A Possible Questionable New theory Hairbaba still Bo?

[Chekhov MacGuffin]

~tHe CaLLoUt~

even though I hate saying it I believe the situation calls for it.

I'll admit I was thinking of that exchange we had in the warehouse case thread when I posted it.

[sstimson]

Sstimson, when you quote random Wikipedia articles or TV tropes instead of providing evidence or refuting each of the contradictions, it seems to me like you are trying to avoid doing it because you can't. The best way to win, so to speak, is to tackle my request head on and provide the evidence and disprove all the contradictions. Here is what you should do.

Just to Prove Fallacies are not just from Wikipedia articles:

The below are not from Wikipedia, but are still listed below:

From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

• Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

  1. Person A makes claim X. ( DRUG does not kill )
  2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X. (does not prove point very good if at all )
  3. Therefore X is false.  ( So DRUG does KILL )

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

• Description of Appeal to Belief

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

  1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true. ( the DRUG kills )
  2. Therefore X is true. ( the drug KILLS )

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

There are, however, some cases when the fact that many people accept a claim as true is an indication that it is true. For example, while you are visiting Maine, you are told by several people that they believe that people older than 16 need to buy a fishing license in order to fish. Barring reasons to doubt these people, their statements give you reason to believe that anyone over 16 will need to buy a fishing license.

There are also cases in which what people believe actually determines the truth of a claim. For example, the truth of claims about manners and proper behavior might simply depend on what people believe to be good manners and proper behavior. Another example is the case of community standards, which are often taken to be the standards that most people accept. In some cases, what violates certain community standards is taken to be obscene. In such cases, for the claim "x is obscene" to be true is for most people in that community to believe that x is obscene. In such cases it is still prudent to question the justification of the individual beliefs.

• Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

  1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. ( I asked a question and get no answer )
  2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. ( You are basically said that since I can not prove that Hairaba is a current member of the BO that My theory is False )

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).


Three examples of your Fallacies. Other Links about Logical Fallacies ( And Yes I will just give the Google Link )

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=list+of+logical+fallacies&aq=3c&aqi=g3g-c4g3&aql=&oq=logical+Fallacies&gs_rfai=C2RVxjnsRTL2HJJv4ygSA3f3YBgAAAKoEBU_QGDYy

Now before we do as you asked, you need to Prove that there are Contradictions and the BO can only work the way you say.
After all why try to prove a negative?

[Kor]

After all why try to prove a negative?

It's your "possible questional theory" isn't it? so you're the one who needs to prove your theory, not the other way around.
1) you suggest the theory
2) Chekhov challenges it with her knowledge (with or without evidance)
3) you try to prove it
isn't that how it's supposed to work?

[sstimson]

After all why try to prove a negative?

It's your "possible questional theory" isn't it? so you're the one who needs to prove your theory, not the other way around.
1) you suggest the theory
2) Chekhov challenges it with her knowledge (with or without evidance)
3) you try to prove it
isn't that how it's supposed to work?

And I will try.

But this time I am not going to get caught in a Logical Fallacies Trap.

Chekhov ask me to "Go through to that post of contradictions and go through all of them and explain how to resolve all them. Just list them one through eight and reply to each."

But if there are no contradictions, then I can not do that can I. So I ask for proof of contradictions to know I will not be wasting my time.

Again No Contradictions mean I am trying to prove a negitave. That would be From: http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical Fallacies.htm#tu-quoque

argumentum ad ignorantiam ("arguing from ignorance") -- A fallacy that occurs when someone argues that because we don't know something is true, it must be false, or because we lack proof that a statement is false, it must be true. Ignorance or lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean a position or claim is true or false. Common Examples: "No one has ever proven that UFOs exist. Therefore, they don't exist." (Something can exist despite the absence of confirmation. Lack of proof is justification for caution or even scepticism, but not dogmatic assertions.) "There is simply no proof that God exists. Therefore, God doesn't exist." (God might exist even though there is no way empirically to prove it.)  

