial resistance is the same. The fans of St George, Illawara, Balmain and wests were very very much against the merger. I would ask in what way you propose the attitudes there are fundamentally different?

The owners have already been addressed. They would need to be in favour the same as the other clubs.

Money issues?

 

So if you change multiple things about Hull KR and Hull FC then what happened in Sydney in 1997 would apply to the merger? 

[scotchy]

2. I'm not sure that I am clear what you are saying. Do you mean that you think that it is factually correct to say that if someone says 'may be' it is factually correct to say 'you said is or may be'? Or are you saying that I actually said 'is or may be'? When did I say that without correcting myself? I don't think I did... Just post the quote.

3. You agreed that it may not be applicable in Hull. You said it isn't applicable if there are fundamental differences. So, it may not be applicable in Hull. It isn't then for me to show that it isn't applicable in Hull.

4. But that is not self-evident. It is not true. All it shows is that the merger in question didn't fail because just merger.

5.No, I can't. Not within a reasonable use of resources. In order to show a fundamental difference, we must either agree on something that could be considered a fundamental difference, or a whole system be run, fail and analysed in order to show that the difference is fundamental. What I was saying was that from your previous responses it seems that you would never consider a difference to be fundamental.

6.If you would never consider or agree that a possible difference would be fundamental then you can't show a fundamental difference. You appear to have at least changed tack on this.

7.Unfalsifiable means that you can find an experiment to prove your argument? Can you provide a link to that definition?

8. Again, I said may be, not are.

9.But lets look at this: In point 5, you say 'Yes, if there are fundamental differences between two things then you cannot 'read on' from one to another'

in your post timed 11.31, you concede that the league structure is a fundamental difference.

10.As such, you agree that what happened in Sydney in 1997 cannot be read onto Hull in 2015 (the structure will not be changed this year).

That further means that you cannot say that what happened in Sydney in 1997 disproves that a proposed merger in Hull in 2015 will not fail because just merger because you cannot 'read on' from Sydney in 1997 to Hull in 2015.

As such, you cannot say that Sydney in 1997 disproves that a merger will fail because 'just merger' as you have identified yourself a situation in which it could.

11.So do you mean the situation that I mentioned?

12. So you agree that it is possible that such fundamental differences exist. If such differences exist, then you said that such agree that Sydney in 1997 does not apply to that merger. As it is possible that the fundamental possibilities exist, it is likewise possible that there are mergers wherein Sydney in 1997 does not apply to that merger. As such, it is possible that they may fail because 'just merger' (what ever that term means). Accordingly, Sydney in 1997 does not disprove that a merger will fail because 'just merger'. Rather it gives some conditions in which it will not.

13. It isn't easy to show a fundamental difference if the person on the other end will not accept it. That was my point. The earlier things that were suggested as potentially fundamental were dismissed out of hand.

14. You have conceded that there are fundamental differences in a merger between Hull KR and Hull FC in 2015 and those in Sydney in 1997. As such you have shown that Sydney in 1997 does not disprove that a merger will fail because 'just merger'.

15.The similarities thing was just a different point of view. Forget it.

16.However, if you want to agree that what happened in Sydney in 1997 disproves that a merger with no fundamental differences will fail because just merger, then I am happy to agree.

2 I'm making the pretty obvious statement that "is or may be" encompasses both 'is' and 'may be' jointly and severably.

3. No, I'm saying that there are no fundamental differences (outside what we have already addressed). I accept the possibility that somewhere within space or time they exist, as is the case with all falsifiable claims. But I don't think they do. My assertion is they don't. Yours is they may do. It is up to you to show that.

4. It proves that it isn't a deciding factor.

5. Yes you can. Others have done so and I have already addressed some fundamental differences before this debate even started.

6.this is an entirely made up accusation. I have never come close to saying that no difference could possibly be fundamental.

