That's the risk with uncertainty

indeed

if the people are vulnerable with uncertainty then that is an important lesson.

As is there is no tension where there is a significant course structure and guidelines!!!!

NOR is STRIATED SPACE

https://youtu.be/YeFzeNAHEhU

Blimey. Deleuze and Guattari pedagogues of the rhizomatic approach?

So what was the pedagogical experimentation beyond Community is Curriculum? (no answer - I have some ideas...)

NOT a METAPHOR

Go ahead unpack...

What theoretical conceptual metaphorical pedagogical framework would that be?

Why is it tragic?

It's not a metaphor. It's not a metaphor. It's not a metaphor.

That was not the objective. In no place did it suggest that to be the objective. People are quite happy to discuss D&G

“I believe strongly that philosophy has nothing to do with specialists.” ― Gilles Deleuze

Doesn't stop the writers of the article appropriating it as a metaphor

“I believe strongly that philosophy has nothing to do with specialists.” ― Gilles Deleuze

This was a great success for many

So for D.Cormier - this is rhizomatic?

“It is not the slumber of reason that engenders monsters, but vigilant and insomniac rationality.” ― Gilles Deleuze, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

So the teacher's role is to create the space of learners to recognise/experience uncertainty/complexity

Can teaching be about creating smooth spaces?

This is Key.

Yes

The prescribed content was the short videos

That is not true.

There were clear objectives for the course. Community as curriculum. Investigation into the nature of learning/knowledge. etc

That's one reason no doubt they don't say it's a metaphor

Yes therein lies one contradiction

There might be some truth in that.

There is an element of truth in that

magic

Maybe we need to dig up Deleuze and Guattari to understand Irises

NOT A METAPHOR

Researchers lacked engagement with concept.

Will there be negative consequences?**

NOT A METAPHOR.

NO THAT WAS GUATTARI.

Lines of flight exist everywhere...especially in traditional ways of thinking

heterogeneity is in contradiction with community

They have used different ways of thinking to explore.

Not a metaphor

Teaching is a rhizome. Teaching is a rhizome. Teaching is a rhizome.

Is that enough?

you don't need a metaphor not to see.

NOT A METAPHOR

BOX what box?

Sod engaging with D&G

So it's NOT A METAPHOR.

Er not.

Indeed it could have been framed as different personal objectives.

However the question comes here of the role of the carnival....

Carnival can be scary.

There were implicit/explicit objectives.

There were objectives to experiment with a pedagogical approach which calls upon a planned ambiguity. (questioning fixed/traditional ideas about learning/knowledge/education)

But this is associated with the Community is the Curriculum.

With the ambiguity/indecision around the objectives (pedagogical approach to investigate nature of learning/knowledge/connection with power and communities)

This led inevitably to conflict as some participants had a fixed idea about what it was going to be about.

This is perhaps where the ethical issues raised lie.

If you are going to do a carnival people need to be prepared for it.

On one side you have carnival and the other you have people who perceive a real threat to identity.

Carnival can be scary.

They didn't understand the carvival.

This assumes that there is a theory of "rhizomatic learning". (I mean is there such a theory?) D~G are about many things...

DG could also be accused of dissimulation and elitism in their writing. - which part of it does one engage with?

All of it?

Mixed Messages.

We have mixed messages - was it about a pedagogical approach or about the nature of knowlege/learning? (a bit of both)

That is a massive assumption. The title suggested this to the authors of the article but not necessarily to others.

(and they were discussed)

So the Curriculum was predefined but perhaps hidden and not made explicit.

So this is talking about cMOOCs

So it was designed as a connectivist cMOOC. What was rhizomatic about it? Are (n't) all cMOOCs rhizomatic? If not why? What is the RhizoUSP?

My key finding on that finding was: Pfff

No it wasn't - or at least it wasn't that much.

So if people have an engagement with theory (how much?) will this mean there will be not negative consequences?

So if people appreciate the incompleteness and complexities of the "rhizome metaphor" (not a metaphor for Deleuze) will there no negative consequences?

And if researchers have a lack of engagement with the theory/appreciation of the incompleteness/complexities of the rhizome metaphor will this result in negative consequences?

And if the course convenor has a lack of engagement with theory and lack of appreciation of the incompleteness and complexities of the rhizome metaphor can that result in negative consequences?

