The Final Nail: Why Brawl Can't Be Blamed for Melee's Problems

[Pink Reaper]

Like, in what month?

April.

Spoiler

10chars

 

[Skler]

This is a long post directed at Jack, so get ready!

Let me first say that when I pointed out how terrible your analogies were you said that analogies weren't supposed to be 1:1. I could have torn you a new one but didn't, because I'm not a ********. Now, thinking about that, let's see how ****ing dumb you are.

Skler, how old are you?

19, thanks for asking!

do you have any idea how stupid your comment is about drunk driving?!

My comment about drunk driving (I won't include the Brawl part) is as follows "... as much as alcohol is to blame for drunk driving, if the booze wasn't there it wouldn't happen."

Let's zoom in a bit "if the booze wasn't there it wouldn't happen."

I'm pretty sure alcohol has to be involved for somebody to drive drunk, don't you? I didn't say DUI (which involves drugs other than alcohol) did I? I'm so stupid for thinking that if there was no alcohol drunk driving would be impossible.

You must have no understanding at all of the concept of 'negligence'. It isn't the fault of alcohol (an inanimate object) if someone abuses it. I drink all the time (I'm Greek, it's a cultural thing), and I've never done so irresponsibly, nor have I ever driven under the influence or anything else that stupid.

When did I say it was entirely alcohol's (Brawl's) fault? When did I even suggest that? Let me quote myself.

"Brawl is to blame for lowering Melee tournament attendance as much as alcohol is to blame for drunk driving, if the booze wasn't there it wouldn't happen."

Hmmm...doesn't look like I said it there, let me look a little closer.

"People aren't saying Brawl is literally stealing players from Melee"

Wait, it appears I just said that it wasn't Brawl's (alcohol's) fault! I actually say it right there. Did you just sort of miss that? I don't think I ever say "Brawl is directly causing all of Melee's problems, the existence of the game Brawl is destroying Melee". I do say Brawl is a factor in the decline of Melee tournament attendance, but that's true (if the game wasn't released there would be no tournaments for it and thereby no conflicts with Melee tournaments)

But maybe it was a different part of my post, let me get another part.

"Yes, technically the people are to blame, but Brawl is also a part of the problem. If Brawl tournaments weren't held Melee tournament attendance would increase."

Oh ****, it appears I do place the blame on the people but still say Brawl is a factor. God ****it Jack Kieser, you sure did skewer me with your wit!

You cannot logically blame something for anything if it is not a direct causation. That is basic logic at work. Take a college mathematical logic course. Until you understand the laws of cause/effect, don't post in here with your uninformed blather.

I never did place the blame entirely on Brawl, but to say Brawl isn't to blame at all is ****ing stupid. People who weren't going to quit Melee (at least not for a while) left it for Brawl, that alone makes Brawl part of the problem. This isn't a ****ing law class, this is a gaming forum. Brawl directly affected Melee tournament attendance by lowering it. That is a problem that Brawl can be blamed for.

If you didn't launch such a personal attack I probably wouldn't care, but you're an idiot. I said alcohol makes it possible for people to drive drunk, and Brawl tournaments existing on the same days as Melee tournaments makes it possible for people to go to them instead of Melee. I never said alcohol alone causes drunk driving, just that it makes such a thing possible.

Unless you can prove to me drunk driving is possible without alcohol you're wrong. All the fancy words you use can't cover up the stupidity you just started spouting.

I suggest you take a basic reading course, most elementary schools offer them.

I know I'm repeating myself several times, but apparently some people just don't understand the first time through.

 

[Winston]

Hey, Jack, if you really want to get technical about it, you first have to realize that ideas of causation and the concept of blame especially are really ill-defined at best and completely arbitrary bs at worst.

I don't think this is the right place to tread into those waters. If you have a watertight, coherent, and accurate criteria for "direct causation", I'd love to hear it, but if you can't present one then you shouldn't bring that up at all.

Also, a class in mathematical logic would have little to no relevance to this because mathematical logic merely deals with the systematically formulating the interactions of propositions. Math has nothing to say about the assumptions needed to make logical arguments that concern things in the real world.

Also, I'm not excessively fond of you or your posting style, but I have to admit usually you're quite well-mannered. The personal attacks on Skler (whom I don't know at all but find pretty likeable based on posts alone) seemed pretty uncharacteristic.