7. That is pretty much the opposite of what I said. It's clearly a difficult concept for you but there is plenty of information on the internet you can learn from. My argument is falsifiable because it can be proved false. Yours is unfalsifiable because it can't.

8. It doesn't matter.

9. Yes. Prior to you trying and failing miserably to score points this had already been addressed. The existence of P+R is a fundamental difference and would effect the application of Sydney to hull. But the context removed that issue.

10. How are you not understanding that you are only proving my point by listing merger plus fundamental difference? How does accepting that the league structure is fundamental difference prove that a merger can fail because 'just merger'?

11. Yes. Unsurprisingly 'just merger' meant 'just merger'.

12. I accept there is a possibility that godzilla will kill us all in anger at the merger because he is a secret hull fan. Until someone provides me with evidence of it being the case. I don't need to disprove it. I don't need to disprove every possibility under the sun when no evidence is provided that they actually exist (or in your case, what they actually are). But you are finally almost getting there. In the absence of fundamental differences it proves that what happened in Sydney can be 'read on' to hull. (Even if you scratch around to try and word it a different way) and in the absence of any evidence that these differences exist (and in your case, sometimes,the absence even of anyone claiming they do exist) I do not need to prove that they don't exist.

13. I asked you to explain why time and location are fundamental differences. You said they just are. I said that wasn't a very good argument. And it isn't. If you have a good argument to make, you could at any point have made it.

14. Except you are still requiring that fundamental difference aren't you. So it isn't 'just merger' it is still 'merger plus fundamental difference'. And we had already set the context that this specific issue (p+r) was removed.

15. But it wasn't the viewpoint of anyone including myself so why did you expect me to defend it?

16. Which is what I have said the whole way through. If you would like at some stage to list some of what you think are fundamental differences that would have the effect of making what was possible in Sydney impossible in hull we can debate them (remembering the context already set out, no P+R and not able to be overcome by the owners)

[scotchy]

So if you change multiple things about Hull KR and Hull FC then what happened in Sydney in 1997 would apply to the merger?

1 thing. P+R which was made before the statement.

The other thing was under the control of the owners (I'm pretty sure how much the spend and whether they are in favour of it would come under "the way that specific.merger was implemented and run)

[DeadShotKeen]

This seems to have turned into a debate about semantics now but I note that zorquif isn't prepared to explain why he thinks Hull is less joint venture-friendly than Sydney - merely to flip the question back at those of us who have already explained (in much more detail) why we think it is. That speaks volumes I think. In essence fear drives the anti-merger argument. A fear that their favoured outcome doesn't really have strong grounds for continued existence, it is merely their favoured outcome.

[DeadShotKeen]

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.

 

Hi there. It appears we might never have crossed paths on this forum.

 

But just for the avoidance of doubt, I support franchising.

 

My Hull merger argument is on the basis of a conjoined RFL approach, not the whims of individuals in Hull or elsewhere.

 

Tbh I have lost count of the number of times that I have explained this on this forum.

[Rover and out]

Can someone please tell me who's gonna fund this merger? This new team will more than likely alienate most current fans of both clubs as it seems no one is calling for a merger and is in fact against it baring a couple of posters on here.

But let's say the next generation of fans will eventually support this new team, how long will it take? It could take years before attendances are even matching the current attendances that both clubs are getting now.

It seems some people seem to think a merged club would be an overnight success and will have fans pouring in the gates but it simply won't work like that.

If it was to work and that's a big if, IMO it would take at least 5-10 years if not longer before we'd see any benefits from it. Who's gonna pick up the tab during this time?

[scotchy]

Can someone please tell me who's gonna fund this merger? This new team will more than likely alienate most current fans of both clubs as it seems no one is calling for a merger and is in fact against it baring a couple of posters on here.

But let's say the next generation of fans will eventually support this new team, how long will it take? It could take years before attendances are even matching the current attendances that both clubs are getting now.