"Une théorie est une question développée, et rien d’autre : par elle-même, en elle-même, elle consiste non pas à résoudre un problème, mais à développer jusqu’au bout les implications nécessaires d’une question formulée." Deleuze

YUP

Aren't all pedagogies are "experimental".

That is highly debatable.

That is highly debatable.

One respondent who described herself as never fully arriving or leaving the course wrote of connecting

more to the metaphor as a learner than a teacher:

It probably relates more to my experience as a learner than as a teacher. I think we can

intentionally create learning experiences for others that resemble this metaphor, but the

more we attempt to design, the more we are contradicting ourselves. YUP EXACTLY

Rhizo14 participants were surveyed about their understanding of the relationship between the rhizome and teaching and learning.

They believed that viewing the rhizome as a metaphor (in the sense of a linguistic

expression) would imbue in the rhizome an unwelcome power and lead to over-representation and reification.

EXACTLY. but that is exactly what is done here - an attempt to reify.

Once the concept is defined/reified you are missing the point. You are no longer concerned with mapping but with tracing.

We suggest that this is more likely to be successful if we

remember that Deleuze and Guattari (1980/2013) did not oppose the root and the tree and that they were

opposed to chaos, as we explored in an earlier section.

... even though I believe in rhizomes as a metaphor for learning, it’s harder to connect it

back to an intentionality around teaching and/or designing instruction ...

We recognise that the rhizome can successfully challenge traditional authoritarian, hierarchical

approaches to teaching and learning, freeing learners to follow their own learning paths and determine

their own learning objectives.

The rhizome challenges nothing.

we can say that using the rhizome as a metaphor for teaching, learning, and course design

requires knowledge and understanding of the theoretical principles outlined by Deleuze and Guattari

(rhizome as a concept)

Well you can say it but that is all - that is an assertion.

But that is not what D.Cormier's rhizomatic learning is about.

of Deleuze and

Guattari’s (1980/2013) principles of the rhizome

I'm not sure they would agree

The rhizome metaphor does not call for the tree to be opposed to the root. Each is a necessary condition

for the other (Drummond, 2005). There is need for both arboreal and rhizomatic thinking.

YES. INDEED.

Deleuze and Guattari’s (1980/2013) rhizome is a way of understanding the philosophy of becoming

which takes learners into uncertain, unstable, and disruptive spaces

Hmmm....

We also believe that if the rhizome is going to be used as a stimulus for

change, then superficial treatment and understanding of the concept is potentially damaging for learners’ becoming.

There may well be ethical questions here.

we do not believe that any research method can

be intrinsically rhizomatic.

indeed!

BUT that depends on what you mean by research.

The concept of the rhizome has been applied successfully by learners and teachers within education (St.

2004), but Deleuze and Guattari (1980/2013) did not place in opposition the root (rhizomatic

thinking) and the tree (arboreal thinking), nor lines of flight and territorialisation, nor smooth and striated

space. To do so would be to create a dogmatic image of thought (Drummond, 2005).

But that is what happened....?

Lack of recognition of the necessary condition of the tree was perhaps the most significant element of the

paradox of the rhizome evident in the Rhizo14 MOOC.

"necessary condition of tree" that rather depends what that means....

But Deleuze and Guattari were opposed to chaos

So?

They are dead.

Tensions can also arise in relation to the rhizome principle of heterogeneity. The heterogeneity of people

and ideas in a community that was also a course, such as Rhizo14, could result in uneven distribution of

power with some individuals leveraging this power differential

I think we do need to notice that a new sort of resilience needs to be nurtured.

YES certainly.

The course embraced this disruption, uncertainty, and chaos as a necessary component of learning in

an age of abundance and massive open online learning environments (Cormier, 2013), but in so doing did

it increase the vulnerability of some participants as learners as suggested by Gale

BUT THAT was THE OBJECTIVE...

Therein lies the question of ethics.

The smooth space of Rhizo14

WHAT SMOOTH SPACE?

But as Deleuze and Guattari have pointed out, smooth space is not

always trouble free. Movement in smooth space is unpredictable and uncertain with no end in sight.