He says there is a contradiction. I say we do not know that for a fact. I am asking her to prove A so I can do B if A is not proven how can I prove B. AS I must use A to prove B.

[Chekhov MacGuffin]

So I guess this means you backed down...

... and before you say I haven't proved that the contradictions existed: I already did and here too.

[sstimson]

So I guess this means you backed down...

... and before you say I haven't proved that the contradictions existed: I already did.

ok lets start with this

Before I begin let's make several reasonable assumptions which are all supported by canon material:
1) The boss is not an idiot. He is very cautious as Vermouth stated. Therefore he would not be reckless and make decisions where the risks outweigh the benefits. The boss would also not do things that have no meaning or purpose. AGREE

3) The organization does not want to destroy itself. (Vermouth excluded) Questionable

2) The organization’s MO is one that tries to maintain the Org’s secrecy: leave as little evidence behind as possible (or get rid of all witnesses), use methods which minimize the chance of failure, and don't allow situations that would publicly reveal them.

DO NOT Agree

Several examples we has discussed where that does not happen

1) the train case. Success leaves LOTS OF clues
2) Pisco was not made to look like Pisco killed himslf. It looks like murder and the Police might get so clues about the BO by investigating it
3) killing a person in the park in front witness ( Again looking at what would have happened it success )
4) Vodka on the cruise. What might have happened if they were farther from shore. Think this way. After talking to the killer they should know someone is watching him VERY closely and is on the boat!
5)shooting Jodie. Again leaving evidence behind

you used #2 seven times and as I have just shown that assumptions may not be true
#3 in the BO using Elephant Guns when they could use water guns to do the same raising question about #3 as well

If you wish I will take what is left and answer that

[Abs.]

Spoiler:

2) Who gave the order to "shoot" Pisco?. Was it the Boss? Gin said he got the order in person.

Ok Abs need a translation again. Vol 242 page 14 Bottom Right.

5.1.  悪ã

[sstimson]

GREAT JOB AND THANKS 8)

[Chekhov MacGuffin]

From Abs. above

5.1. 悪いな・・・　これはついさっき受けた・・・
Hate to break it to you but... This is an order I just received...
5.2. あの方直々の命令だ・・・
From That Person (him/her)self.

*The word in question is 直々which was mistakenly taken to be "in person" by the previous translating team. It translates as "personal, direct" which in some cases, depending on context, can mean "in person." However, in this sort of detective fiction, translating it as "in person" when it could also just mean "directly (through the phone or by other means of direct, as opposed to passed on, communication)" is too great a difference to be taken lightly. Give the previous translating team a bit of slack, however, because it was (one of?) the first mention(s) of Anokata/That Person in the manga.

1) the train case. Success leaves LOTS OF clues

No it doesn't. If it was successful, there would be no witnesses to the transaction who could testify about who had a briefcase with a bomb. The best investigators could do is find signs of which type of explosives were used and where they were detonated which might tell them the train car, but could not tell them the target of the briefcase bomber.

2) Pisco was not made to look like Pisco killed himslf. It looks like murder and the Police might get so clues about the BO by investigating it

Gin didn't have time to make Pisco's death look like a suicide. It was simply a bad situation that couldn't be salvaged and the best way to deal with it was to get rid of Pisco so he couldn't be captured by police or run for it. The room was on fire, firemen were most likely en route to put out the blaze, Gin was shot in the arm and bleeding, police were already in the building, Sherry was escaping, and for all Gin knew some unknown helper could have told the cops there was a shooting on the roof. Gin had no choice but to move quickly, which he did. Pisco was screwed anyway as his picture was in the newspaper where he was caught shooting the chandelier. At least the fire would help destroy some of the evidence Gin couldn't get to in time: like the computer and the body.

3) killing a person in the park in front witness ( Again looking at what would have happened it success )

At best the police would have figured out the make of the rifle, the ballistic markings, and where the shooting was from, however there are no clues about the identity of the snipers because Chianti and Korn are probably not in a police database and they most likely had a quick escape route planned to avoid capture. Chianti and Korn can get new rifles if they needed to or modify their guns to produce different ballistic markings the next time around. (I'm pretty sure you can do that with rifles. I know you can with handguns). The crime will be even more complete if they recover their cartridges.