EDIT: After rereading your last post addressed to Skler:

It isn't the fault of alcohol (an inanimate object) if someone abuses it.

If you believe that alcohol cannot be blamed for anything because it's an inanimate object, then you pretty much wasted your time typing out an elaborate argument. As far as I know Brawl is just as much an inanimate object as alcohol is.

I mean if you're of the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" camp, then that's really the issue to be settled before any Brawl/Melee specifics start to matter.

 

[Jack Kieser]

@Gustav: I understand that my post my have been uncharacteristically... heated towards Skler, but when someone presents an argument as irresponsible as assigning blame or responsibility towards something that cannot act, I lose all respect for someone. As far as I'm concerned (and this is just personal philosophy, of course), personal responsibility is of the utmost importance, which is why this whole debate makes me cringe: people are much more willing to say 'Brawl is taking our players' than to take personal responsibility and say 'well, it was my choice to play Brawl in the first place.'

I suppose I am of the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" camp, but then again, no court in the world would accept the argument of 'I didn't kill the guy, the bullet from the gun did', so it's not like my logic is without base or precedent. Brawl (and it's draw as the 'new thing', or the larger amount of money to be won at tournaments, or any other motivation to play) is equivocal to the bullet from the gun; sure, that's what ultimately killed the guy, but the shooter has to take personal responsibility for firing it, and the Melee players who left to play Brawl have to take personal responsibility for making the decision to leave Melee in such an irresponsible way. Like it was said above, why not (for the first month, or first year, or whatever arbitrary time limit) always hold Brawl tournaments alongside Melee tournaments? Keep Melee as the focus until it can be established if we should be using Brawl as a competitive standard.

Either way, the arguments I posted weren't entirely unnecessary because they dealt with blame towards Brawl (the game) as well as Brawlers (players who play Brawl, but never even played Melee). We may know that the game (in and of itself) is blameless, but what about the people who played it and the culture/community around them?

@Skler: I'm not even going to respond to you. Your entire post is basically retconning meaning into a statement that had all the meaning it needed. Your post spoke for itself ('if Brawl never existed, none of this would be an issue' implies a belief that Brawl shouldn't exist, just like 'if the alcohol was never there...' implies a belief that alcohol shouldn't have existed in the first place), and its painfully obvious that you're trying to retroactively justify using what is a broken line of logic. I wouldn't touch that with a 50' pole, so I won't.

 

[Skler]

@Gustav: I understand that my post my have been uncharacteristically... heated towards Skler, but when someone presents an argument as irresponsible as assigning blame or responsibility towards something that cannot act, I lose all respect for someone.

I pretty much had no respect for you after the terrible analogies and then basically saying "that didn't count". You're putting words in my mouth now, those being the ones I'm underlining.

I never did say Brawl (the game itself) is killing Melee (the game itself), just that its tournaments take players from Melee tournaments. Why do you dodge the point I made? Do I need to add the word "tournaments" every time I type Brawl or Melee just so somebody with a thick skull can understand what I'm saying? I really shouldn't, because it's implied almost all the time.

 

[Jack Kieser]

A ) I never said anything along the lines of 'that didn't count.' I said that you misinterpreted the reason I postulated the analogies in the first place. Basically, quotes or it didn't happen.

B ) 'Brawl is to blame for lowering Melee tournament attendance as much as alcohol is to blame for drunk driving, if the booze wasn't there it wouldn't happen.' That's what you said, implying that if Brawl didn't exist, Melee wouldn't suffer. I'm not putting anything in your mouth, because you implied blame upon Brawl right there. Brawl's mere existence is not enough to condemn competitive Melee. It may have some effect, but not on its own; people have to act upon that influence in order for it's existence to have any effect.

C ) Brawl tournaments don't take anything. Again, people go of their own free will. They don't have to care about the easier competition or the better money. They choose to care, though.

Oh, and I totally forgot to respond to something Gustav said. Mathematical logic is totally relevant. 'If Brawl exists, Melee suffers' is the 'If P, then Q' statement. I think I've proven pretty well that it isn't that simple, and that in order for (assuming Brawl's existence is 'P') 'P' to lead to 'Q', there must be a supplemental 'N', as in 'If (P+N), then Q' ('N' being personal choice). Brawl can't do anything just by existing; people have to care first, and it's always a personal choice to care.

