Post a reply

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Iranu

LDS wrote:
Iranu wrote:This is a weird thing to say. Comparing bombing to civilians to one of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind is kind of... disingenuous.

Whether or not Dresden was a war crime isn’t really the point, right? It’s whether it’s an example of something Britain did that was “not great”.


Well, yes, the term 'war crime' is normally reserved for the really nasty stuff, so, yes, it is indeed a bit weird that Dresden is being compared to it. I agree that that's not a really useful direction for the convo to go in as it does add confusion, but it's not disingenuous in the sense that it's Holden who is comparing Dresden with The Final Solution.

And, yes, I agree, whether Dresden is a war crime or not isn't the point, the point is indeed whether it's an example of something that's not great, which it is, but, as stated in my first reply, it's not a huge list of things is it...

Holden didn’t compare Dresden with The Holocaust, that was Mick.

Your reply seemed (certainly read) like you were querying the notion that Britain did any “not-great” things during WWII.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Iranu

mick745 wrote:
Iranu wrote:
mick745 wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:The bombing of Dresden did nothing to stop the war. It was already won. It was a terrible crime just like that British war veteran said it was.


Blimey "a terrible crime". How do you define the holocaust?

This is a weird thing to say. Comparing bombing to civilians to one of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind is kind of... disingenuous.

Whether or not Dresden was a war crime isn’t really the point, right? It’s whether it’s an example of something Britain did that was “not great”.


I was saying wwii is probably the worst thing that has ever happened in human history. The bombing of dresden is not really a "terrible crime" if you look at the entire record of the axis powers during the same period. In fact compared to the holocaust its hardly significant at all.

Russian troops didnt come as liberators but as conquerors, raping and pillaging through eastern europe committing war crimes as they went.

We would all like to change history but they neednt have lost their lives at all if their leader hadnt gone to war against innocent countries in the first place.

“Killing one person isn’t really a ‘terrible crime’ because serial killers exist.”

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby mick745

Iranu wrote:
LDS wrote:
Iranu wrote:This is a weird thing to say. Comparing bombing to civilians to one of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind is kind of... disingenuous.

Whether or not Dresden was a war crime isn’t really the point, right? It’s whether it’s an example of something Britain did that was “not great”.


Well, yes, the term 'war crime' is normally reserved for the really nasty stuff, so, yes, it is indeed a bit weird that Dresden is being compared to it. I agree that that's not a really useful direction for the convo to go in as it does add confusion, but it's not disingenuous in the sense that it's Holden who is comparing Dresden with The Final Solution.

And, yes, I agree, whether Dresden is a war crime or not isn't the point, the point is indeed whether it's an example of something that's not great, which it is, but, as stated in my first reply, it's not a huge list of things is it...

Holden didn’t compare Dresden with The Holocaust, that was Mick.

Your reply seemed (certainly read) like you were querying the notion that Britain did any “not-great” things during WWII.


I was saying you can't compare the two.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby mick745

Iranu wrote:
mick745 wrote:
Iranu wrote:
mick745 wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:The bombing of Dresden did nothing to stop the war. It was already won. It was a terrible crime just like that British war veteran said it was.


Blimey "a terrible crime". How do you define the holocaust?

This is a weird thing to say. Comparing bombing to civilians to one of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind is kind of... disingenuous.

Whether or not Dresden was a war crime isn’t really the point, right? It’s whether it’s an example of something Britain did that was “not great”.


I was saying wwii is probably the worst thing that has ever happened in human history. The bombing of dresden is not really a "terrible crime" if you look at the entire record of the axis powers during the same period. In fact compared to the holocaust its hardly significant at all.

Russian troops didnt come as liberators but as conquerors, raping and pillaging through eastern europe committing war crimes as they went.

We would all like to change history but they neednt have lost their lives at all if their leader hadnt gone to war against innocent countries in the first place.

“Killing one person isn’t really a ‘terrible crime’ because serial killers exist.”