Perhaps the difficulties that many have with reading and writing about Deleuze and Guattari’s work is the

cause of the tragic paradox of the rhizome noted by Gregoriou (2004, p. 240):

Well the difficulties are is that is difficult to read. That is nothing to do with any tragic paradox....or is it?

metaphors (not metaphor) are often unconscious and embodied in experience.

I still don’t know what rhizomatic learning is. I’ve enjoyed (am enjoying) #rhizo14 because

of the people I have met (am meeting), but I think that it will need a lot more fleshing out

before I can decide whether it is useful. I doubt if any one metaphor will ever be sufficient

for learning, though.

Metaphors are always incomplete,

PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE NOT METAPHORS.

unpacking this

THIS? GOOD LUCK! ![] (http://www.bumblenut.com/drawing/images/plateaus/1000platoscover.gif)

Our data has shown that there was little

agreement on what the rhizome means for teaching and learning.

This interview

was designed to elicit information about participants’ understanding of the rhizome metaphor and to follow up on their survey responses with individual questions.

“The conceptual rhizome does not map on to a

botanical definition.”

NOPE so don't use it as the metaphor!!!

Like St. Pierre and Douglas-Jones and Sariola, we are also acutely aware of the arboreal constraints under which we are working and the pressure to produce a linear text which is ordered and coherent

But nobody is forcing you to do that.

despite the course bearing the title

Rhizomatic Learning: The Community is the Curriculum,

THE COMMUNITY IS THE CURRICULUM ***

I would thought that was pretty clear

However therein lies the problem - the community is a reification.

despite the course bearing the title

Rhizomatic Learning: The Community is the Curriculum, there was limited willingness to discuss the

complexity of the conceptual metaphor and how Deleuze, Guattari, and others had used the concept in

different contexts.

IT'S NOT A METAPHOR

And that is not true. - What does limited mean?

Participants were

encouraged to start wherever they wished, to make multiple connections between each other and with a

diversity of participant generated and shared resources, to create their own personal learning maps and

content, to engage in multiple different modes of activity, in multiple spaces, and to manage their own

learning. A culture of play and fun emerged; many artefacts incorporating poetry, music, personal

writings, photography, and art works were produced. A-signifying rupture and lines of flight, if not lines

of fantasy, and nomadic behaviours were in evidence.

That's already pretty good!!**

The tragic paradox of the rhizome metaphor

IT's NOT MEANT TO BE A METAPHOR

Ultimately for most respondents the value of the Rhizo14 experience lay in “the spirit of exploration,

openness, experimentation, of trying new things” (interview respondent), rather than any engagement

with Deleuze and Guattari's principles of the rhizome.

Some respondents were explicitly opposed to reading and discussing Deleuze and Guattari’s work. “I was

so hacked off by academic posturing around D&G on Rhizo14 I've set my face against them.”

YUP

Deleuze and Guattari (1980/2013) were emphatic in their animosity towards metaphor as

resemblance, as we discussed earlier. One respondent stated that the rhizome is not a model or a theory;

others explained it in terms of a lens, a stimulus, or a story. None of the respondents referred to it as a

concept, which is how Deleuze and Guattari explained it, but then few respondents were familiar with

Deleuze and Guattari’s work, and this was not generally seen as problematic:

BUT THE RESEARCHERS ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT EITHER.

One respondent noted the contradiction of discussing rhizomatic teaching in a course where there was no

curriculum:

THERE WAS A CURRICULUM - IT WAS THE COMMUNITY

Rhizomatic teaching was thought by some to challenge the status quo and power of the teacher, and like

Bayne (2004) some thought that the teacher’s job in rhizomatic teaching is to smooth striated spaces.

But that is impossible;

respondents seemed unclear about whether a rhizome suggests a network or a community and

whether and how it relates to connectivism:

YUP

for explaining how knowledge is

created through social learning on the Internet, “The best social learning leads to the co-creation of

knowledge” (interview respondent), particularly across distributed platforms

learning can be complex, chaotic, unpredictable, exploratory, creative and playful.

Just like CLMOOC/CCOURSES/MOOCMOOC etc

who physically dug up an iris to support them in their auto-ethnographic process of

learning to understand Deleuze and Guattari.

Perhaps we should dig up Deleuze and Guattari to better understand Irises?

The rhizome was thought by interview respondents to be useful for exploring new ways of thinking about

education, but incomplete.

Yup.