 

[Skler]

A ) I never said anything along the lines of 'that didn't count.' I said that you misinterpreted the reason I postulated the analogies in the first place. Basically, quotes or it didn't happen.

I'm not going to dig up the quote because I just hopped back on really quick before lunch, but you said something along the lines of "analogies don't need to be 1:1". It was basically backing away from what you had just said.

B ) 'Brawl is to blame for lowering Melee tournament attendance as much as alcohol is to blame for drunk driving, if the booze wasn't there it wouldn't happen.' That's what you said, implying that if Brawl didn't exist, Melee wouldn't suffer. I'm not putting anything in your mouth, because you implied blame upon Brawl right there. Brawl's mere existence is not enough to condemn competitive Melee. It may have some effect, but not on its own; people have to act upon that influence in order for it's existence to have any effect.

The brawl tournaments do take from Melee tournament attendance, I know people who switched to brawl for whatever reason. They wouldn't have switched if Brawl wasn't there (although they will probably switch back when the cash well runs dry). I don't have a beef with the game Brawl except that I don't enjoy playing it nearly as much as Melee, I have a problem with it's tournaments drawing away people who were once Melee players.

If Brawl didn't exist Melee wouldn't suffer, that's true. You can't really argue that because it's a fact.

C ) Brawl tournaments don't take anything. Again, people go of their own free will. They don't have to care about the easier competition or the better money. They choose to care, though.

People do go of their own free will, I said the people are the ones who are really to blame, but they would be going to Melee in the absence of Brawl tournaments (which means that while the people who switched did so of their own free will, Brawl enables them to switch). Brawl isn't going to Melee tournaments, grabbing players and throwing them into vans to take them to brawl tournaments, but the amount of money behind it and the insane hype it had are drawing several players into it who would be playing Melee instead.

You could say all the blame lies with the TOs, but I know some stores force people to hold Brawl instead of Melee tournaments (mass madness did this at least once). I'd rather Brawl not have come along then have the community get all shot to hell.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Skler, I never implied that 'analogies don't need to be 1:1'... I said that the particular analogies that I made were never intended to be 1:1 to Melee/Brawl. There were intended to be 1:1 to showing how, with enough BS, blame can be attributed to anything along a line of causation. Doesn't mean that the blame is justified or correct, though. Now who's putting words in who's mouth?

And if you have a problem with Brawl tournaments drawing former Melee players, take it up with the Melee players. Brawl, if Sakurai is to be trusted, isn't even aimed at them. If they choose to go to a Brawl tournament, that sounds like a personal problem to me.

If Brawl didn't exist, we wouldn't have this problem. But if the universe didn't exist, we wouldn't have this problem either, so (working off your reasoning) I'd rather have the universe never exist at all then have this problem. As a good friend of my is apt to say, 'Shenanigans! '

 

[illboyzeus]

wow, why even bother talking to this kid, he can't accept someone proving him wrong. Just stop replying to him seriously

 

[MarKO X]

Hmmm... who has proven who wrong?

 

[illboyzeus]

Jack Kleiser

Skler said brawl is partly to blame because if it didn't exist this wouldn't be a problem, instead of stating he was wrong(which he was) he went into left field and said this problem wouldn't exist without the universe.

 

[MarKO X]

Yeah, but Brawl does exist. If people decided, "Brawl sucks, I'm not gonna play it," then would Brawl be to blame for Melee's decline?

His point is that Brawl is the instrument, people choose to use it.
Just like the gun is the instrument, peope choose to shoot it.
Or alcohol is the instrument, people choose to abuse it.
Obviously if the instruments didn't exist, then people wouldn't be able to use it, but that's not to say that because the instruments do exist that people HAVE to use them... there's always a choice.

 

[-Linko-]

When did Azen say that?

Did you try clicking the blue arrow?

No, Smooth and reaper are wrong, that wasn't Scar's thread. It was here: http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=4319424#post4319424

 

[illboyzeus]

why are we discussing ****ing philosophy on a videogame board? It's simple. No brawl no decline in melee. Brawl equal decline in melee. that simply, the deserting players are to blame, as well as what they are deserting to.