You can't ever take a position where you think killing someone is always wrong, it depends on the circumstances in each case.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby acesinc

Pink Ball wrote:Snooker.org is only one snooker website, but it's one of the most prominent. Indeed, it has had almost 2.9 million 'hits' over the last 12 months according to statistics it has shared online. For that reason, I think the spread from which its hits are coming is a decent marker of where interest is at.

The top 20 countries going by hits alone are as follows:
UK 1057268
Germany 184355
Thailand 115952
Finland 91816
Spain 88316
Ireland 83185
Sweden 75017
Turkey 67628
Norway 57224
Belgium 53391
Russia 51352
Poland 50624
France 49998
Netherlands 47103
USA 43126
Portugal 40767
Romania 40704
Hong Kong 36947
Italy 36291
Pakistan 35931

But if you break it down per head of population, which is surely a fairer way of comparing these countries, the list looks like this:
Ireland one hit per 59.8 people
Finland 60.3
UK 63.2
Norway 94.7
Sweden 134.6
Hong Kong 202.9
Belgium 217.1
Portugal 250.1
Netherlands 363
Germany 451.3
Romania 472.6
Spain 537.1
Thailand 558.7
Poland 747.6
Turkey 1236.4
France 1348.2
Italy 1666
Russia 2841.8
Pakistan 6147.7
USA 7675.2

Going by that, there's more interest in snooker in the Republic of Ireland than there is in any other country on earth. The Republic of Ireland is the nearest neighbour to the country that (quite rightly) hosts more tournaments than any other country, and yet we haven't hosted a ranking event or prestigious invitational for eight years.

Now, I do think that these things do slightly favour countries with smaller populations as that average is harder to keep down the bigger your population is. Ireland, Norway and Finland have the three smallest populations and they're all in the top four. I would still say that the UK, quite comfortably, has more interest in snooker than any other nation. It's also possible that countries outside the top 20 in terms of total hits would rank highly per head of population.

But there's no doubting that Ireland ranks very, very highly in terms of interest levels, and I think it's baffling that we've been getting nothing in return for that.

Looking at that as well, it looks like interest in neighbours Norway, Finland and Sweden is really high. Granted these countries' populations are small, and will therefore never have the X-Factor of a UK, Germany, USA or, for that matter, Turkey, but as far as filling venues is concerned, you'll have an easier job in Ireland, Norway, Finland and Sweden than you'll have almost anywhere else. All have bigger populations than Wales, which has held at least one ranking event every season for umpteen years.

Seems a little odd to me.




I must say, this thread was interesting for a bit, but much like Thelma and Louise, veered off a cliff at some point.

Pink Ball, not that my podunk little snooker club in one of the least significant snooker countries in the entire world is any indicator of the macro-world of snooker, but you may be pleased to know that of the 9 consistent players that come to my club, 5 are American, 1 is Canadian, and THREE are Irish. Two from Cork and one from Dublin. This would seem to agree with your snooker.org "hits" data.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Iranu

It would be interesting to get the views of Talking Snooker and Snooker Scene on this (particularly the latter with McMullen’s involvement.) have you considered asking their thoughts, Pink?

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby HappyCamper

Iranu wrote:It would be interesting to get the views of Talking Snooker and Snooker Scene on this (particularly the latter with McMullen’s involvement.) have you considered asking their thoughts, Pink?


There was a short discussion in the last snooker scene actually about it.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Pink Ball

Sweet Jesus, how did I miss all this at the time.

LDS wrote:Let's look at the 1918 election map and compare it to what was decided in the peace settlement:

Image

The only really non-obvious part is one section of Tyrone. There's one small island of Sinn Fein in one part of Tyrone. But, being as it's a compromise settlement, like all peace settlements inevitably have to be, Donegal got a huge chunk of non-Sinn Fein to counter the discrepancy.


What discrepancy? The IPP were pro-independence? Both constituencies in Donegal voted for independence? Two of three sections in Tyrone voted for parties in favour of independence but it remained part of Britain? Tyrone was majority 'Irish', as was Fermanagh. But they remained British and still do, despite that majority having grown over the past 100 years.

LDS wrote:The question is whether you consider the Irish Parliamentary Party to be Southern or Northern Irish in sentiment when creating the future map. And, again, this is just Tyrone still.