4) Vodka on the cruise. What might have happened if they were farther from shore. Think this way. After talking to the killer they should know someone is watching him VERY closely and is on the boat!

Vermouth didn't tell anyone, including the boss, what her plans were on the boat. Vodka had no idea someone was going to be killed, so he wouldn't know to prepare to look innocent in advance. Do note I listed Vermouth as an exception to the Org does not wish to destroy itself listing.

5)shooting Jodie. Again leaving evidence behind

Vermouth was acting on her own again. Besides, if Vermouth's plan was successful, Jodie would be dead and Vermouth and Calvados would be long gone after having all the time in the world to mess with the crime scene how they liked.

But keep going with the other things. Thanks Abs for the trans.

[sstimson]

>The Org knows Shinichi shrunk and is letting Shinichi wander around freely AGREE
  >>Contradiction1a! Org Mo failure and boss is an idiot. There are no benefits to allowing Shinichi to wander around freely. Currently Shinichi is free to and is ruining the Org’s plans, teaming up with FBI, gathering damaging intelligence, etc. Why not kidnap Shinichi? It would prevent intelligence leaks and keep Shinichi from trying to destroy the org.

I have touched this already but Here we go again. This is based On what the DRUG might be really for.
1) assumptions about the DRUG
A: It is part of a Plan to live forever
B:In order to do A you can not allow hurt or illness

Meaning the drug was meant to keep the subject safe and alive. If the DRUG fails that, then the subject is no longer needed as the DRUG failed to do what it was made for.

  >>Contradiction2a! Kidnapping Conan would provide better data because they could keep him in controlled conditions.

I believed I answered thing but again It was a random event that caused the DRUG to reverse. The Bo trying to do the above needs to know if it can still 'subject safe and alive'. Controlled conditions did not cause the DRUG to reverse. RANDOM ones did.

> The Org knows Shinichi shrunk, but is not letting Shinichi wander around freely FALSE and so not need to answer
  >>Contradiction1b! Major Org MO failure. If the Org was really keeping Shinichi in check like they are supposed to, they would have let Shinichi... 1) talk to the org to the police, 2) meet or work with the FBI, 3) go on cases where he might get himself killed, 4) learn about unrelated Org plans or other members, 5) try to stop said org plans.
  >>Contradiction2b! Major Org MO failure and boss is an idiot. What purpose does placing Conan under “house arrestâ€

[sstimson]

Question: If the real purpose is immortality, Does that mean "can not be killed"? If you were immortal, to you what would that mean?

[Chekhov MacGuffin]

>>Contradiction1a! Org Mo failure and boss is an idiot. There are no benefits to allowing Shinichi to wander around freely. Currently Shinichi is free to and is ruining the Org's plans, teaming up with FBI, gathering damaging intelligence, etc. Why not kidnap Shinichi? It would prevent intelligence leaks and keep Shinichi from trying to destroy the org.

Meaning the drug was meant to keep the subject safe and alive. If the DRUG fails that, then the subject is no longer needed as the DRUG failed to do what it was made for.

Why not set up dangerous conditions in a lab then? It would provide the same thing without the danger of Shinichi damaging the org, but see below...

>>Contradiction2a! Kidnapping Conan would provide better data because they could keep him in controlled conditions.

I believed I answered thing but again It was a random event that caused the DRUG to reverse. The Bo trying to do the above needs to know if it can still 'subject safe and alive'. Controlled conditions did not cause the DRUG to reverse. RANDOM ones did.

So if I'm reading this right, you are saying that the drug wouldn't work anymore if the Org brought his into lab conditions/a deserted island somewhere to study him. This would resolve the contradiction and the one above it. Of course I think this idea is nuts, but each to his own.

