2810 replies to this topic

[Rainmaster]

wapi, on 04 July 2009 - 07:59 PM, said:

Ignorance does not save you from prosecution. He is too old to be ignorant. Yes but every freedom has its limits. This time he is over that boundary, he insulted and hurt all the victims of Third Reich. If I was German promoter or car manufacturer or German TV or German something I would make a big fuss about it.

Quiet One, on 04 July 2009 - 08:25 PM, said:

Ignorance? Misinformation? Bernie? Nah. He knows pretty well what he is talking about. And no, he has no right to defend the Third Reich. It was a crime. Freedom of speech does not allow you to talk in favor of paedophilia, or torture...or nazism.

So I say throw the old b#####d in jail and let him rot.

EDIT: better yet. Just everybody who was offended by his stupid comments should sue his a## and strip him of his money. I bet that would hurt him even more.

Well I gotta disagree. Clearly he is misinformed or he wouldn't hold such views. I can't condemn him for being ignorant or stupid, if I did that then I would have to condemn a whole lot of people for a whole lot of things. He wasn't defending Hitler or talking in favour of Nazism as far as I can tell, he was trying to make a point about leadership and getting things done, and used a terribly poor example. In the article I think his views on Saddam Hussein are probably more controversial than what he says about Hitler, but that is a less sensitive issue so nobody says anything. Since he is just expressing his views and not intending to incite hatred or anything, he does have a right to say what he wants, and we have a right to call him an idiot...and that is the beauty of a free society.

[Kati]

Hate me, but I agree with Bernie. As he said above, he's not talking about Nazism properly said, but leadership. You have a main figure that makes thing work as he wants, and get things done (as Bernie said). About Saddam, I think he means that maybe we can't understand why he did things that way, but for some reason they had to be done so, otherwise it wouldn't work. I can't judge that, sorry, dunno enough about Saddam and can't properly compare before-after him. But on the first matter I have to agree. You learn that when you study marketing, obviously not with such example, but if things are going down, you need a leader that can get things done his way, no oppinions, no seconds thoughts. And that's what he meant.

As I think I've said before, ok Bernie just wants the money, and is only thinking about his returns, but well, while it DOES make money, it means things are working, and doing great as possible. It's why I do think he is the one figure that does care about it working.

I know people tend to say Bernie is old and doesn't have a clue of what he's doing, but well, I think he's way more sensible when it comes to business (and even if you don't like it, F1 is about business and money, sorry), than Max Mosley who just cares about having the top chair, or even FOTA, who just wanted to prove they had power enough to take him off his seat.

Edited by Kati, 04 July 2009 - 11:31 PM.

[Cinco]

Well, in my mind and I'd think most people's minds, there's a HUGE difference between saying that strong, decisive leadership is needed and making a comparison to Hitler.  Portraying him and Saddam in a positive light...you just don't do that, no matter what point you are trying to make.

[wapi]

Bernie went to school during WW2, so he is brainwashed with Hitler being bad and evil. There is no way he could have escaped it. So he can't be uninformed, he is evil. Any decent human being does not make remarks like that knowing that you are going to hurt so many people.

We will see if Germans are going to go nuts. If they do, I would not bet on him keeping his job.

[Persevere]

Bernie's comments were repellent and maybe this is the beginning of the end for him.  As others have said here, "ignorance" on topics such as these might be dismissed in a 12 year old with no sense of history; B.E. can make no such excuse.  He knows exactly what he is saying and I do think that the firestorm that has been brewing all season has allowed that he's become somewhat unhinged and is no longer editing his opinions.  Of course I thought the scandal surrounding Max M. last season would have brought about his demise as well...

[JHS]

What?! F1 linked to Nazism?! Shock horror!!!

I have to agree with what some people have already said here, it's not like he said "Hitler was the best goddamn human that ever lived!" he just admired his leadership abilities.

I find it sad in this day and age that as soon as you utter "Hitler" or whatever, all of a sudden, no matter what context it was said in, you are a racist. That's just sad.

How F1 is run is in a mess, no doubt about it, and maybe it is time for Bernie to call it a day. But who'd replace him?

Edited by JHS, 05 July 2009 - 11:31 AM.

[wapi]

JHS, on 05 July 2009 - 11:29 AM, said:

What?! F1 linked to Nazism?! Shock horror!!!

I have to agree with what some people have already said here, it's not like he said "Hitler was the best goddamn human that ever lived!" he just admired his leadership abilities.

I find it sad in this day and age that as soon as you utter "Hitler" or whatever, all of a sudden, no matter what context it was said in, you are a racist. That's just sad.

How F1 is run is in a mess, no doubt about it, and maybe it is time for Bernie to call it a day. But who'd replace him?

Also, if you are decent human you do not do or say some things because many people may find it repulsive and offensive. If you want to compare with leadership abilities there many more examples in the history which are not so hot as Hitler is. So you can do it without risking anything. If you tap around Hitler it is obvious that your intentions are to cause harm and unrest.

It is very sad if sport depends on diminishing capabilities of 78 years old man.

[Kati]

Ok, so let's all stop watching tv, stop going to history classes on school, and forbid words from our vocabulary, as if nothing ever happened, because we are all too stupid to respect personal oppinions without feeling offended.