They were Irish in sentiment. There is no question. Irish independence was central to their mantra.

LDS wrote:However, in the 1922 election the peace settlement had been put forward, and Sinn Fein split between those who thought it was indeed the obvious solution and those who still weren't happy:

Sinn Fein (pro-treaty) - 38.5% of the 1st preference vote
Sinn Fein (anti-treaty) - 21.8% of the 1st preference vote

And we can already see how, without a need for violence, and without the pressure of being shot for voting for the wrong guy, the violent nationalists do not actually form any kind of majority of the people.


Well, actually, they form a very clear majority. Combined, you're talking about 60 per cent of the people voting for two pro-independence parties. And to describe pro-treaty Sinn Féin as non-violent nationalists is extraordinary.

LDS wrote:Sinn Fein's anti-treaty wing actually has the same amount of votes as the Labour Party.

And they, too, were pro-independence. Some of them acutally empathised more with the anti-treaty wing. But they were pro-independence. Being largely non-violent is not the same thing as being British.

LDS wrote:By the time of the 1927 election, those still unwilling to accept the peace treaty, AKA voting for Sinn Fein had reduced to an almost insignificant 3.6% of 1st preference voting.


Correct, although they largely voted for Fianna Fáil at this point. Absolutely a stridently pro-independence party.

LDS wrote:And it's not too much of a stretch to realise that perhaps if they allowed completely free and fair elections in 1918 (the Irish that is, not the English, who were already allowing completely fair and free elections), then perhaps Ireland wouldn't have even voted for independence in the first place - much like the first Scottish referendum.

But then, what is a nationalist movement without a cry for independence?

It's about 3.5%...


So Ireland has voted consistently and overwhelmingly for Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil (and smaller pro-independence parties), both born out of Sinn Féin and absolutely pro-independence parties, for 100 years since then, and you still seem to think we might be doing so out of some kind of confusion? We're not British, mate. And we're getting to a very delicate point over whether Northern Ireland will remain British or not. I totally accept that its population has been majority British throughout the state's 100 years, but it has now diluted to the point that the question is being asked. In time, their majority won't be identifying as British. Just like we, in the Republic, haven't for well over 100 years.

And I mean well over 100 years. It didn't magically start in 1918. What is now known as the Republic was clearly voting for Irish Nationalist parties overwhelmingly from 1874 onwards. Even prior to that, the Liberal party was the most popular in the Republic, ie a party that was campaigning for a separation between the protestant church and state. I'm not sure you're quite the expert you fancy yourself as here, buster. We're no lapsed Britons.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Pink Ball wrote:I'm not sure you're quite the expert you fancy yourself as here, buster. We're no lapsed Britons.


As far as I'm aware, no-one's an expert on Northern Ireland, least of all those that rely on ad-hominem attacks as a means to shore up points of extreme bias, that use deliberate or unintentional misunderstanding of text as a means to rant, who make implications that were never there or are simply incorrect as an excuse to repeat propaganda.

Take this sentence, for example:

Pink Ball wrote:We're not British, mate...We're no lapsed Britons


So you deny that the Island of Ireland is a Part of the British Isles?

Image

The term British is derived from a geographical term that references the landmasses that comprise the batch of islands off the coast of France.

English people aren't British. Scottish people aren't British. Welsh people aren't British. But at the same time we are all British.

What you mean to say is "The people of Ireland no longer wished to be governed by the Parliament at Westminster and no longer wished to have the English Monarch as their head of state"

Which is perfectly fine. Lots of countries have made that decision and remained happy with their relationship with those institutions in a devolved state.

But since you're a fanatic, you need to use the maximum inflammatory language possible and try to make the topic as divisive as you can. "Fellow Britons, don't you just HATE those British SCUM! Join me in riding our country of these British so that we can be ruled by US Britons!".

Ironically enough, you're shouting at someone who is themselves someone who would prefer Ireland to be a single island state, but, of course, someone who is also not fanatical and, as we all know, everything sounds wrong to a fanatic that isn't 100% exactly what that fanatic wants. No lie is too outrageous, no liberty of language is beyond the pale, no inconvenient fact too spinable.