It seems some people seem to think a merged club would be an overnight success and will have fans pouring in the gates but it simply won't work like that.

If it was to work and that's a big if, IMO it would take at least 5-10 years if not longer before we'd see any benefits from it. Who's gonna pick up the tab during this time?

Well let's think how many fans they may be able to keep. Positive estimate let's say 75% this would put them at roughly 14k which is pretty good. Negative estimate they lose 75% so roughly 4/5k. Obviously not great but survivable.

I actually agree, you would hope for immediate success but plan for it 5-10 years in the future. At keeping 75% then that's not only easily achievable but a clear success as a strategy. To go from 14k and grow from their should be cracking the champagne.

At losing 75% well it would be tough, but 5-10 years of growing from 4/5k is pretty close to best case scenario for some clubs, so we can't really assume this is unsustainable.

[zorquif]

2 I'm making the pretty obvious statement that "is or may be" encompasses both 'is' and 'may be' jointly and severably.

 

That's fine - but I never said is or may be. So what is the point of that?

3. No, I'm saying that there are no fundamental differences (outside what we have already addressed). I accept the possibility that somewhere within space or time they exist, as is the case with all falsifiable claims. But I don't think they do. My assertion is they don't. Yours is they may do. It is up to you to show that.

 

If fundamental differences are possible, then it is possible that the Sydney merger is not applicable to Hull. Possible, not is. You agree that fundamental differences are possible and so you must agree that it is possible that the Sydney merger is not applicable to Hull. 

4. It proves that it isn't a deciding factor.

 

No it doesn't. It proves it wasn't a deciding factor in two examples.

5. Yes you can. Others have done so and I have already addressed some fundamental differences before this debate even started.

 

Can you link them? And if you know that there are fundamental differences, then how can you hold you position that Sydney in 1997 applies to Hull in 2015 because there are 'no fundamental differences' when you say there are fundamental differences?

6.this is an entirely made up accusation. I have never come close to saying that no difference could possibly be fundamental.

 

Actually, it's not an accusation. Read it again. You struggle with the conditional, don't you?

7. That is pretty much the opposite of what I said. It's clearly a difficult concept for you but there is plenty of information on the internet you can learn from. My argument is falsifiable because it can be proved false. Yours is unfalsifiable because it can't.

 

What you said is:

'Unfalsifiable doesn't mean that you can't find an experiment to prove your claim. It means you can. And it is possible for you to do so'

That is directly taken from your post.

 

What I said you said is:

'Unfalsifiable means that you can find an experiment to prove your argument?' 

 

Ok, I should have put 'claim' not 'argument', but I don't think that my comment has the opposite meaning of what you said.

8. It doesn't matter.

It does, very much so. Because you keep attributing comments and positions to me that I never had.

9. Yes. Prior to you trying and failing miserably to score points this had already been addressed. The existence of P+R is a fundamental difference and would effect the application of Sydney to hull. But the context removed that issue.

The context doesn't remove the issue of your statement that the mergers in Sydney disproves that a merger can fail because of 'just merger'. How can it? That statement applies to all mergers. Regardless of context (beyond maybe the context that they are RL mergers).

10. How are you not understanding that you are only proving my point by listing merger plus fundamental difference? How does accepting that the league structure is fundamental difference prove that a merger can fail because 'just merger'?

It doesn't. It shows that either your initial comment is wrong, and that the mergers in Sydney only proves that a merger can fail because of 'just merger' in the absence of any fundamental differences in the conditions surrounding that merger, or your comment is meaningless because if a merger fails, you can look back and say 'they differed in that way' That was a fundamental difference.'

11. Yes. Unsurprisingly 'just merger' meant 'just merger'.

Can you clarify what you mean? I think I took 'just merger' with a slightly broader scope than you. I would appreciate it if you could explain what you consider 'just merger'. As it is, it appears to mean writing down the new club name, registering it and re-registering the former clubs. If that is what it means, then the point is meaningless and doesn't need Sydney or anywhere else to prove or disprove it.  