>>Contradiction3a! The Boss is an idiot! If Shinichi is a valuable test subject and the Org knows where Shinichi is and what he is doing, why is the boss allowing Shinchi to be targeted by his own subordinates? Shinichi was seconds from being blown up by a bomb on a train, shot by Pisco, and sniped by Chianti.

See the above the drug is suppose to 'keep the subject safe and alive'. All we know for sure is he was not killed. That could be because of a remote device but as the case blew up, we will never know.

This and the above exp in 1A clears this contradiction. Of course I still think they idea is ludicrous.

With the above explanation there is one more contradiction to clear up along with the five remaining you haven't answered yet.
>>Even if they can't keep him in a lab, why isn't the org taking any steps to stop Shinichi from messing with their plans and leaking information to the police, the FBI, etc.?

Also you still haven't presented evidence showing support of the theory yet.

Sorry but yes it does. Kind of bomb, what it was made of, Who might make that kind of bomb. If any special components, where these might have been bought and who bought them., I not talking about the target but the bomber. Though the target might also be know by who was closes to the explosion. Then a find out her moments, find out about her call log. and even more info about the Bombers.

You are forgetting high powered bombs (if you are taking out a train it has to be high powered!) tend to obliterate beyond all recognition the things that are nearby, especially data or delicate electronics. There would not be any components to analyze or cellphones to examine because they would be in itty bitty melted pieces. Maybe the woman's jaw and teeth would survive intact enough to allow a dental record search, but her face and probably her fingerprints would not. Also remember this case was written in 1994/1995, about 15 years ago, with that level of forensics in mind.

sniped at by Chianti ( Who also missed ). Could it be they were told to miss?

Chianti shot at Akai when she missed. She and Korn never shot at Conan, aimed at, but never fired. Chianti's miss was a seven hundred yard shot made while standing up which is an unsteady way of shooting. While I am no marksman and know relatively little about this topic, I'm pretty sure that her shot was even in the right ballpark was impressive.

[sstimson]

>>Contradiction1a! Org Mo failure and boss is an idiot. There are no benefits to allowing Shinichi to wander around freely. Currently Shinichi is free to and is ruining the Org’s plans, teaming up with FBI, gathering damaging intelligence, etc. Why not kidnap Shinichi? It would prevent intelligence leaks and keep Shinichi from trying to destroy the org.

Meaning the drug was meant to keep the subject safe and alive. If the DRUG fails that, then the subject is no longer needed as the DRUG failed to do what it was made for.

Why not set up dangerous conditions in a lab then? It would provide the same thing without the danger of Shinichi damaging the org, but see below...

>>Contradiction2a! Kidnapping Conan would provide better data because they could keep him in controlled conditions.

I believed I answered thing but again It was a random event that caused the DRUG to reverse. The Bo trying to do the above needs to know if it can still 'subject safe and alive'. Controlled conditions did not cause the DRUG to reverse. RANDOM ones did.

So if I'm reading this right, you are saying that the drug wouldn't work anymore if the Org brought his into lab conditions/a deserted island somewhere to study him. This would resolve the contradiction and the one above it. Of course I think this idea is nuts, but each to his own.

>>Contradiction3a! The Boss is an idiot! If Shinichi is a valuable test subject and the Org knows where Shinichi is and what he is doing, why is the boss allowing Shinchi to be targeted by his own subordinates? Shinichi was seconds from being blown up by a bomb on a train, shot by Pisco, and sniped by Chianti.

See the above the drug is suppose to 'keep the subject safe and alive'. All we know for sure is he was not killed. That could be because of a remote device but as the case blew up, we will never know.

This and the above exp in 1A clears this contradiction. Of course I still think they idea is ludicrous.

Simple question: Why did the org not know about the possible DRUG reversal? Could that have been done in controlled conditions? ( reverse the DRUG effects )

Putting it another way: Controlled events can not test random events. To test random events, random events must happen. I am not saying the DRUG does not work in a controlled setting. I am saying as it was a random event not thought of that resulted in a DRUG reversal, It makes sense to continue the experiment in the wild where random events can happen.