[Quiet One]

El Maestro, on 04 July 2009 - 10:32 PM, said:

Well I gotta disagree. Clearly he is misinformed or he wouldn't hold such views. I can't condemn him for being ignorant or stupid, if I did that then I would have to condemn a whole lot of people for a whole lot of things. He wasn't defending Hitler or talking in favour of Nazism as far as I can tell, he was trying to make a point about leadership and getting things done, and used a terribly poor example. In the article I think his views on Saddam Hussein are probably more controversial than what he says about Hitler, but that is a less sensitive issue so nobody says anything. Since he is just expressing his views and not intending to incite hatred or anything, he does have a right to say what he wants, and we have a right to call him an idiot...and that is the beauty of a free society.

Nobody says anything about Saddam because:
1) Jewish Organizations are more prominent throughout the Western world than Iraqi Organizations.
2) Between Hitler, the Holocaust and WW2 for one side, and Saddam Hussein (including his war against Iran, his killing of kurdish people and his Iraqi dictatorship), it doesn't take a genius to figure out who was the guy who caused more harm to the humanity as whole, and thus become more noticeably a figure of horror for everybody.
3) This doesn't lessen the fact that Saddam Hussein was every bit as evil and a mass murderer as Hitler and also as condemnable. He just wasn't able to spread it further.

Now, back to Hermann Ecclestone:

1) While it is true that he didn't defend racism or the racist side of Nazism per se, he took a mass murderer and used him as "an example of leadership". Why not Charles Manson? He also got things done. He was quite a leader, he got a few teenaged girls to kill in the most horrible way a couple of families and their guests. A kid's game compared to Hitler. Why not Fidel Castro? He got a lot more things done, he maitnained his power for half a century and even if you choose to believe the worst version of Fidel Castro as stated by the most prominent anti Castro member of the CIA, the guy was nowhere as close to killing millions as Hitler or Saddam.(And no, I do not support Castro in any way)

2) We discused this many times before. Freedom of speech (or any other right, for that matter) are not absolute values. Just as free enterprise does not let you have a company of child porn, or right to private property does not allow you to build a drug manufacturing plant in your bathroom. Freedom of speech does not allow you to defend crimes. Certainly Bernie didn't defend Hitler's crimes. He only defended the fact that trains were on scheduled under nazism or something like that Curiously enough, that was the excuse most Germans and pro nazi people around the world always used to support Hitler without openly admitting that they admire him for the obvious. He might not be punishable by law, but he will be condemned by society. I hope so, at least, if we really have a sensible society and not just a bunch of selfish, coward and violent people.

3) Like Eric and wapi said, Bernie cannot act all naive about all this. He knows what he is talking about, he know the implications (unless he is really senile). I have no sympathy for such a light take on one of the worst dramas in the history of Humankind. Putting Hitler as a leadership example is malicious, cretinous and cruel. Believing that he did it in good faith is not one of your finest moments, George, sorry.

4) This is MY use of freedom of speech. And right now the Jewish Organizations throughout the world are asking for him to step down based on THEIR freedom of speech. He deserves everything that will come to him for this.

[wapi]

Kati, on 05 July 2009 - 03:18 PM, said:

Ok, so let's all stop watching tv, stop going to history classes on school, and forbid words from our vocabulary, as if nothing ever happened, because we are all too stupid to respect personal oppinions without feeling offended.

It is problem that something did happened!

Millions of souls perished because of that efficient leader, almost complete Europe was in ruins as result of his actions. Some nations were almost erradicated. I am sorry but it is undefendable and making this man look good in any aspect is unacceptable. You might not be able to understand it, but... in my "civilized subset of this world" it is unacceptable to talk nicely about criminals against mankind.

[Kati]

its over, live with it. learn what happened, understand what went wrong, and do the best from now on. i studied history in my first uni, so yes i do understand you and i do know what happened there. but i wont pretend it didn't happened to the point people can't mention something, in none perspective and everyone thinks it's the end of the world. bernie is polemic, yes. bernie knew this would happen, yes. bernie wanted it, yes. he's not crazy, he's not out of his mind, he's making money out of each of us, and he IS successfull.

id completely understand if bernie said 'oh, its so nice to kill everyone if i gotta dominate the world' and everyone reacted like this. what he said was 'he could get things done' and well he could. he did it and we know it. what's the big news?

Edited by Kati, 05 July 2009 - 05:47 PM.

[Rainmaster]

Quiet One, on 05 July 2009 - 03:26 PM, said:

Nobody says anything about Saddam because:
1) Jewish Organizations are more prominent throughout the Western world than Iraqi Organizations.
2) Between Hitler, the Holocaust and WW2 for one side, and Saddam Hussein (including his war against Iran, his killing of kurdish people and his Iraqi dictatorship), it doesn't take a genius to figure out who was the guy who caused more harm to the humanity as whole, and thus become more noticeably a figure of horror for everybody.
3) This doesn't lessen the fact that Saddam Hussein was every bit as evil and a mass murderer as Hitler and also as condemnable. He just wasn't able to spread it further.

Yes, I can understand why his comments against Hitler are more controversial than his comments about Saddam.