Pink Ball wrote:pro-independence.


But you're not independent. Ireland ceded from the British Empire via American aid and goodwill and then quickly became subservient to The European Union.

So what is it that you're really on about here? Let's see:

Pink Ball wrote:campaigning for a separation between the protestant church and state.


Oh. Religion. Indeed. It's not really anything about Britons and British and who you're subservient to from one day to the next nor which pieces of geographical landmasses form neat chunks on maps. It's religion isn't it. You're a religious fanatic. Oh joy. And how ironic. Beings as how, you know, it's literally impossible for a Catholic state to be "Independent" from outside control.

But yes, it makes you sound like you're the brave freedom fighter when you use the word 'Independence' a lot doesn't it. Really works a treat on the easily enrabbled huh. "Don't be independent!, be Independent!". Hilarious word mangling of the highest order.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby HappyCamper

LDS wrote:So you deny that the Island of Ireland is a Part of the British Isles?

The term British is derived from a geographical term that references the landmasses that comprise the batch of islands off the coast of France.


ireland is part of the archipelago. but the use of the term british isles applied to the whole is quite contentious. as the british part is derived from the name of a particular island within the group.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

HappyCamper wrote:
LDS wrote:So you deny that the Island of Ireland is a Part of the British Isles?

The term British is derived from a geographical term that references the landmasses that comprise the batch of islands off the coast of France.


ireland is part of the archipelago. but the use of the term british isles applied to the whole is quite contentious. as the british part is derived from the name of a particular island within the group.


You are right, everything is potentially contentious, should you wish to be contentious about it.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Pink Ball

LDS wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:I'm not sure you're quite the expert you fancy yourself as here, buster. We're no lapsed Britons.


As far as I'm aware, no-one's an expert on Northern Ireland, least of all those that rely on ad-hominem attacks as a means to shore up points of extreme bias, that use deliberate or unintentional misunderstanding of text as a means to rant, who make implications that were never there or are simply incorrect as an excuse to repeat propaganda.

Take this sentence, for example:

Pink Ball wrote:We're not British, mate...We're no lapsed Britons


So you deny that the Island of Ireland is a Part of the British Isles?

Image

The term British is derived from a geographical term that references the landmasses that comprise the batch of islands off the coast of France.

English people aren't British. Scottish people aren't British. Welsh people aren't British. But at the same time we are all British.

What you mean to say is "The people of Ireland no longer wished to be governed by the Parliament at Westminster and no longer wished to have the English Monarch as their head of state"

Which is perfectly fine. Lots of countries have made that decision and remained happy with their relationship with those institutions in a devolved state.

But since you're a fanatic, you need to use the maximum inflammatory language possible and try to make the topic as divisive as you can. "Fellow Britons, don't you just HATE those British SCUM! Join me in riding our country of these British so that we can be ruled by US Britons!".

Ironically enough, you're shouting at someone who is themselves someone who would prefer Ireland to be a single island state, but, of course, someone who is also not fanatical and, as we all know, everything sounds wrong to a fanatic that isn't 100% exactly what that fanatic wants. No lie is too outrageous, no liberty of language is beyond the pale, no inconvenient fact too spinable.

Pink Ball wrote:pro-independence.


But you're not independent. Ireland ceded from the British Empire via American aid and goodwill and then quickly became subservient to The European Union.

So what is it that you're really on about here? Let's see:

Pink Ball wrote:campaigning for a separation between the protestant church and state.


Oh. Religion. Indeed. It's not really anything about Britons and British and who you're subservient to from one day to the next nor which pieces of geographical landmasses form neat chunks on maps. It's religion isn't it. You're a religious fanatic. Oh joy. And how ironic. Beings as how, you know, it's literally impossible for a Catholic state to be "Independent" from outside control.

But yes, it makes you sound like you're the brave freedom fighter when you use the word 'Independence' a lot doesn't it. Really works a treat on the easily enrabbled huh. "Don't be independent!, be Independent!". Hilarious word mangling of the highest order.


Okay, so I'm not only a fanatic but a 'religious fanatic'. Astonishing.

