Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

la force supreme des mclaren

Mosley Survives Vote........will Stay On

Recommended Posts

My last words on this.... One of the reasons why I feel Max and FIA have handled this so badly is evidenced by this thread.

Here we are as a bunch of F1 fans devoting our energies to debating a sad old man rather than the sport.

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of what he did Max's biggest crime is giving a reason for the media to jump on the bandwagon and giving his enemies (of which he has many it seems) an excuse to create a fuss.

I can't get that emotional about this though it just doesn't interest me and I certainly would not use Max as a figure on whom I would make a rallying call.

Cav the biggest surprise to me was that you admitted to reading NOTW!!! :) And the article/video concerned. Quite funny especially considering how you have complained about the way the media handled it, hmmmm.

Muzza I can see where you are coming from but in trying to be a moral champion you do appear to be a bit inconsistent especially when looking at some of your views on racism.

Ah well I'm bored with this now maybe we're devoting so much energy to this because the racing has been rather dull....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My last words on this.... One of the reasons why I feel Max and FIA have handled this so badly is evidenced by this thread.

Here we are as a bunch of F1 fans devoting our energies to debating a sad old man rather than the sport.

No it's an issue because people like you have made a huge issue out of it. If we were all mature and ignored a report aimed at people who's IQ is not a positive rational number, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of what he did Max's biggest crime is giving a reason for the media to jump on the bandwagon and giving his enemies (of which he has many it seems) an excuse to create a fuss.

Rubbish. The biggest crime is seemingly intelligent people like you paying attention to it. If we could all be grown up and ignore it and focus on more important things, the world would be a better place. So you saying that we are discussing an old man's sex life is quite ironical, because it's precisely because of people like you who made an issue out of it that we are discussing it.

Cav the biggest surprise to me was that you admitted to reading NOTW!!! :) And the article/video concerned. Quite funny especially considering how you have complained about the way the media handled it, hmmmm.

Kati posted the text here, and I did read it to be qualified to comment on it. I never watched the video though, I don't see the need.

Ah well I'm bored with this now maybe we're devoting so much energy to this because the racing has been rather dull....?

The racing was pretty decent actually, though we need about 24 races, especially with reduced testing and technical development. But the big team bosses don't want that. Shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really can't be bothered about what happened anymore. It showed once again the media can be very successful in pushing an agenda. Some of the links they put forward were borderline crazy, yet so few people actually questioned them.

There are more pressing issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The racing was pretty decent actually, though we need about 24 races, especially with reduced testing and technical development. But the big team bosses don't want that. Shame.

What decent racing ?!

Rain and sticky surface do not make the overall racing better.

24 races with reduced testing and technical developement ?!

Oh yeah as if we really need even more boring parades but this times with the experimental wings failing at 300 km/h cause they weren't tested properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say complicated and subtle, I say inconsistent.

:lol: *Sigh* I think you have misunderstood.

I never said all moral codes were equally valid, I just said some countries have differing moral values, or are you disagreeing with that? But thanks for the completely irrelevant lecture :lol:

No I'm not disagreeing with it. What I am objecting to is that fact that you haven't condemned their "differing moral values" as wrong and immoral. You actually come across quite happy that other people are essentially being immoral, in your own eyes, because it suits you.

I never said any such thing. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Does the phrase 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink' not mean anything to you? :eusa_think: What's even more perplexing is that you know I have promoted my views on racism on here, so that sort of makes that question a bit defunct really.

: :rolleyes: The point of the question is to highlight your inconsistency. You promote your views on racism strongly, but you don't say a word when it comes to other forms of tolerance.

Then you need new principles, because it was established earlier in this thread, I think it was, that if you are affected directly, then you do not stick to your principles.

Oh come on Paul! If I put a gun to your head I think you might compromise some of your own principles too. That's not testing a principle in an extreme case. That's making someone change their principles by necessity.

And yes, sexual preferences can have a bearing on your job, I gave an example earlier in the thread.

Which is why I said "generally". But I think you'll agree this point is pretty irrelevant to Max.

You have more chance of catching syphillis in a monastery than getting tension out of me, young padawan! :lol:

:lol: I meant "tensions in your arguments" of course, not in you.

Muzza I can see where you are coming from but in trying to be a moral champion you do appear to be a bit inconsistent especially when looking at some of your views on racism.

If you agree with me here, then it shouldn't matter what my views were on another issue. Also, as I said a while ago, you've simply misunderstood my views on racism, partly because I didn't explain them very well and also because they are quite radical. As I remember, I said that black people are too sensitive, and that they are partly responsible for their own plight. I went on to say that there are other causes of suffering that can be just as hurtful, but which aren't given the same degree of attention by the moral majority, like sexism or bullying for other reasons. Finally I argued that this hypocrisy will tend to fuel racism. There's nothing immoral in what I said. It's just the harsh truth and the sooner society accepts it, the better off we'll all be. Of course it won't happen any time soon, and neither will equality for black people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really can't be bothered about what happened anymore. It showed once again the media can be very successful in pushing an agenda. Some of the links they put forward were borderline crazy, yet so few people actually questioned them.