Quiet One, on 05 July 2009 - 03:26 PM, said:

Now, back to Hermann Ecclestone:

1) While it is true that he didn't defend racism or the racist side of Nazism per se, he took a mass murderer and used him as "an example of leadership". Why not Charles Manson? He also got things done. He was quite a leader, he got a few teenaged girls to kill in the most horrible way a couple of families and their guests. A kid's game compared to Hitler. Why not Fidel Castro? He got a lot more things done, he maitnained his power for half a century and even if you choose to believe the worst version of Fidel Castro as stated by the most prominent anti Castro member of the CIA, the guy was nowhere as close to killing millions as Hitler or Saddam.(And no, I do not support Castro in any way)

2) We discused this many times before. Freedom of speech (or any other right, for that matter) are not absolute values. Just as free enterprise does not let you have a company of child porn, or right to private property does not allow you to build a drug manufacturing plant in your bathroom. Freedom of speech does not allow you to defend crimes. Certainly Bernie didn't defend Hitler's crimes. He only defended the fact that trains were on scheduled under nazism or something like that Curiously enough, that was the excuse most Germans and pro nazi people around the world always used to support Hitler without openly admitting that they admire him for the obvious. He might not be punishable by law, but he will be condemned by society. I hope so, at least, if we really have a sensible society and not just a bunch of selfish, coward and violent people.

3) Like Eric and wapi said, Bernie cannot act all naive about all this. He knows what he is talking about, he know the implications (unless he is really senile). I have no sympathy for such a light take on one of the worst dramas in the history of Humankind. Putting Hitler as a leadership example is malicious, cretinous and cruel. Believing that he did it in good faith is not one of your finest moments, George, sorry.

4) This is MY use of freedom of speech. And right now the Jewish Organizations throughout the world are asking for him to step down based on THEIR freedom of speech. He deserves everything that will come to him for this.

Andres, as far as I can tell, we agree on most things. At least that he wasn't defending Hitler's crimes, he does have a right to free speech, and society does have the right to condemn him if they want to. Personally I don't see the point in getting worked up or angry at the comments of some old guy (I guess that's because I never lived through such atrocities). Still, getting Bernie out of his job for this, I'm not entirely sure what it achieves apart from maybe some misplaced sense of revenge for some people. Does Bernie really care if he loses his job? I think he has enough money. It might be better for somebody from some of the organisations you mentioned to sit down and set him straight, rather than some mob mentality trying to force him out.

I don't think he made the comments in good faith, I just don't think he made them to anger people, either. I think he tried to make a point and didn't really consider the consequences. I'm surprised so many people think age isn't a defence to ignorance; ignorant people come in all shapes, sizes and ages. Ignorance is a way of life for some people. All kinds of intelligent people like Bernie have all kinds of silly, ignorant views. Should we really attack somebody for holding those views? I'm not sure it helps anybody. I find it a lot easier to believe that an old guy like Bernie is ignorant than I do to believe he is a Nazi deep down, sorry.

He could've used much better examples of good leaders, although he was trying to make a point about dictatorships (in an attempt to defend Max, iirc), so I guess when you think of dictators Hitler was the guy who came to mind. He does say in the article that it's 'terrible to say this I suppose' so clearly he did know it wasn't a great example, but it also shows he wasn't really trying to offend anybody, and didn't realise that it would be that offensive. Btw, if you believe that Bernie did know the implications of this, then what do you think his reasons were for saying it? I can't really understand why he would want to cause such outrage with people, which is why I think he didn't realise the consequences.

[wapi]

Kati, on 05 July 2009 - 05:45 PM, said:

bernie is polemic, yes. bernie knew this would happen, yes. bernie wanted it, yes. he's not crazy, he's not out of his mind, he's making money out of each of us, and he IS successfull.

id completely understand if bernie said 'oh, its so nice to kill everyone if i gotta dominate the world' and everyone reacted like this. what he said was 'he could get things done' and well he could. he did it and we know it. what's the big news?

He is not John Smith, he is public figure, his words are quoted and he should take care what come out of his mouth if he want to keep being successful. I am not sure he is not crazy. His comments lately do not sound sane. After all he is 78. I think anyone who trust his money to 78 year old guy is very brave.

I think he is not going to do his job in the season 2010. He will be persuaded to retire.

[JHS]

Kati, on 05 July 2009 - 05:45 PM, said:

its over, live with it. learn what happened, understand what went wrong, and do the best from now on. i studied history in my first uni, so yes i do understand you and i do know what happened there. but i wont pretend it didn't happened to the point people can't mention something, in none perspective and everyone thinks it's the end of the world. bernie is polemic, yes. bernie knew this would happen, yes. bernie wanted it, yes. he's not crazy, he's not out of his mind, he's making money out of each of us, and he IS successfull.

id completely understand if bernie said 'oh, its so nice to kill everyone if i gotta dominate the world' and everyone reacted like this. what he said was 'he could get things done' and well he could. he did it and we know it. what's the big news?

I completely agree. Oh look, i said Hitler's name. Does that make me a Jew-killing Nazi? No.

Once again, it's the tabloid news papers and gossipers making something out of nothing. It was the same with Max Mosley's sex scandal. For sure what he did was wrong, but come on, it's his private life, emphasis on "private".

[Insider]

Bernie says nothing by mistake.  All his comments are weighted by pragmatism or devious design.  If he discredits himself in front of the press it's because it serves a specific purpose, believe me.