 

[Grunt]

M2K's fault
/thread

 

[Jack Kieser]

MarKO, I <3 you. Thank you for having reading comprehension/critical thinking skills. ^_^

BTW, illboyzeus, my statement may have been based on hyperbole... but is is incorrect? Would the Melee/Brawl debate exist without a universe? Seriously, I want an answer, because as hyperbolic as my statement is, it was still only an extension of Skler's own logical thread.

EDIT: How about this, illboyzeus... if you don't want to debate philosophy, don't post in a thread based in philosophical debate. ...and 21 year old people aren't usually referred to as 'kids'.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

>___>

I find myself unable to retort because (to an extent) you are right. However, when you get down to brass tacks Skler's simplistic statement of "withouts" also holds water.

"If Brawl was not here, do you think that the community would still be playing Melee?"

Smooth Criminal

 

[Jack Kieser]

Oh, I never said that his viewpoint didn't hold water, or at least I never meant to imply that. It's just not as accurate as my view of personal responsibility. After all, I admitted in the OP that Brawl had an effect on people, but not the kind/extent of effect to warrant receiving the majority of the blame for Melee's situation.

Simply put, Skler's logic assures that if anything in the community changes, even a little bit, players are never obligated to assume any personal responsibility for their actions, or at least not the majority of responsibility they deserve. 'Oh, a new game came out. That's why Melee is suffering. Not because we chose to play another game. We didn't want to, but the new game made us play it. We like money, after all. It's only natural. It's not our fault. It made us do it.' It's ridiculous, to be frank.

 

[illboyzeus]

oh my bad didn't know you where 21...I gotta watch my words now...yeah

Your statement isn't just hyperbole, it might be the largest case of it I've ever seen. Skler's argument is if the game didn't exist, there would be know problems, so it is partly to blame. Which is true. Instead of accepting this fact, you go into left field about how we wouldn't have this problem with no universe. we would have NO problems with no universe. There would be nothing, repeat nothing. Therefore that is an impossible statement. It would have made more sense if you said no gamecubes or nintendo, but no you go to the extreme.

I think your problem is you cannot except someone else's view even when it is backed with logic and facts. If someone makes a good point I respect that, I don't attempt to bash with incredible exaggerations.

but I'm quite sure the almighty jack kleiser will refute with incredible logic and reasoning...

 

[MarKO X]

Absolutely, if Brawl wasn't here, people would play Melee. But the issue here is that is the game known as Super Smash Bros. Brawl and the people who go to play Super Smash Bros. Brawl to blame for the decline of Melee?

Or...

Is the gun to blame for gun violence?
Is the alcohol to blame for alcohol abuse?
Is the bomb to blame for a bombing?
Is the knife to blame for a fatal stab?

 

[Jack Kieser]

The problem is that it isn't a good point. Not really. It totally skirts, again, the problem of personal responsibility and puts the major blame for Melee's situation on an inanimate object/people who had nothing to do with Melee in the first place. Sure, he says that he thinks that blame is equal between former Melee players and Brawl/Brawlers, but even that isn't true. By Skler's logic, anything that has drawing power could be blamed for Melee's decline, be it a new Smash game or a new Street Fighter game (or even life itself).

Again, my example may be to an extreme, but it is A ) just an extension of Skler's own logic and B ) true. It certainly isn't an impossible statement, that's for sure, and you saying such just proves how little you understand causality. If there is nothing, there is nothing. That means nothing can cause anything else, which means that Melee/Brawl would never have existed, which means we wouldn't have this problem (because not only would the games not exist, but we wouldn't either!). If we don't exist, we can't have a problem, can we? So, again, my logic is sound (in the sense of theoretics), but totally useless in the real world, just like Skler's logic may be sound in theory, but helps us and our situation IN NO WAY. Brawl can't not exist (it's already been created, and it won't be going anywhere), so saying that the problem would be solved had Brawl not existed helps us solve the problem in no type, form, or fashion.

My logic of personal responsibility, however... not only is it logically sound, philosophically sound, and realistically sound, but it ALSO helps us fix the problem at hand (Melee's decline) by offering a solution (have former Melee players who are complaining take personal responsibility)! There is really no other way to look at it. Well, not logically, anyway; there are plenty of ways to look at it if you're willing to use broken logic, like Skler.