12. I accept there is a possibility that godzilla will kill us all in anger at the merger because he is a secret hull fan. Until someone provides me with evidence of it being the case. I don't need to disprove it. I don't need to disprove every possibility under the sun when no evidence is provided that they actually exist (or in your case, what they actually are). But you are finally almost getting there. In the absence of fundamental differences it proves that what happened in Sydney can be 'read on' to hull. (Even if you scratch around to try and word it a different way) and in the absence of any evidence that these differences exist (and in your case, sometimes,the absence even of anyone claiming they do exist) I do not need to prove that they don't exist.

That isn't what your original statement says. Your original statement was along the lines that the mergers in Sydney disproves that a merger can fail because 'just merger'. That applies to mergers as a whole.

 

Then you acknowledged that if there were fundamental differences that the Sydney mergers scenario couldn't be read on to the Hull one (as an example).

 

You have even acknowledged that some differences could be fundamental. 

 

Therefore, you acknowledge that there is the possibility of mergers which the Sydney mergers don't apply to.

 

How can Sydney prove or disprove anything about something to which it doesn't apply?

 

Therefore, the best statement you can make is that Sydney disproves that a merger will fail because 'just merger' absent any fundamental differences between the two mergers.

13. I asked you to explain why time and location are fundamental differences. You said they just are. I said that wasn't a very good argument. And it isn't. If you have a good argument to make, you could at any point have made it.

14. Except you are still requiring that fundamental difference aren't you. So it isn't 'just merger' it is still 'merger plus fundamental difference'. And we had already set the context that this specific issue (p+r) was removed.

I think I am going to have to see what 'just merger' actually means to you.

15. But it wasn't the viewpoint of anyone including myself so why did you expect me to defend it?

I know, I went too far. I expected you to imagine a new scenario and discuss it. A little too abstract, maybe.

16. Which is what I have said the whole way through. If you would like at some stage to list some of what you think are fundamental differences that would have the effect of making what was possible in Sydney impossible in hull we can debate them (remembering the context already set out, no P+R and not able to be overcome by the owners)

So you agree that your initial statement should have been 'Sydney disproves that a merger will fail because 'just merger' absent any fundamental differences between the two mergers' OR 'Sydney disproves that a merger will fail because 'just merger' provided that the following changes are made...' and NOT 'Sydney disproves that a merger will fail because 'just merger' 

 

 

 

1 thing. P+R which was made before the statement.

The other thing was under the control of the owners (I'm pretty sure how much the spend and whether they are in favour of it would come under "the way that specific.merger was implemented and run)

 

Again, a bunch of changes need to be made to this specific example in order for your proof to fit. I am pretty sure that you can make lots of things fit a model if you change everything about it! I reiterate - your statement regarding sydney disproving a merger can fail because just merger is incorrect. With a proviso or follow up about there being no differences between the two situations or the following things being changed then it might be correct. 

[scotchy]

2. Yeah you did. You said it lots and lots and lots and lots of times.

3. I accept they are possible. But that isn't the same as accepting they do or may exist. It is your assertion that they may exist. Prove it.

4. Then it isn't a deciding factor. If it were they would failed.

5.because they had already been addressed.

6.i don't struggle with it. I'm just not allowing you to hide behind it. Surrounding your posts with indefinite articles and conditional statements doesn't mean you can't still be wrong.

7. It did. But now we have cleared up falsifiable for you we all know my claim is falsifiable and yours is not.

8. No I don't. You for some reason are trying to argue that "is or may be" does not include your argument of "may be". It does. It would be idiotic to argue otherwise.

9.no it doesn't. That's a crazy assertion.

10. No it doesn't. Your whole statement here is just full of claims that aren't true.

11. I'm not sure I can be any clearer. I'm not sure is any simpler way of expressing what 'just merger' means. It seems once again you have issues stemming from deciding what people have written means something different to what they have written and then blamed them when it turns out unsurprisingly, that what they meant was what they said.