[Rainmaster]

"While there is no real malice in what the Englishman says or means, what he has to remember is that times have changed and that, whether one likes it or not, one cannot be as forthright in one's opinion these days.That said, there is a difference between being forthright and actually going on record as saying that Hitler wasn't all bad, misunderstood even. Furthermore, to suggest that the Austrian was only obeying orders (his own?) is downright ludicrous.

Earlier this year, Carole Thatcher, daughter of the former British Prime Minister, Margaret, lost her job with the BBC's One Show - even though it is utter populist garbage - for a remark made in private and not on air. Although there were only two or three people present, her comment that a tennis player's haircut made him look like a 'Gollywog' caused (media) outrage.

In these times while some might see such a comment for what it really is, and how it is really intended, nobody can be perceived as agreeing with it, for then, despite the intended innocence of the comment you are guilty by association.

We will not repeat Ecclestone's comments here, there is no point. However, the words of a senior Formula 1 insider are certainly worth heeding.

"I gather that Jewish groups have already expressed their disapproval of Ecclestone's remarks, and understandably so," the source told Pitpass. "Personally, though, having known him for many years, I don't think he's racist or anti-Semitic at all. No, the sad truth is that he's an old man who's lost the plot. In fact, most of what he says these days is plain stupid, I'm sorry to say."

Source, Pitpass. Pretty much covers what I think.

[wapi]

...waiting for BMW, Mercedes, Red Bull... Those guys will be jury for this discussion. If they do not comment, I'll have to agree with you that his comments are not that bad. However, if they do, you'll have to agree with me

[JHS]

wapi, on 05 July 2009 - 08:39 PM, said:

...waiting for BMW, Mercedes, Red Bull... Those guys will be jury for this discussion. If they do not comment, I'll have to agree with you that his comments are not that bad. However, if they do, you'll have to agree with me

Why would they? The worse supposed shock horror story was Max Mosley's sex scandal.

[dribbler]

JHS, on 05 July 2009 - 08:22 PM, said:

I completely agree. Oh look, i said Hitler's name. Does that make me a Jew-killing Nazi? No.

Yes. You should be scooped up and buried in a pit.

[Cinco]

EDIT: This post is long and doesn't really say anything.  Just so you know.

Not entirely sure how Max's sex scandal pertains, Mr. JHS.  There does seem to be a small difference, to me at least, between Max having his privacy violated and Bernie openly telling the media something.  Bernie made it public so his views are allowed to meet criticism; he asked for it.  Max, on the other hand, as bizarre as that deal was, it wasn't his fault entirely that it got out (it was only his fault that he did it in the first place, had he not, it never would've gotten out there, but that's up to Max to decide the ethics of such a thing, I personally don't agree with it with him being married and all but that's up to him and his wife).  Max's was his private life, and all, but Bernie's...well, it isn't private if you make it public, and he did.

Perhaps I have over-reacted a little bit but it's just absolutely insane to reference Hitler or Saddam in a positive light, in my personal opinion, whatever point he was trying to make.  I'm sure Bernie isn't racist and I don't think people are accusing him of hating Jewish people or anything, I just think that they (and myself included) would like to see him accept that if he's going to be a public figure and represent our sport that he not talk positively about evil, awful, terrible, disgusting, etc people when trying to portray the type of leadership he wants.  He didn't say "oh yes let's round up whomever and torture them for funsies," but "getting things done" does imply, in my mind, using tactics like those IF AND ONLY IF you reference leaders like those.  Bernard did.  And if he did, it's fair game, even if it IS a stretch, for me to infer that Bernie is well aware of HOW they got things done, and while he and Max obviously won't do that, he's still implying that he is okay with them "getting things done" at all costs, like they did.  And whatever he meant, that's the unfortunate thing about referencing people with those connotations, and that's why you don't do it.  It really is offensive to many people to say anything positive about them, no matter what there was.

I WILL be slightly wishy-washy and say a publication asking someone who their favorite dictator was is really just poor journalism; you can tell they WANTED him to say this, so we'd all read their article, but then again, fair game, if you say "oh I love dictatorships" you do set your own self up for that question.

There are certain things you just don't say, and I think that's the point.  Talking about some of the world's worst men, ever, in a good way is just one of those things, whether or not you think people should or should not be able to talk about them is up to you, but it's also irrelevant, because when you speak, you may believe "oh this is okay to say" but you do have to be respectful, and if it offends your audience, don't say it whether you want to or not.

I'm sure Bernie's not some evil awful person and all that, but he shouldn't have even given us the option to have to make that call and just shut up.

Edited by Cinco, 05 July 2009 - 09:07 PM.

[Quiet One]

El Maestro, on 05 July 2009 - 07:21 PM, said:

Yes, I can understand why his comments against Hitler are more controversial than his comments about Saddam.



Andres, as far as I can tell, we agree on most things. At least that he wasn't defending Hitler's crimes, he does have a right to free speech, and society does have the right to condemn him if they want to. Personally I don't see the point in getting worked up or angry at the comments of some old guy (I guess that's because I never lived through such atrocities). Still, getting Bernie out of his job for this, I'm not entirely sure what it achieves apart from maybe some misplaced sense of revenge for some people. Does Bernie really care if he loses his job? I think he has enough money. It might be better for somebody from some of the organisations you mentioned to sit down and set him straight, rather than some mob mentality trying to force him out.