The rhizome and the nomad are inseparable in the sense that the rhizome is the path that the nomad follows.

lines of flight enable us to think otherwise and resist codes and

powers (Deleuze, 1988, cited in Avalos & Winslade, 2010).

A line of flight escapes territorialisation and, through deterritorialisation (a sudden swerve or

rupture creating new lines of segmentarity) metamorphoses into something new.

A line of flight escapes territorialisation and, through deterritorialisation (a sudden swerve or

rupture creating new lines of segmentarity) metamorphoses into something new.

Lines of flight are a means of

evading dominator systems of thought, a means of breaking down existing connections and power

relations (Winslade, 2009)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcmElrsCtnk

This was NOT flying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIQn8pab8Vc

Deleuze and Guattari (1980/2013) worked with schizophrenic patients

NO that was Guattari.!!!

Since the mid-50s Félix Guattari became a fixture at La Borde, revolutionizing its practice and organization and producing alongside Oury a large body of theoretical work on the practice and theory of schizoanalysis,

Amongst the most significant of these concepts for teaching and learning that challenge traditional ways of thinking, are lines of flight and the nomad.

"Lines of flight" exist in any classroom.

Encouraging lines of flight - is that really possible?

Cartography/Decalcomania

NOPE there is a a contradiction here.

There is an attempt to predict outcomes : a) The creation of instability/uncertainty b) The creation of community.

Multiplicity/A-Signifying Rupture.

Design is a-centred. - up to a point but not really.

It allows for break away groups - yes.

Relevance to teaching.

Encourage ceaseless connection - what's the difference with cMOOC?

Encourage diversity in people - what's the difference with a MOOC?

The system has no beginning, or end, can be entered at any point. - Teaching? well on the internet documents can be entered at any point.

In the case of a course - can it be entered at any point? - Probably not.

CREATION OF COMMUNITY is in contradiction with heterogeneity.

Decalcomania "The tracing has translated the map into an image, it has already transformed the rhizome into roots and raddicles."

A-signifying Rupture "a rhizome may be broken but it will start up again on one of its old lines, or on new lines."

"Heterogeneity - there is no ideal speaker-listener - there is no homogenous linguistic community."

This appears to be the criticism of the course?

"Cartography - a map that is always modifiable and has modifiable and has multiple entryways and exits and its own lines of flight."

Hypothes.is enables this article to become rhizomatic perhaps?

"Multiplicity there is no unity to serve as a pivot in the object or to divide in the subject." this article is clearly not rhizomatic.**

"A rhizome ceaselessly establishes connections between semiotic chains" - this article is clearly not rhizomatic.

The concept of the rhizome has also been used by Deleuze and Guattari (1980/2013) to explore ways of thinking that challenge hierarchies and deprivilege centres of authority. Not sure about that. Are they really exploring ways of thinking or using different ways of thinking to explore (and challenge)?**

In botanical terms a rhizome is a subterranean stem of a plant, a creeping root stalk, which spreads

laterally in multiple directions and surfaces to produce a clone of the original plant in an unexpected

location. Some rhizomes, such as ground elder, are considered weeds which gardeners find very difficult

to control. Other rhizomes, such as lilies of the valley, with their beautiful scented flowers, are more

welcome. The botanical rhizome has both positive and negative interpretations, and these may vary by

location; in the old saying a weed is a plant in the wrong place.

Are we talking about Deleuze/Guattari or botany?

we will now outline some of Deleuze and Guattari’s (1980/2013) principles of rhizomatic thinking

attempt to trace?

Having established that metaphors need to be treated with care and that for the purposes of this paper

when we discuss metaphor we are referring to conceptual rather than literary metaphor,

DELEUZE/GUATTARI say it is NOT a metaphor.

If we think teaching is a rhizome certain actions ensue.

Who is thinking of teaching as a rhizome? Good luck

writes of metaphors, “in creating ways of seeing they tend to create ways

of not seeing” (p. 348). Metaphors shape the way we see and the way we act, they enact a particular view

and can be “self-fulfilling prophecies” (Lakoff & Johnson, 2008, p. 132). Any cross-contextual mapping

highlights a set of features whilst backgrounding others. This is the case in all metaphors, including the

rhizome.

What is the metaphor which shapes this action?