12. No, everything I said only applies within the context in which we are talking. But still in principle you are wrong. If you want whatever possibility to be included within the argument it is up to you to prove it not for me to disprove it, it isn't up to me to show these possible differences as absent. It is up to you to prove they are present.

13. You seem to be avoiding your argument again. It's funny.

14. It means just merger.

15. Well I did try and tell you numerous times it was an argument I neither made nor felt necessary to defend.

16. No. I stand by my statement. If there are some fundamental differences we need to take in to account you need to show them (remembering the context of no P+R, and those differences being outside of the control of the owners)

17. No changes are needed. Before the debate began the context was set that this was a none P+R world and my or riding point was that the success or failure was to be decided by the specific implementation and running of the club (something you knew because you then started complaining that I was putting too much under the control of the owners so God knows why you are pretending this is a change)

[zorquif]

2. Yeah you did. You said it lots and lots and lots and lots of times.

As I say, if I did, I corrected myself. And apologised whilst pointing out the error of my ways!

3. I accept they are possible. But that isn't the same as accepting they do or may exist. It is your assertion that they may exist. Prove it.

They are possible - they may exist. I think I am going to have to leave this now. If you don't know that if something is possible then it may happen, then I don't know what to say. 

4. Then it isn't a deciding factor. If it were they would failed.

So it wasn't a deciding factor in those mergers.

5.because they had already been addressed.

But not in real life, so your statement was still incorrect. 

6.i don't struggle with it. I'm just not allowing you to hide behind it. Surrounding your posts with indefinite articles and conditional statements doesn't mean you can't still be wrong.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that what I put was an accusation.

7. It did. But now we have cleared up falsifiable for you we all know my claim is falsifiable and yours is not.

No it didn't. You put:

'Unfalsifiable doesn't mean that you can't find an experiment to prove your claim. It means you can'

How is that the opposite of 

'Unfalsifiable means that you can find an experiment to prove your claim'?

8. No I don't. You for some reason are trying to argue that "is or may be" does not include your argument of "may be". It does. It would be idiotic to argue otherwise.

I'm really not. I am saying that may be does not include is. 

9.no it doesn't. That's a crazy assertion.

It is a crazy assertion. Glad we agree. But it is what your statement says. Read using the plain and normal meaning of the words.

10. No it doesn't. Your whole statement here is just full of claims that aren't true.

No it isn't. 

11. I'm not sure I can be any clearer. I'm not sure is any simpler way of expressing what 'just merger' means. It seems once again you have issues stemming from deciding what people have written means something different to what they have written and then blamed them when it turns out unsurprisingly, that what they meant was what they said.

So you agree with my definition of 'just merger' as being writing down the new club name, registering it and re-registering the former clubs? Yes or no will work here.

12. No, everything I said only applies within the context in which we are talking. But still in principle you are wrong. If you want whatever possibility to be included within the argument it is up to you to prove it not for me to disprove it, it isn't up to me to show these possible differences as absent. It is up to you to prove they are present.

When did you say that? Certainly not in the statement relating to Sydney disproving that a merger can fail because just merger.

 

To show that your argument isn't true, I don't need to prove anything. I need to show that your premise is incorrect. Which I have done under point 12 of my previous point. You even admit that a merger could have fundamental differences. 

13. You seem to be avoiding your argument again. It's funny.

No, fair enough. I don't have physical evidence that it is fundamental. Just as you don't have any evidence to say it isn't. So, I thought I'd leave it. We could go round in circles of 'it is' and 'it isn't'.

14. It means just merger.

So literally the act of forming a merged club?

15. Well I did try and tell you numerous times it was an argument I neither made nor felt necessary to defend.

Or think about and engage in discussion. Fair enough. 