I don't think he made the comments in good faith, I just don't think he made them to anger people, either. I think he tried to make a point and didn't really consider the consequences. I'm surprised so many people think age isn't a defence to ignorance; ignorant people come in all shapes, sizes and ages. Ignorance is a way of life for some people. All kinds of intelligent people like Bernie have all kinds of silly, ignorant views. Should we really attack somebody for holding those views? I'm not sure it helps anybody. I find it a lot easier to believe that an old guy like Bernie is ignorant than I do to believe he is a Nazi deep down, sorry.

He could've used much better examples of good leaders, although he was trying to make a point about dictatorships (in an attempt to defend Max, iirc), so I guess when you think of dictators Hitler was the guy who came to mind. He does say in the article that it's 'terrible to say this I suppose' so clearly he did know it wasn't a great example, but it also shows he wasn't really trying to offend anybody, and didn't realise that it would be that offensive. Btw, if you believe that Bernie did know the implications of this, then what do you think his reasons were for saying it? I can't really understand why he would want to cause such outrage with people, which is why I think he didn't realise the consequences.

1) Yep, we do agree on most things. I don't think he is actually defending Hitler's crimes. He even tried a pathetic explanation to separate his "admiration" towards Hitler's leadership capabilities and the wonderful world of dictatorships (geez, the guy is an idiot no matter how lightly you look at his comments). It is hard for me (and I guess for many people) to understand how can you praise Hitler for "getting things done" (can you see the stupidity there?) while trying to explain that you don't condone his crimes. I don't buy it. Naby people won't buy it and will crucify him. Now, if he is so smart to be this succesful, and everybody admires Bernie for that, then he should have seen this coming and he will have to take full responsability on whatever comes to him.

2) Society reacts against his cruel, insensitive comments. Why, you ask? Why not, I ask? It's OUR use of freedom of speech. If I fart in crowded subways as a hobby I won't be violating any law (at least, not in Argentina that I'm aware of). People around me will, on the other hand, be disgusted and move away from me. Why not? They have the right. I have every right to be offended by Bernie's comments. Even if they were done by an ignorant, senile guy (which I doubt anybody here serioulsy think he is).

3) He is a grown man. His work is 90% based on public relations. He didn't know the consequences? Nah,I don't buy it. I don't care, either whether he was aware or not on the consequences of what he was saying. He said them. He will have to face the consequences. Nobody will lynch him. Nobody will throw him in jail or insert bamboo needles under his toenails for it. Lynching mobs will be the favorite phrase used by people defending Bernie even though we know that he won't be lynched. He probably won't even get a fine for his comments. He will mostly get a lot of media heat and requests for him to step down.
Now I ask you (and I know this is off topic): if we all lived in a wonderful dictatorship under the enlightened guide of a decaf Hitler or Saddam, do you think that he would have had such great opportunities if he had praised non aryan people or kurdish people? I'd rather stay with the "mob lynching crowd" in this affaire. They are defending a better society than Bernie's.

4) Like you said, he was aware of "how terrible" his comments were. Then you can be allegating ignorance in such case. As what was the point? No idea. I have a theory, as good as any other. Lots of power/money give you the gift of impunity in this world, sadly. At least, that's what most rich/powerful people think. He alwyas acted with total disregard for conventionalisms and was always a witty, cynical guy. I have enjoyed malgr� moi many of his comments for the sheer ingenuity of them (for example, when he said that Kimi and Felipe were the clowns of the circus in reply to LdMZ's comments). Of course, sometimes you cross the line.

[Quiet One]

JHS, on 05 July 2009 - 08:22 PM, said:

I completely agree. Oh look, i said Hitler's name. Does that make me a Jew-killing Nazi? No.

Once again, it's the tabloid news papers and gossipers making something out of nothing. It was the same with Max Mosley's sex scandal. For sure what he did was wrong, but come on, it's his private life, emphasis on "private".

Congratulations on entirely missing the point here.

[Rainmaster]

Quiet One, on 05 July 2009 - 09:39 PM, said:

1) Yep, we do agree on most things. I don't think he is actually defending Hitler's crimes. He even tried a pathetic explanation to separate his "admiration" towards Hitler's leadership capabilities and the wonderful world of dictatorships (geez, the guy is an idiot no matter how lightly you look at his comments). It is hard for me (and I guess for many people) to understand how can you praise Hitler for "getting things done" (can you see the stupidity there?) while trying to explain that you don't condone his crimes. I don't buy it. Naby people won't buy it and will crucify him. Now, if he is so smart to be this succesful, and everybody admires Bernie for that, then he should have seen this coming and he will have to take full responsability on whatever comes to him.

2) Society reacts against his cruel, insensitive comments. Why, you ask? Why not, I ask? It's OUR use of freedom of speech. If I fart in crowded subways as a hobby I won't be violating any law (at least, not in Argentina that I'm aware of). People around me will, on the other hand, be disgusted and move away from me. Why not? They have the right. I have every right to be offended by Bernie's comments. Even if they were done by an ignorant, senile guy (which I doubt anybody here serioulsy think he is).