We know it was a million to one shot for the drug to reverse. The BO by locking and controlling the conditions can not account for Random events. I am saying a random event caused Hairaba to appear on the scene. And if you look closely you will see that she 'controlled' Conan as far as a few BO events happened. She stopped Conan telling Ran and Stopped Conan from actively going after the BOSS address. She is a FOIL. As for the plans That He might have foiled, It is possible the BOSS wins either way .

With the above explanation there is one more contradiction to clear up along with the five remaining you haven't answered yet.
>>Even if they can;t keep him in a lab, why isn't the org taking any steps to stop Shinichi from messing with their plans and leaking information to the police, the FBI, etc.?

Also you still haven't presented evidence showing support of the theory yet.

Proof of the theory requires believing that when Hairaba said the DRUG kills, she lied. Yes I know how this might make the story 'bad'
Because if that is true then the Org knows shinichi is Alive but looks younger. I believe that if the drug had not reversed, then shinichi would not have required hands-on watching. But the drug did reverse and so a Head Researcher enters the picture.

Another question for you. Why Hairaba, why not someone else to be the FOIL?

Again there is still of what REAL harm has happened to BO with Shinichi knowing?  We know the BO was known to both the FBI and CIA BEFORE shinichi entered the picture. I still say that the FBI got Akia into the Org as an FBI spy. And It a good bet that Kir was an CIA agent.
I find it interesting that the 'death of Pisco' is not a drawing of Gin pulling the trigger but the setting of out side a building and hearing a shot.
There is no evidence either way as to whether Gin killed Pisco, or just shot a hole in the wall. We only have the evidence of what the bug picked up.

Sorry but yes it does. Kind of bomb, what it was made of, Who might make that kind of bomb. If any special components, where these might have been bought and who bought them., I not talking about the target but the bomber. Though the target might also be know by who was closes to the explosion. Then a find out her moments, find out about her call log. and even more info about the Bombers.
You are forgetting high powered bombs (if you are taking out a train it has to be high powered!) tend to obliterate beyond all recognition the things that are nearby, especially data or delicate electronics. There would not be any components to analyze or cellphones to examine because they would be in itty bitty melted pieces. Maybe the woman's jaw and teeth would survive intact enough to allow a dental record search, but her face and probably her fingerprints would not. Also remember this case was written in 1994/1995, about 15 years ago, with that level of forensics in mind.

But with current forensics, what would you say? The Blast looked to me like it would at most destroy 2 train cars, and it it was set off in side a train car might just destroy that car. Is there any reason to believe that future forensics might not reopen this case and use the current forensics to learn more about. Funny thing about bombs.One would think they would completely destroy all parts of the 'fuse' but the forensics scientists can almost put all that back together.

sniped at by Chianti ( Who also missed ). Could it be they were told to miss? Chianti shot at Akai when she missed. She and Korn never shot at Conan, aimed at, but never fired. Chianti's miss was a seven hundred yard shot made while standing up which is an unsteady way of shooting. While I am no marksman and know relatively little about this topic, I'm pretty sure that her shot was even in the right ballpark was impressive.

[Chekhov MacGuffin]

Proof of the theory requires believing that when Hairaba said the DRUG kills, she lied.

This doesn't count as evidence. You need to find evidence Haibara lied.

Another question for you. Why Hairaba, why not someone else to be the FOIL?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Again there is still of what REAL harm has happened to BO with Shinichi knowing?

Already answered this.

I find it interesting that the 'death of Pisco' is not a drawing of Gin pulling the trigger but the setting of out side a building and hearing a shot. There is no evidence either way as to whether Gin killed Pisco, or just shot a hole in the wall. We only have the evidence of what the bug picked up.

The evidence the bug picked up is evidence, not definitive, but certainly suggestive. Gin didn't know there was a bug in the room so unless he likes acting for no reason at all this doesn't make sense. I vaguely remember someone commenting about how Pisco's family disappeared, but maybe that was in the anime only as I couldn't find a reference in the manga.  