 

[illboyzeus]

they are both to blame, god, if it really that hard to wrap your head around the concept that you put two things together and you obtain an outcome. what that outcome is depends on the person

 

[illboyzeus]

stuff.

wow I bet you feel like a genius

serious I'm done with this thread, since it's obvious jack kleiser is without a doubt the most incorruptible, benevolent paragon of reason. You cannot be wrong and it has been proven. We should all follow this man's path.

In all seriousness, I'm bout to go to a melee tourny with 80+people. Melee isn't dead, and you are not right all the time.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Yes, two things together. Again, 'If (P+N), then Q'. But, in our situation, the statement 'If (P+N), then Q' passes, but the statement 'If P, then Q' fails (assuming P=Brawl existing, N=people caring about Brawl, and Q=people leaving Melee to play Brawl). People have to care about Brawl in order for Brawl to 'make' them leave Melee, and caring about something has always been a personal decision. Brawl can't effect Melee on its own without people caring about it.

EDIT:

A ) It's Jack Kieser. People misspell that a lot and I'm never sure why.
B ) I never implied I was infallible. I only said that, this time, I was right. If it can be proven I'm wrong (it hasn't so far) beyond reasonable doubt, then I'll gladly eat my words, among other things. I noticed no one has taken up my offer so far, btw. The longer it goes on, the more of my arguments have to be compiled.
C ) I never said Melee was dead, either. And have fun at your Melee tournament. I'll enjoy running my Brawl tournament tomorrow, too. Oh, and I'm not right all the time. I've been on the wrong end of a lot of debates on SWF. Yuna and MookieRah can attest to that.
D ) I am nowhere near genius level. I'm also a lot more modest than to call myself one, even if I was. Thanks, though.

 

[plasmawisp6633]

I read the entire post Kieser, and I'll agree that you've got some creditability behind your arguement, but I got a couple complaints.

Brawl is a driving force behind Melee's downfall because of 2 main reasons: Brawl is a simpler version of smash, and it's newer.

Like you said, there were a boatload of n00bs who came into the SWF community after brawl came out who had zero experience. Being that Nintendo is marketing to a progressively younger audience, younger kids are more likely to buy Brawl and join the forum thinking it's gonna be all punches and kicks. Little do they realize that smash is not just punches and kicks, it's competitive! On the other hand, you have us, the competitive smash crowd who learned about the advanced level of melee years ago. Once brawl came out, we stumbled onto a game that lacked the speedy interface of Melee, and kinda babied the game a little. Buzz kill. The sad part is that people who experience Brawl before they experience Melee prefer Brawl because it is easy, and they don't wanna put in the extra effort to learn competitive Melee. People are lazy.

The other sad fact is that Brawl is newer. Classics are classics, but new crap can cause neglect for classics. People will always attract toward the new stuff, regardless of how much better things used to be. It's hard to keep a mass of people attached to the classic, because the mass wants something new. This also goes along with your statement; more people play Brawl because there are more people to play with. It's hard in this day and age not to follow the crowd. It's almost like a pseudo-peer pressure to play Brawl instead, just because everyone else does.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'm sorry, but the Street Fighter community would have a lot to say about your assertion that a newer game will always win out over a classic.

I realize that Brawl, being the 'new hotness' (in the words of Will Smith), will attract new players to it instead of Melee. That is a given. Why, though, would a seasoned Smasher stay with Brawl if he thinks it's so inferior? You say peer pressure. So have a lot of people, and each time I assert that peer pressure is a terrible justification of one's actions. I know that peer pressure exists and happens, but peer pressure has never protected someone from the consequences of their actions, nor should it. People of stronger will don't sway to peer pressure.

Money isn't a decent justification, either. Like I noted in an earlier post, unless Smash is your main breadwinner (as in you don't have a job, other than playing games), you can't use money as an excuse. Pros have a justifiable reason for following the cash: if they don't, they can't pay rent/eat. The average Smasher, though, can miss tourneys or go to lower paying ones and still make rent/eat. Even so, if you're playing competitive gaming as a living, you're better off playing Halo competitively. Basically, there are better paying games than Smash, so if it was really an issue, you'd either get an actual job or play a better paying game.