3) He is a grown man. His work is 90% based on public relations. He didn't know the consequences? Nah,I don't buy it. I don't care, either whether he was aware or not on the consequences of what he was saying. He said them. He will have to face the consequences. Nobody will lynch him. Nobody will throw him in jail or insert bamboo needles under his toenails for it. Lynching mobs will be the favorite phrase used by people defending Bernie even though we know that he won't be lynched. He probably won't even get a fine for his comments. He will mostly get a lot of media heat and requests for him to step down.
Now I ask you (and I know this is off topic): if we all lived in a wonderful dictatorship under the enlightened guide of a decaf Hitler or Saddam, do you think that he would have had such great opportunities if he had praised non aryan people or kurdish people? I'd rather stay with the "mob lynching crowd" in this affaire. They are defending a better society than Bernie's.

4) Like you said, he was aware of "how terrible" his comments were. Then you can be allegating ignorance in such case. As what was the point? No idea. I have a theory, as good as any other. Lots of power/money give you the gift of impunity in this world, sadly. At least, that's what most rich/powerful people think. He alwyas acted with total disregard for conventionalisms and was always a witty, cynical guy. I have enjoyed malgr� moi many of his comments for the sheer ingenuity of them (for example, when he said that Kimi and Felipe were the clowns of the circus in reply to LdMZ's comments). Of course, sometimes you cross the line.

1) Yup, I can see the stupidity. I always maintained that his comments were pretty stupid. Yes, I agree he should know better, especially in modern times where you can read up on just about anything; nobody with access to the internet/a library has a valid defence of ignorance these days imo, although many people still are about lots of stuff. Yep, I also agree he has to take responsibility, I would never make some kind of defence that people aren't responsible for what they do or say. The main issue is whether he said it maliciously or out of stupidity, my vote would be stupidity. So I can find him guilty, but he gets a much lighter sentence if he didn't intend to offend everybody. That's really the most important issue for me. Yeah, he is smart, and it's always interesting/odd when people have great intelligence in one area (e.g. business, PR in the case of Bernie) and don't apply it to other areas of their lives.

2) I'm not really asking why people (society) are reacting, people love any controversy, however minor. From my POV it doesn't really get anything done, but I guess that's just my philosophy of life - if your going to do something, you might as well make sure it's worth doing. I never questioned anybodies right to criticise his public comments, I just questioned the point of it. But yes, if people want to waste energy being angry at some old man that is up to them, I would never deny them that right. If I'm ever in Argentina, remind me not to stand near you

3) Well I guess we disagree on that, I'm not sure he realised, in full, the consequences of saying that. If he did, surely he wouldn't have said it? I can't find a good reason that he would knowingly want to offend so many people. Yeah, he wouldn't have had such freedom in that kind of society, and yeah the "mob lynching crowd" (in your words) are defending a better society. In my dictatorship society would ignore old fools like Bernie. Out of curiosity, do you think he should be fined for these comments?

4) I allege ignorance because, clearly, he is ignorant (or just senile) on this matter if he believes that Hitler was persuaded to do anything. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and he is clearly lacking it on this subject, or, alternatively you could believe that he knows the facts and has come to this faulty conclusion. I lean towards the former, maybe that makes me naive, or perhaps an optimist. Perhaps he was just being his usual self and defying conventions, even so I imagine if he knew the implications at the time he wouldn't have said it - he didn't have anything to gain from this one, after all.

As for being rich and famous giving you impunity, largely true I think, although in matters of controversial opinions rich/famous people have everything they say scrutinised. I am sure there are plenty of poor, ordinary people who hold some similar views who never even have the luxury of having them challenged.

[Rainmaster]

Tbh, I don't even know why I am even partially defending Bernie in this, I guess it's just a sign of the fact there is nothing else to argue about

Or maybe I just like a challenge.

[mikathegreat2]

What does Hitler have to do with F1?? Jeez Bernie just die already!

[Quiet One]

El Maestro, on 05 July 2009 - 10:29 PM, said:

1) Yup, I can see the stupidity. I always maintained that his comments were pretty stupid. Yes, I agree he should know better, especially in modern times where you can read up on just about anything; nobody with access to the internet/a library has a valid defence of ignorance these days imo, although many people still are about lots of stuff. Yep, I also agree he has to take responsibility, I would never make some kind of defence that people aren't responsible for what they do or say. The main issue is whether he said it maliciously or out of stupidity, my vote would be stupidity. So I can find him guilty, but he gets a much lighter sentence if he didn't intend to offend everybody. That's really the most important issue for me. Yeah, he is smart, and it's always interesting/odd when people have great intelligence in one area (e.g. business, PR in the case of Bernie) and don't apply it to other areas of their lives.