16. No. I stand by my statement. If there are some fundamental differences we need to take in to account you need to show them (remembering the context of no P+R, and those differences being outside of the control of the owners)

So there are no fundamental differences. Bar the fundamental differences? 

17. No changes are needed. Before the debate began the context was set that this was a none P+R world and my or riding point was that the success or failure was to be decided by the specific implementation and running of the club (something you knew because you then started complaining that I was putting too much under the control of the owners so God knows why you are pretending this is a change)

Can you just post that link that says that this whole discussion was intended for an alternate universe? And show that your statement was intended for this fantasy world? I missed it, and would love to see it. In that case, I agree that (in a different world, with substantial differences) the Sydney mergers would disprove that a merger that takes place under the new, fantasy conditions would not fail because the new club was registered and the previous ones disbanded.

 

 

[Krytensmate]

that post was about the history of the existing clubs. I didn't mention a merged one.

Your posts are so difficult to understand ( obviously done on purpose to attempt to baffle with ###### when losing the argument ) nobody actually knows exactly what they are debating

[Krytensmate]

Well that would be a consideration and as I said the deciding factors for success would be the specific detail of how that merger is implemented and club run. This would be one of them.

In English

" not a clue "

[ChrisL2]

Edit: ignore

[chuffer]

This seems to have turned into a debate about semantics.

Yup

[scotchy]

Your posts are so difficult to understand ( obviously done on purpose to attempt to baffle with ###### when losing the argument ) nobody actually knows exactly what they are debating

Because you made something up its my fault?

 

Seems legit.

[scotchy]

2. Yeah you did. You said it lots and lots and lots and lots of times.

 

As I say, if I did, I corrected myself. And apologised whilst pointing out the error of my ways!

3. I accept they are possible. But that isn't the same as accepting they do or may exist. It is your assertion that they may exist. Prove it.

They are possible - they may exist. I think I am going to have to leave this now. If you don't know that if something is possible then it may happen, then I don't know what to say. 

4. Then it isn't a deciding factor. If it were they would failed.

So it wasn't a deciding factor in those mergers.

5.because they had already been addressed.

But not in real life, so your statement was still incorrect. 

6.i don't struggle with it. I'm just not allowing you to hide behind it. Surrounding your posts with indefinite articles and conditional statements doesn't mean you can't still be wrong.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that what I put was an accusation.

7. It did. But now we have cleared up falsifiable for you we all know my claim is falsifiable and yours is not.

No it didn't. You put:

'Unfalsifiable doesn't mean that you can't find an experiment to prove your claim. It means you can'

How is that the opposite of 

'Unfalsifiable means that you can find an experiment to prove your claim'?

8. No I don't. You for some reason are trying to argue that "is or may be" does not include your argument of "may be". It does. It would be idiotic to argue otherwise.

I'm really not. I am saying that may be does not include is. 

9.no it doesn't. That's a crazy assertion.

It is a crazy assertion. Glad we agree. But it is what your statement says. Read using the plain and normal meaning of the words.

10. No it doesn't. Your whole statement here is just full of claims that aren't true.

No it isn't. 

11. I'm not sure I can be any clearer. I'm not sure is any simpler way of expressing what 'just merger' means. It seems once again you have issues stemming from deciding what people have written means something different to what they have written and then blamed them when it turns out unsurprisingly, that what they meant was what they said.

So you agree with my definition of 'just merger' as being writing down the new club name, registering it and re-registering the former clubs? Yes or no will work here.

12. No, everything I said only applies within the context in which we are talking. But still in principle you are wrong. If you want whatever possibility to be included within the argument it is up to you to prove it not for me to disprove it, it isn't up to me to show these possible differences as absent. It is up to you to prove they are present.

When did you say that? Certainly not in the statement relating to Sydney disproving that a merger can fail because just merger.

 

To show that your argument isn't true, I don't need to prove anything. I need to show that your premise is incorrect. Which I have done under point 12 of my previous point. You even admit that a merger could have fundamental differences. 