Besides all of this, we can't place blame on people who never played Melee to begin with. They never played Melee, so they came here for Brawl. We say they're 'lazy' for not playing Melee... but why should they? Why should we expect these people to play Melee? Because we think its better? Why should they care what we think? As far as they are concerned, they came for Brawl and Brawl is what they got. They're satisfied, and their coming to the community to play Brawl didn't effect Melee directly at all. These people are innocent, yet we constantly blame them for something they not only have no control over, but something they weren't even involved in (competitive Melee)! How bass ackwards is that?

To reiterate, it isn't accurate to say that Brawl was a driving force. It was a force, yes, but not the only one, nor the most important one. It (and its players) shouldn't be treated as if it was.

 

[Skler]

A lot of the Melee players gone Brawl I know go because of money, placing higher (mostly this one), it being new (some consider it a break from Melee, like chillin) or simply enjoying it more. Smash is one of the better paying fighting games out there, especially because Brawl is such a cash cow right now. A lot of the early local tournaments had pots as big as $800 (which is a LOT for a local), that number is going down but it's still a good amount of cash per week.

Really, very few people go to Brawl tournaments because they think it's a better game for competition.

 

[Corigames]

You can't be proven wrong on something that can't be proven wrong, a mock trial based off a fantasy situation with shaky law and biased BS to support it.

That's like telling us we have to break a pinata with a feather and that's all. good luck.

 

[MarKO X]

As long as the feather has mass, then theorically, it's possible. You gotta get the feather to move a certain velocity. Now, getting the feather to move at that velocity is the problem.

 

[cjrocker]

As long as the feather has mass, then theorically, it's possible. You gotta get the feather to move a certain velocity. Now, getting the feather to move at that velocity is the problem.

BS. You will never, ever, ever break a pinata with a feather. Never.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Wait... why are we talking about feathers and pinatas?

 

[EvolveOrDie]

BS. You will never, ever, ever break a pinata with a feather. Never.

I'm sorry I lol'd. It really did make me laugh but maybe someday physics will be in every home right next to gravity and common sense.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I am so lost. Has the current argument shifted to if it's possible to break a pinata with a feather? It would take a monumental amount of velocity to get the feather up to a fast enough speed to have that kind of force, but theoretically, depending on the mass of the feather and the make of the pinata, I don't see why it isn't physically possible. I can see that I'd would be incredibly improbable and immensely difficult, but it isn't mathematically impossible to the extent of my knowledge. Then again, I haven't done the math.

Back on topic now?

 

[kr3wman]

If I forged a sword to look like a feather, and break the pinata, would I win something?

 

[#HBC | Mac]

does a penguin feather count?


oh wait...

 

[Winston]

All I'm saying is that the crux of your argument is actually that blame always lies within the actions of people, and not inanimate objects. It has nothing to do with brawl or melee, which game is better, or the behavior of melee or brawl players.

And this requires you laying out what you consider blame and what you consider criteria for direct causation.

Also, it's physically impossible for the feather to break the pinata because of

1). air resistance that creates a maximum possible velocity for the feather to travel, which is gonna be far less than needed,

and

2). the fact that the feather isn't a rigid object and that's what's going to give, not the surface of the pinata.

 

[The_Dark_Zero]

You guys are dolts. Arguing over a video game...I was trying to stop it, failed, and now I come back to see it even worse, you people are immature idiots who don't even DESERVE TO PLAY EITHER GAMES. Stop arguing and be more mature.

 

[momochuu]

You guys are dolts. Arguing over a video game...I was trying to stop it, failed, and now I come back to see it even worse, you people are immature idiots who don't even DESERVE TO PLAY EITHER GAMES. Stop arguing and be more mature.

...You're gonna need this.

*Hands Flame Shield and runs*

 

[The_Dark_Zero]

*takes flame shield and thanks* I can take all the flames you people throw at me.

 

[Falconv1.0]

i Am So Lost. Has The Current Argument Shifted To If It's Possible To Break A Pinata With A Feather? It Would Take A monumental Amount Of Velocity To Get The Feather Up To A Fast Enough Speed To Have That Kind Of Force, But Theoretically, Depending On The Mass Of The Feather And The Make Of The Pinata, I Don't See Why It Isn't Physically Possible. I Can See That I'd Would Be incredibly Improbable And Immensely Difficult, But It Isn't Mathematically Impossible To The Extent Of My Knowledge. Then Again, I Haven't Done The Math.

Back On Topic Now?

I smell a new Mythbuser's episode.