I see your point. It's just that is harder for me to imagine that he didn't really imagine that his comments would sound offensive. Even if he intended to make clear that he wasn't condoning Hitler's crimes (and he failed at it), his comments on Saddam and dictatorships in general were obviously stir trouble. My take is that he knew he was being "revulsive" with his comments. In fact, my take is the actually rejoice in it. Much like I am merely arguing with you because I miss a good argument here as much as you

El Maestro, on 05 July 2009 - 10:29 PM, said:

2) I'm not really asking why people (society) are reacting, people love any controversy, however minor. From my POV it doesn't really get anything done, but I guess that's just my philosophy of life - if your going to do something, you might as well make sure it's worth doing. I never questioned anybodies right to criticise his public comments, I just questioned the point of it. But yes, if people want to waste energy being angry at some old man that is up to them, I would never deny them that right. If I'm ever in Argentina, remind me not to stand near you

People will probably waste as much energy attacking him as you are wasting defending him, sort of, or defending his freedom of speech or whatever you are doing. As you can see, all my efforts in these matter go as far as typing incoherences in this forum. I am wasting as much energy as you so we are even on this one
Of course, people with their own agendas will make good use of his faux pas. You can criticize their agendas but he asked for it by giving them such an obvious target.

El Maestro, on 05 July 2009 - 10:29 PM, said:

3) Well I guess we disagree on that, I'm not sure he realised, in full, the consequences of saying that. If he did, surely he wouldn't have said it? I can't find a good reason that he would knowingly want to offend so many people. Yeah, he wouldn't have had such freedom in that kind of society, and yeah the "mob lynching crowd" (in your words) are defending a better society. In my dictatorship society would ignore old fools like Bernie. Out of curiosity, do you think he should be fined for these comments?

I don't think he should be fined for these comments. I do think he should be frowned upon, condemend by society either by writing everywhere how despicable he is or putting pressure for him to step down. Those are perfectly legal, even mild punishment for a guy who likes dictatorships. It's like people who say they would have loved to live in ancient Greece without realizing that chances are that they would have ended living as slaves or cannon fodder rather than living the life of a Plato, or a Perichles. Maybe that will make him think twice before favoring regimes which can be much harder than our mob lynching democracy

El Maestro, on 05 July 2009 - 10:29 PM, said:

4) I allege ignorance because, clearly, he is ignorant (or just senile) on this matter if he believes that Hitler was persuaded to do anything. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and he is clearly lacking it on this subject, or, alternatively you could believe that he knows the facts and has come to this faulty conclusion. I lean towards the former, maybe that makes me naive, or perhaps an optimist. Perhaps he was just being his usual self and defying conventions, even so I imagine if he knew the implications at the time he wouldn't have said it - he didn't have anything to gain from this one, after all.

We just disagree in the light under which we perceive Bernie. More benevolent from you, more condemnable from me. I don't think he wasn't thinking about gaining anything except some cheap first page articles of him. Maybe that is all he wanted. After all, he knows that democracy is lenient enough to let him get away with this. So he gets his publicity, even though a bad one (not that it ever matered to him) and we get something to talk about.

El Maestro, on 05 July 2009 - 10:29 PM, said:

As for being rich and famous giving you impunity, largely true I think, although in matters of controversial opinions rich/famous people have everything they say scrutinised. I am sure there are plenty of poor, ordinary people who hold some similar views who never even have the luxury of having them challenged.

Yes, they don't get such luxury. And that is one of the few luxuries theyu should be glad they don't get. Still, not enough to earn any sympathy towards Bernie from me!

[Rainmaster]

Quiet One, on 05 July 2009 - 11:07 PM, said:

I see your point. It's just that is harder for me to imagine that he didn't really imagine that his comments would sound offensive. Even if he intended to make clear that he wasn't condoning Hitler's crimes (and he failed at it), his comments on Saddam and dictatorships in general were obviously stir trouble. My take is that he knew he was being "revulsive" with his comments. In fact, my take is the actually rejoice in it. Much like I am merely arguing with you because I miss a good argument here as much as you

It has been too long since we've had anything which is remotely interesting to argue about! And don't worry, I actually think that Bernie should be lambasted for his comments (I'm just too lazy to be the one who does it ). You can't go around saying stuff like that, especially if your in his position.

Quiet One, on 05 July 2009 - 11:07 PM, said:

People will probably waste as much energy attacking him as you are wasting defending him, sort of, or defending his freedom of speech or whatever you are doing. As you can see, all my efforts in these matter go as far as typing incoherences in this forum. I am wasting as much energy as you so we are even on this one
Of course, people with their own agendas will make good use of his faux pas. You can criticize their agendas but he asked for it by giving them such an obvious target.

Yes, I thought you might say I was wasting some energy But I am at least satisfying my need to argue about things, and I guess people who use this against Bernie or attack him for it are just serving their needs, too. Anyway, I don't think I'm wasting too much energy, I'm like the Fangio/Federer of arguing ya know

Quiet One, on 05 July 2009 - 11:07 PM, said:

I don't think he should be fined for these comments. I do think he should be frowned upon, condemend by society either by writing everywhere how despicable he is or putting pressure for him to step down. Those are perfectly legal, even mild punishment for a guy who likes dictatorships. It's like people who say they would have loved to live in ancient Greece without realizing that chances are that they would have ended living as slaves or cannon fodder rather than living the life of a Plato, or a Perichles. Maybe that will make him think twice before favoring regimes which can be much harder than our mob lynching democracy

Yup, I doubt he will even consider that last sentence! I'm glad you don't think he should be fined, if only because he probably wouldn't notice anyway.

Quiet One, on 05 July 2009 - 11:07 PM, said:

We just disagree in the light under which we perceive Bernie. More benevolent from you, more condemnable from me. I don't think he wasn't thinking about gaining anything except some cheap first page articles of him. Maybe that is all he wanted. After all, he knows that democracy is lenient enough to let him get away with this. So he gets his publicity, even though a bad one (not that it ever matered to him) and we get something to talk about.