Likewise, for the purposes of this paper we will not worry unduly about whether the rhizome is

metamorphosis or literary metaphor. We will consider the rhizome as a conceptual (about thinking and

reasoning) metaphor and explore the extent to which it works. ANOTHER (MIS)APPROPRIATION?**

Where is the engagement with the concept here?

If metaphors such as the rhizome can be used to change learners’ conceptual frameworks and encourage people to think outside the box,

It's not the bloody metaphor which will make you think outside the box.

"Lack of engagement with theory and lack of appreciation of the incompleteness and complexities of the rhizome metaphor can result in negative consequences, such as imbalances in power relations and increased vulnerability for some learners."

So if people have an engagement with theory (how much?) will this mean there will be not negative consequences?

So if people appreciate the incompleteness and complexities of the "rhizome metaphor" (not a metaphor for Deleuze) will there no negative consequences?

And if researchers have a lack of engagement with the theory/appreciation of the incompleteness/complexities of the rhizome metaphor will this result in negative consequences?

And if the course convenor has a lack of engagement with theory and lack of appreciation of the incompleteness and complexities of the rhizome metaphor can that result in negative consequences?

"Une théorie est une question développée, et rien d’autre : par elle-même, en elle-même, elle consiste non pas à résoudre un problème, mais à développer jusqu’au bout les implications nécessaires d’une question formulée." Deleuze

Elizabeth St. Pierre (2004) thinks it is possible to over-think what Deleuze might mean and suggests that

we:

give up worrying about what Deleuze might have intended and use him in [our] own work

‘to free life from where it’s trapped, to trace lines of

into a different way of being in the world. (p. 284)

EXACTLY

BUT that is the problem of their bloody book. We become tracers of its mapping.

Metamorphosis is the contrary to metaphor. ... It is no longer a question of a resemblance

... Instead, it is now a question of a becoming ...

Ah voilà - becoming...

the rhizome is a

concept that challenges authoritarian and hierarchical ways of thinking.

Up to a point...

Their language does not challenge elitism among French academics...

In our context for this paper, an example of this

mapping might be that from the rhizome to teaching and learning. Good luck to mapping the rhizome to teaching!!

Metaphors in teaching and learning

D. Cormier now calls it a 'story'. (and at other times a metaphor).

"What could have been framed as simply two different kinds of personal objectives (to learn more about the theory and to ignore the theory) became instead a site of contention. The situation was resolved by all three parties leaving the course, and the discussion of theory being seen as problematic from that point on."

Indeed it could have bee framed as simply two dfferent kinds of objectives.

The discussion of theory was seen as problematic by some particpants - it was not "seen as problematic from that point on" as a generalisation.

*suggested that engagement with theory might

be necessary to understand rhizomatic learning.*

But that assumes that there is a theory of "rhizomatic learning". (I mean is there such a theory?) D~G are about many things...

DG could also be accused of dissimulation and elitism in their writing. - which part of it does one engage with? All of it?

The lack of objectives led to a planned ambiguity

There were implicit objectives.

One of these objectives was to introduce a planned ambiguity.

There were objectives to experiment with a pedagogical approach which had been called "rhizomatic learning" which is related to the concept of the Community being the Curriculum.

As there were mixed messages - there was conflict.

This is perhaps where the ethical issues lie.

One can indeed question a approach which is not explicit in explaining its carnivalesque objective to get people to question all the basis of knowlege and learning. People don't give up their ways of learning and their attachment to what they consider knowledge or their status so easy.

*Week 1 – Cheating as Learning (January 14–21)

• Week 2 – Enforcing Independence (January 21–28)

• Week 3 – Embracing Uncertainty (January 28 – February 4)

• Week 4 – Is Books Making Us Stupid? (February 4–11)

• Week 5 – Community As Curriculum (February 11–18)

• Week 6 – Planned Obsolescence (February 18–?)* Mixed Messages.**

So therein lies the problem we have mixed messages in the course titles - was it about a pedagogical approach or about the nature of knowlege/learning?

The answer of course was it was a mixture of both.

The title of the course suggests that Deleuze and Guattari’s (1980/2013) concepts and the principles of the rhizome would be discussed,

That is a massive assumption. The title suggested this to the authors of the article but not to others.