Do I deny Ireland is part of the British Isles? Eh, no. That's a geographical fact. You may be surprised to learn, however, that being part of the British Isles does not automatically make everyone in those isles citizens of the United Kingdom.

LDS wrote:What you mean to say is "The people of Ireland no longer wished to be governed by the Parliament at Westminster and no longer wished to have the English Monarch as their head of state"


Correct, no issues there.

LDS wrote:But since you're a fanatic, you need to use the maximum inflammatory language possible and try to make the topic as divisive as you can. "Fellow Britons, don't you just HATE those British SCUM! Join me in riding our country of these British so that we can be ruled by US Britons!".


I don't even know where to begin with this. I believe the vast majority of British people are decent people. I believe some are scum. I believe the same of Ireland. And every other country. I participate in a largely British snooker forum and consider a number of those British people to be my friends.

LDS wrote:Ironically enough, you're shouting at someone who is themselves someone who would prefer Ireland to be a single island state, but, of course, someone who is also not fanatical and, as we all know, everything sounds wrong to a fanatic that isn't 100% exactly what that fanatic wants.


I couldn't care less what you want for Ireland. I would also prefer Ireland to be a single-island state, if that could be done in a way that is no more violent than today's status quo. Otherwise, no. That's just my view, nobody HAS to go along with that.

But that's not what I'm having a go at you for. My issue with you is that you've essentially tried to claim that Ireland was perfectly happy under British rule until our own crowd put guns to our heads in 1918. And that we might just be another Scotland, even today, had it not been for 1918. When there's a mountain of evidence to suggest Ireland wanted independence from Britain for at least 50 years before we got that independence. Bizarrely, you seem to have assumed the Irish Parliamentary Party was not a party seeking independence from Britain, in order to back up your ludicrous claim.

As for campaigning for a separation between Church and State, that's simply just a fact, and if you can't accept that religion may have held greater political significance in the 19th Century than it does now, I can't help you there. I'd prefer if religion and politics didn't cross paths at all, but I can't change how people felt 150 years ago. You can't either.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Pink Ball wrote:
LDS wrote:But that's not what I'm having a go at you for. My issue with you is that you've essentially tried to claim that Ireland was perfectly happy under British rule until our own crowd put guns to our heads in 1918. And that we might just be another Scotland, even today, had it not been for 1918. When there's a mountain of evidence to suggest Ireland wanted independence from Britain for at least 50 years before we got that independence. Bizarrely, you seem to have assumed the Irish Parliamentary Party was not a party seeking independence from Britain, in order to back up your ludicrous claim.


Well it seems you have an issue with me about something that wasn't an issue, as I never said all of Ireland was perfectly happy with British rule.

There's also a mountain of evidence that Scotland has wanted 'independence' for over 50 years. However, unfortunately for you and for the SNP, using the word 'Ireland' or 'Scotland' implies an exclusivity of opinion, which is patently false. Luckily, the Scottish parliament hasn't started issuing it's ground workers with guns at this point in time.

An independence party does not automatically align with another independence party, as can be seen by our discussion, and by the fact that they felt the need to be a separate party. Independence via the wrong direction is not independence and can, if given an ultimatum, induce a pro-independence party to refuse independence until such time as the worse of the two evils is put to bed.

Which brings me to my main issue with you.

What is it precisely that actually bothers you about the current status quo? What is the precise and non-spin-machine reason why you still feel the urge to make the issue of Northern Island such a crucial matter for your mental energies?

If it's not religion, it's not a desire for violence, and you're happy for time to gradually wear away the pointless nationalisms, then why do you take such an interest in stirring the topic? Do you belong to one of the unfortunate families who live in a once highly contested zone, what the violently minded refer to as the 'front line' and have had family members become casualties of old wars?

If so, then that is truly tragic and I fully empathise with the personal traumas that such a situation can put upon people. We are all pawns in someone else's game. Perhaps that's why the original independence parties were wary of bringing in the guns and were happy to wait as long as it took to gain a normal and fully inclusive independence rather than an impatient compromise based on irrevocable division?
Last edited by LDS on 08 Oct 2021, edited 2 times in total.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby HappyCamper

LDS wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:
LDS wrote:So you deny that the Island of Ireland is a Part of the British Isles?