13. You seem to be avoiding your argument again. It's funny.

No, fair enough. I don't have physical evidence that it is fundamental. Just as you don't have any evidence to say it isn't. So, I thought I'd leave it. We could go round in circles of 'it is' and 'it isn't'.

14. It means just merger.

So literally the act of forming a merged club?

15. Well I did try and tell you numerous times it was an argument I neither made nor felt necessary to defend.

Or think about and engage in discussion. Fair enough. 

16. No. I stand by my statement. If there are some fundamental differences we need to take in to account you need to show them (remembering the context of no P+R, and those differences being outside of the control of the owners)

So there are no fundamental differences. Bar the fundamental differences? 

17. No changes are needed. Before the debate began the context was set that this was a none P+R world and my or riding point was that the success or failure was to be decided by the specific implementation and running of the club (something you knew because you then started complaining that I was putting too much under the control of the owners so God knows why you are pretending this is a change)

Can you just post that link that says that this whole discussion was intended for an alternate universe? And show that your statement was intended for this fantasy world? I missed it, and would love to see it. In that case, I agree that (in a different world, with substantial differences) the Sydney mergers would disprove that a merger that takes place under the new, fantasy conditions would not fail because the new club was registered and the previous ones disbanded.

 

 

2.fine, you did, lets move on.

 

3. Its pretty simple. Anything is theoretically possible. That doesn't mean it is a consideration. It is theoretically possible Godzilla is a Hull fan, but the onus would still be on whoever made that claim to prove it should be consideration.

 

4. and as such cannot be a deciding factor in mergers as a whole.

 

5.No, in real life i addressed them. The words are still there.

 

6.Indeed, That it was an accusation was what made it an accusation

 

7.Yes, the confusion has been cleared up. My claim is falsifiable, yours is not.

 

8. Who has said it does and where?

 

9. I haven't asserted that the statement applies to all mergers regardless of context. That was your assertion. Though im glad we agree it was crazy one.

 

10.Unfortunately for you, it does.

 

11. No, it means what it is saying. It really cannot be any clearer. "just merger" means "just merger". Perhaps we can dumb it down some more: If it fails, and people list the reasons it fails, and that list consists of just merger.  That would be "just merger"

 

12. Nope, you are still falling in to the same fallacy. It isn't up to me to disprove the possibility of a fundamental difference, it is up to you to prove its existence.

 

13.I didn't ask you for physical evidence, i asked you for a strong argument. Make one anytime you want.

 

14.It means solely and intrinsically because of the merger and nothing else.

 

15. Because it was pointless. (though i accept your circular reasoning and commitment to logical fallacies make this pretty pointless too)

 

 

16. You know you are stuck rewording everything. Its because you are wrong and need the argument to change so you can respond without admitting that.

 

17. I have said it multiple times.

 

I think everyone is pretty bored by this now. If you want to claim whatever semantic victory you have earned. Go ahead. ill leave you to it.

 If you want to have a real debate on the merits of a merger, then now would be the time to start. Its up to you.

[zorquif]

2. Are you saying that no one can say something, then correct their position? That's what it sounds like.

3. No it isn't. It isn't theoretically possible that pure water will be in the liquid phase at 120 degrees C and 1bar pressure.

4. That comment is frankly ludicrous. You even said that what happened in Sydney doesn't apply to mergers with fundamental differences. And then said that some mergers could have fundamental differences. So how can you draw conclusions about mergers as a whole from Sydney?

5. You have actually changed them? Or you wrote a wish list?

6. But it wasn't

7. That bears no relation to the phrase of yours I quoted, or mine. And I didn't make a claim

8. No one. But I didn't say is or may be. Or if I did, I apologised and corrected myself

9. You assert just that in point 4 above. And in the statement regarding the Sydney mergers in 1997 disproving that a merger can fail because just merger.