*The intention of the MOOC was to challenge the traditional notion of a course where the content is

planned in advance. The course was therefore an experiment designed to explore “What happens when

we approach a learning experience and we don’t know what we are going to learn? Where each student

can learn something a little bit different – together?” (Cormier, 2014a).*

So is this the key difference?

In the case of other cMOOCS the course curriculum is defined and published before - but not the content and discussions?

*Working across distributed platforms challenges assumptions about the nature of the curriculum, how

knowledge is created, the role of the teacher, and the learning support that learners can expect (Cormier,

2008). Challenges to traditional ways of thinking about teaching and learning lie at the heart of

rhizomatic learning and ultimately these challenges were the curriculum for the Rhizo14 MOOC.*

So aren't these challenges of assumptions exactly the same as for rhizo14?

*Another key characteristic of cMOOCs is that the learning takes place across distributed social media

sites rather than within an institutional platform (Bayne & Ross, 2014; Haggard, 2013). This necessitates

distributed open communication between self-motivated learners and results in “a self-organising network

with many sub-components” (Bates, 2015, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2.2).*

So this is exactly the same as rhizo14?

*was designed as a connectivist MOOC (known as a cMOOC). cMOOCs can

take a variety of pedagogical approaches. Approaches to their design are still evolving (Bates, 2015) but all are based on four key principles: autonomy, diversity, interactivity, and openness (Downes, 2014).*

So it was designed as a connectivist cMOOC. What was rhizomatic about it? Are (n't) all cMOOCs rhizomatic?

cMOOCs emphasise and promote connectivity, content creation by participants, open sharing and peer-to-peer teaching and support, with no set curriculum, assessment, or formal teacher-student relationships (Bates, 2015).

So what on earth makes this cMOOC more rhizomatic that other ones?

we continue our research with an exploration into the learners’ experiences of using the rhizome as a conceptual framework for teaching and learning in a MOOC.

hmm

Our key finding was that experimental pedagogies such as those based on the rhizome could lead to both light and dark experiences.

My key finding on reading that was: Pfff

People have good and bad experiences of life.

The design and delivery of this MOOC was informed by Deleuze and Guattari’s (1980/2013) concept of the rhizome.

No it wasn't - or at least it wasn't that much.

Our findings reveal that many participants could relate to and welcomed "the anti-authoritarian, anti- hierarchical characteristics of the rhizome"

Anti-authoritarian characterics - hmm. Are these characteristics of the rhizome or the cmooc?

but that knowledge and understanding of Deleuze and Guattari’s conceptual principles of the rhizome was more difficult. Yup

raised concerns about the ethics of using experimental pedagogies in designing MOOCs.

Aren't all pedagogies are "experimental".

Ethics - of research? Ethics - of 'non-experimental pedagogies'.

If I have never seen a computer and never written a blog post - that's a start point...

This is another aspect of the content

So this and the other activities are the curriculum.

Can't you measure literacies?

So adult self-motivated learners?

so this is socio-constructive/active/connected learning.

Is the USP of rhizomatic learning The Community as Curriculum?

collaborative learning - creation of learning community culture.

rhizomatic learning = networking building up a vision fo existing community.

so this is where it is essential to have conversation with content creators..

So rhizomatic learning = collaborative learning?

So in a sense these are literacies which are being developed - and therefore they are the implicit curriculum.

and this language is common to...?

So this IS the curriculum. - Learning to work collaboratively in a digital environment.

So this is overtly taught.

But you are...

Overt teaching

which community?

OK so this is overt teaching

So this is not the learners deciding on the curriculum

Hmmm...

I could give them a list of words to memorise and they are responsible for learning it.

but if they don't get it - they aren't really necessarily deciding on the curriculum...

but that may be an illusion.

indeed

not if you are many to be outside the conversation

there is a curriculum. It is fixed by the use of tools.

how do you know if you have a gap?

Really?

But all with access to internet...

print or power?

good question

Note sure that this was necessarily the case...

"democratizing power' - not sure about that

Don't you do that?

define teacher. - how has this concept changed?

define efficient.

So learners are those related to the elite (what of the others?)

GOD/CHURCH/POWER

Isn't this still true? (dependent on what group you want to belong to?)

Is a lecture reading?

knowing and learning to an elite

in this case - which case?

Has this changed?

Are we sure?