The term British is derived from a geographical term that references the landmasses that comprise the batch of islands off the coast of France.


ireland is part of the archipelago. but the use of the term british isles applied to the whole is quite contentious. as the british part is derived from the name of a particular island within the group.


You are right, everything is potentially contentious, should you wish to be contentious about it.


No. I said one specific thing is contentious.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

HappyCamper wrote:
LDS wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:
LDS wrote:So you deny that the Island of Ireland is a Part of the British Isles?

The term British is derived from a geographical term that references the landmasses that comprise the batch of islands off the coast of France.


ireland is part of the archipelago. but the use of the term british isles applied to the whole is quite contentious. as the british part is derived from the name of a particular island within the group.


You are right, everything is potentially contentious, should you wish to be contentious about it.


No. I said one specific thing is contentious.


You are right, you said that.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Pink Ball

LDS wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
LDS wrote:But that's not what I'm having a go at you for. My issue with you is that you've essentially tried to claim that Ireland was perfectly happy under British rule until our own crowd put guns to our heads in 1918. And that we might just be another Scotland, even today, had it not been for 1918. When there's a mountain of evidence to suggest Ireland wanted independence from Britain for at least 50 years before we got that independence. Bizarrely, you seem to have assumed the Irish Parliamentary Party was not a party seeking independence from Britain, in order to back up your ludicrous claim.


Well it seems you have an issue with me about something that wasn't an issue, as I never said all of Ireland was perfectly happy with British rule.

There's also a mountain of evidence that Scotland has wanted 'independence' for over 50 years. However, unfortunately for you and for the SNP, using the word 'Ireland' or 'Scotland' implies an exclusivity of opinion, which is patently false. Luckily, the Scottish parliament hasn't started issuing it's ground workers with guns at this point in time.

An independence party does not automatically align with another independence party, as can be seen by our discussion, and by the fact that they felt the need to be a separate party. Independence via the wrong direction is not independence and can, if given an ultimatum, induce a pro-independence party to refuse independence until such time as the worse of the two evils is put to bed.

Which brings me to my main issue with you.

What is it precisely that actually bothers you about the current status quo? What is the precise and non-spin-machine reason why you still feel the urge to make the issue of Northern Island such a crucial matter for your mental energies?

If it's not religion, it's not a desire for violence, and you're happy for time to gradually wear away the pointless nationalisms, then why do you take such an interest in stirring the topic? Do you belong to one of the unfortunate families who live in a once highly contested zone, what the violently minded refer to as the 'front line' and have had family members become casualties of old wars?

If so, then that is truly tragic and I fully empathise with the personal traumas that such a situation can put upon people. We are all pawns in someone else's game. Perhaps that's why the original independence parties were wary of bringing in the guns and were happy to wait as long as it took to gain a normal and fully inclusive independence rather than an impatient compromise based on irrevocable division?

Sweet mother of buck.

I am fine with the status quo. Will I ever be happy that the six counties of Northern Ireland are British? No, never. But do I accept that the people of the six counties, by and large, want that? Yes. Do I think the fact that I want the six counties of Northern Ireland to be the same as the 26 of the Republic overrides the importance of maintaining the relative peace we have in Northern Ireland? No. I like that I can feel safe when I travel to Northern Ireland now. I like that the people of Northern Ireland can decide if they are Irish citizens or UK citizens, or both. I like all of that a hell of a lot more than violence.

You make a genuinely great point about Scotland. The SNP has enjoyed massive, massive support in Scotland for a long time. But if Scotland voted on independence in the morning, would they go for it? I'd guess they wouldn't, though it'd probably be quite close.

But that's where the comparison ends. If the Republic of Ireland voted in the morning on returning to the United Kingdom, it'd be the biggest landslide vote this country has ever seen. That's 103 years on from 1918 and with no gun to our head. So forgive me if I have misgivings about any suggestion that we might still be okay with being part of the United Kingdom today had it not been for 1918. Nothing's impossible, I guess, but I have... doubts.