That is the only area we really seem to disagree on. I just wonder what Bernie's response will be to all this furore, that could be quite telling.

Quiet One, on 05 July 2009 - 11:07 PM, said:

Yes, they don't get such luxury. And that is one of the few luxuries theyu should be glad they don't get. Still, not enough to earn any sympathy towards Bernie from me!

Actually I didn't mean that luxury bit in a sarcastic way, I really do think it is a good thing that someone like Bernie gets his views challenged whereas there are plenty of people who might hold similar ones about all kinds of things, that never get challenged because they never get to do an interview with The Times. Not that I think for a moment that Bernie will see the reaction and change his opinions; he is far too old and set in his ways after all. But yeah, famous people should be glad to have their opinions constantly challenged, although I doubt they see it that way

[Kati]

wapi, on 05 July 2009 - 08:21 PM, said:

He is not John Smith, he is public figure, his words are quoted and he should take care what come out of his mouth if he want to keep being successful. I am not sure he is not crazy. His comments lately do not sound sane. After all he is 78. I think anyone who trust his money to 78 year old guy is very brave.

I think he is not going to do his job in the season 2010. He will be persuaded to retire.

He IS a public figure and thats exactly WHY he says those things. I mean, his comments may be polemic, but make us read about it, and consequentially, keep reading about Formula One, he keeps the press around Formula One. No long after Lewis got his championship, he said something that could've got as polemical as this, when he said 'if he could get a female jew black driver' into Formula One, that'd be awesome. No, he didn't mean it as 'we are all equal so let's be happy together' he wants the press to get interested, he wants the cameras. That's all. That's about using mass media to keep interest about an specific topic. And yes he is 78 and he IS STILL there. He must be  real good on what he does to go that far, don't you think? That's why people DO trust their money on him, because he proved he CAN do it and WILL keep Formula One working, unlike others. You can't mistake Max's attitudes with Bernie's also. Max wants the hierarchy power, he wants to be on top, and wants everyone to know he can do whatever he wants to because he can do it, whereas Bernie has to respect him to some point because the hierarchy must exist, but he also has to make this work in agreement with the interest of Fota, because what's the point in leading if you do not have anyone to lead? Also, without FIA or without Fota there's no Formula One. He was the only sensible guy to realize this, while most people were either too angry at Fota for being 'rebellious', or so excited about having a so-called fan-friendly series (cof cof) with Fota. He is NOT crazy and I dunno what's gon be of F1 when he's gone.

[wapi]

Kati, on 06 July 2009 - 01:44 AM, said:

He IS a public figure and thats exactly WHY he says those things. I mean, his comments may be polemic, but make us read about it, and consequentially, keep reading about Formula One, he keeps the press around Formula One. No long after Lewis got his championship, he said something that could've got as polemical as this, when he said 'if he could get a female jew black driver' into Formula One, that'd be awesome. No, he didn't mean it as 'we are all equal so let's be happy together' he wants the press to get interested, he wants the cameras. That's all. That's about using mass media to keep interest about an specific topic.

If this is the motive, he has choosen wrong way. There are ways that might attract the media without you loosing your job. He is going to loose his job, I am sure.

Kati, on 06 July 2009 - 01:44 AM, said:

And yes he is 78 and he IS STILL there. He must be  real good on what he does to go that far, don't you think? That's why people DO trust their money on him, because he proved he CAN do it and WILL keep Formula One working, unlike others.

Did anyone else had a chance to try in the last 20 years? Also you might argue that Max and himself with their supreme leadership abilities have brought the sport into position of falling appart. It happened because of their misjudgemnt of Ross Brawn and Dieter Matesitch. If only for that I think both of them should be retired urgently for the good of the sport.

Kati, on 06 July 2009 - 01:44 AM, said:

You can't mistake Max's attitudes with Bernie's also. Max wants the hierarchy power, he wants to be on top, and wants everyone to know he can do whatever he wants to because he can do it, whereas Bernie has to respect him to some point because the hierarchy must exist, but he also has to make this work in agreement with the interest of Fota, because what's the point in leading if you do not have anyone to lead? Also, without FIA or without Fota there's no Formula One. He was the only sensible guy to realize this, while most people were either too angry at Fota for being 'rebellious', or so excited about having a so-called fan-friendly series (cof cof) with Fota. He is NOT crazy and I dunno what's gon be of F1 when he's gone.

Bernie was playing along with Max and being mostly quiet until he has seen that there is no room for jokes and manipulations, that Formula is falling appart. Only then he changed his tune, but until then he actively supported Max's policy. So his leadership abilities failed together with Mosley's. They were beaten by united teams. They can put up a battle or two but their power is diminishing and talking about Hitler do not help your survival at that position.

[JHS]

Cinco, on 05 July 2009 - 09:06 PM, said:

Not entirely sure how Max's sex scandal pertains, Mr. JHS.  

I never said it was just, but that was a bigger story than this if you like the "Shock, horror, scandal" thing. You can tell when there isn't much news going around the world and the tabloids have to resort to petty rubbish!

Come on, let's just get on with F1.