10. I'm sorry, but you're mistaken.

11. I note you won't say yes or no to my definition. Accordingly I assume that you agree but realise how meaningless the statement that Sydney disproves that a merger can fail is with that definition and so resort to ad hominem.

12. That's not true. I haven't made a claim to support. You have made a claim. And then argue from ignorance. But in any case YOU pointed out fundamental differences.

13. To be fair, that part is moot now that you have described two differences you consider fundamental. No need to over egg the pudding.

14. Solely and intrinsically because of the merger? that is so precise as to be all but meaningless. Because the failure could always be attributed to something else.

15. To be honest it was no more pointless than any other discussion on here. And you are happy to use logical fallacy and even just resort to refusal to understand common meanings of words and/or corrections.

16. I'm not rewording anything to change any argument. I am trying to clarify what you are saying. If anything I repeatedly bring the discussion back to the original point.

17. So that's a no?

I'm not claiming a semantic victory. I am claiming that the what happened in Sydney does not disprove that a merger can fail because just merger for all the reasons above. But I agree, let's leave it there.

[scotchy]

I know I said I wasn't going to extend this, so sorry, but this goes to the very heart of the matter.

 

3. That may be what current observes results tell us, but prove it. Prove that it isn't theoretically possible. Prove that there are no circumstances throughout space and time where this was possible. Prove that it cannot ever have happened and cannot ever happen. Prove that there is no science discovered or yet to be discovered that could possibly disprove this statement.

 

Because according to you, the burden is on you to do so, and until you can, that statement is incorrect.

[zorquif]

3. Ok. There is no possibility that the square of the length of the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle drawn in two dimensions doesn't equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides. A chap called Pythagoras proved that ab initio.

And actually, the burden is still on you; you attempt to shift it using the logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. Your also using a nice amount of reductio ad absurdum.

And what is surely more important is that you have admitted that there are at least two plausible (in fact real) fundamental differences.

[scotchy]

3. Ok. There is no possibility that the square of the length of the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle drawn in two dimensions doesn't equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides. A chap called Pythagoras proved that ab initio.

And actually, the burden is still on you; you attempt to shift it using the logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. Your also using a nice amount of reductio ad absurdum.

3. this doesn't seem relevant at all, but prove to me that there are no circumstances in time and space discovered or undiscovered where this isn't true?

 

But I ask, why is the burden on me in both cases?

 

You said the burden was on me previously because it was my claim, this is undoubtedly your claim so why is the burden still on me?

[zorquif]

I know I said I wasn't going to extend this, so sorry, but this goes to the very heart of the matter.

3. That may be what current observes results tell us, but prove it. Prove that it isn't theoretically possible. Prove that there are no circumstances throughout space and time where this was possible. Prove that it cannot ever have happened and cannot ever happen. Prove that there is no science discovered or yet to be discovered that could possibly disprove this statement.

Because according to you, the burden is on you to do so, and until you can, that statement is incorrect.

Just a minute - you're asking me to prove that something is absent? Like me asking you to prove a fundamental difference doesn't exist. Using your logic, it is up to you to prove that there is some science 'discovered or yet discovered' that could disprove my statement. Until then my statement is true. So which way round do you want it?

[scotchy]

Just a minute - you're asking me to prove that something is absent? Like me asking you to prove a fundamental difference doesn't exist. Using your logic, it is up to you to prove that there is some science 'discovered or yet discovered' that could disprove my statement. Until then my statement is true. So which way round do you want it?

Hey you are getting it. You are almost understanding. It would be up to me to disprove it. Yes, yes it would it indeed. It would indeed be my job to falsify your falsifiable statement. Not yours disprove an unfalsifiable one.. Because as you can see from your own example. Such a thing is impossible. I think it is sinking in isn't it.

 

Your last two posts are entirely correct. The burden is undoubtedly on me in this example. This is the opposite of your previous 10 pages of argument, but you are indeed correct here.