But with current forensics, what would you say?

That doesn't matter. Gosho is not psychic. He can't predict what forensics will be able to do in 15 years so the point about reanalyzing the case is moot.

Question: If the real purpose is immortality, Does that mean "can not be killed"? If you were immortal, to you what would that mean?

Often you can classify immortality into two general different types:
#1 Absolute immortality - Living forever and not dying from most extreme traumatic physical injuries like beheading, burning, extreme multilation etc., perhaps with the exception of one or two unique methods.
#2 Biological immortality - living forever as long as the individual is healthy, but can be killed by serious physical injury or disease like a normal human. Modern writers often tack on a healing factor so the individual is highly resistant to disease and will recover from non-fatal injuries faster than a normal person would.

A third possibility worth mentioning in light of the B.O.'s goals is lifespan extension and rejuvenation (i.e. putting off the effects of aging rather than lengthening someone's life per say).

[sstimson]

Proof of the theory requires believing that when Hairaba said the DRUG kills, she lied.

This doesn't count as evidence. You need to find evidence Haibara lied.

You sure you want this? There are a lot of examples of Hairaba lying. It is a case of she did and has lied. So if she lied about being a 80 old grandmother then why believe her when she says the Drug kills. She plays her own game and with her it can be at times hard to know when she is telling the truth and when she is lying.

Another question for you. Why Hairaba, why not someone else to be the FOIL? I have no idea what you are talking about.

I am asking why did Hairaba become the FOIL ( a way to control conan and stop him from certain BO events. In most cases she has tryed to stop him from getting involved. )

Again there is still of what REAL harm has happened to BO with Shinichi knowing? Already answered this.

I need to find your answer.

I find it interesting that the 'death of Pisco' is not a drawing of Gin pulling the trigger but the setting of out side a building and hearing a shot. There is no evidence either way as to whether Gin killed Pisco, or just shot a hole in the wall. We only have the evidence of what the bug picked up. The evidence the bu picked up is evidence, not definitive, but certainly suggestive. Gin didn't know there was a bug in the room so unless he likes acting for no reason at all this doesn't make sense. I vaguely remember someone commenting about how Pisco's family disappeared, but maybe that was in the anime only as I couldn't find a reference in the manga. 

Again you are going to disagree. If Hairaba is BO, she cold have told Pisco ( by writing it down ) and he coud have told Gin. The point being it was possible for Gin to be play acting.

But with current forensics, what would you say? That doesn't matter. Gosho is not psychic. He can't predict what forensics will be able to do in 15 years so the point about reanalyzing the case is moot.

Remember we are asking what would have happened if type of question. It did not happen as Gosho wrote it. Again What would have happened if the Train explosion had happened? It becomes a question of what kind of evidence does the BO leave behind in that case. As Gosho did not blow up the train, Your statement is moot. This is what evidence would have been left behind and not just for current investigators but future ones as well. One of your earlier points being BO not leaving evidence behind and not enough to possible sink the BO. I see this as a case where success (a destroyed train car/s ) might leave enough evidences behind to sink the BO and so it becomes more likely this was really a test case and the bomb would have only gone off only if and when the BO wanted it to.

Question: If the real purpose is immortality, Does that mean "can not be killed"? If you were immortal, to you what would that mean?
Often you can classify immortality into two general different types:
#1 Absolute immortality - Living forever and not dying from most extreme traumatic physical injuries like beheading, burning, extreme multilation etc., perhaps with the exception of one or two unique methods.
#2 Biological immortality - living forever as long as the individual is healthy, but can be killed by serious physical injury or disease like a normal human. Modern writers often tack on a healing factor so the individual is highly resistant to disease and will recover from non-fatal injuries faster than a normal person would.

A third possibility worth mentioning in light of the B.O.'s goals is lifespan extension and rejuvenation (i.e. putting off the effects of aging rather than lengthening someone's life per say).

And I feel the BO aims at least in the long run is type 1