There are more pressing issues.

The Times went down in my estimation. Ridiculously biased coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMW and Merc issued a statement when the whole thing came to light. Find it :P

It's not that important, it wasn't central to any argument. I was just curious as I don't remember them saying it was specifically to do with the possible Nazi theme, just to do with the fact that he got caught on film.

Of course it's a private matter. Your sex life is a private matter, as long as you don't break the law. Simply because it doesn't affect anyone else. If it makes prudish people uncomfortable, I am all for it. I am not against morals and principles, I am against the pretence that they haev anything to do with big business. Big business has no qualms no morals no ethics, and it is laughable that Max's sex life is of such importance.

There is plenty wrong with the world, for anyone who wants to talk of morals and ethics. Get off your moral high horse, you're not doing anything to make the world better by taking a pointless stand against a private matter that affects no one else. There are plenty of worthy causes in the world, and plenty for real journalists to find out if they'd take the trouble. BMW and Merc rushed off a letter about this. When was the last time they took a stand of principle? The same bloody lot of companies will be sponsoring and financing the olympics in China.

I have no moral high horse and I have never taken a moral high horse stance, quite the opposite in fact, go read it :whistling: . My only issue is with all the people who say it's a private matter. That's absolute bollocks. If you pay 5 people to indulge in your sexual games, then your sex life is not private, breaking the law or not. Even if you tell other people about your sex life, then it is no longer private because you have chosen not to make it private. If you wanted anything kept private, would you tell somebody about it? Possibly, a best friend you trust. Would you hire 5 people and tell them about it? That would be no, then.

Edit: Many typos - pablo not functioning well this morning :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: *Sigh* I think you have misunderstood.

*Sigh* Who cares - it's only you after all :lol:

No I'm not disagreeing with it. What I am objecting to is that fact that you haven't condemned their "differing moral values" as wrong and immoral. You actually come across quite happy that other people are essentially being immoral, in your own eyes, because it suits you.

In case you hadn't noticed, but my word of the moment is bollocks. So bollocks to this. All I am saying is that I recognise that different countries have different moral values and that they see Max's indiscretion differently to me. How is that being happy that other people are essentially being immoral?? In fact, if anything it is the opposite, it is accepting that other people have higher standards of morality than I do. I accepted long ago that not everybody is happy to remain below gutter level, like me. I don't understand it, but I accept it. :D

: :rolleyes: The point of the question is to highlight your inconsistency. You promote your views on racism strongly, but you don't say a word when it comes to other forms of tolerance.

I don't promote my views on racism any morew strongly than I do any other views I have. What other forms of tolerance are we talking about?

And no, I don't believe that was your point at all. You can kid some people some of the time, as they say............... :lol:

Oh come on Paul! If I put a gun to your head I think you might compromise some of your own principles too. That's not testing a principle in an extreme case. That's making someone change their principles by necessity.

What's that word again........................oh that's right, bollocks! :lol:

Nobody mentioned putting a gun to your head, you were asked if it affected your income or something like that, it was only a vague point and you said you would then question your principles. So stop harping on to everyone else about their principles, when you only stick to yours when it suits you. That was my point.

Which is why I said "generally". But I think you'll agree this point is pretty irrelevant to Max.

Personally, yes I do agree, I do think it's irrelevant to Max, I stated that ages ago when the scandal first broke out. However, not everybody and certainly not every country thinks the same. And it would be arrogant presumption to think that we are the only ones who are right :whistling:

:lol: I meant "tensions in your arguments" of course, not in you.

There could only be tensions in my argument if I actually cared about the topic in question. This is just a bit of fun, light hearted relief! :lol:

Edit: Still many typos - when pablo can't sleep again, pablo is not going to turn his computer on.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Mosley had support of just 5% of FIA membership'

Wednesday 4th June 2008

Max Mosley, the disgraced FIA president, was able to stay in his post through the support of national bodies that represent just 5% of the organisation's membership, it has been calculated

While Mosley secured a resounding victory in terms of vote cast in Tuesday's meeting in Paris, his detractors, of whom there are many, claim that the 103 votes cast in his favour were made by clubs that account for only a fraction of the governing body's membership. It is believed that the vast majority of countries which endorsed Mosley's presidency were from Eastern Europe, Africa and the developing world.

While Bernie Ecclestone has already argued that the vote of confidence in Mosley should not be regarded as a reason for him to stay on, pointing out that "Just because he gets a few clubs from Africa voting for him will not make the King of Spain want to shake his hand", a number of heavyweight bodies have already threatened to withdraw from the FIA. They include the AAA and the Canadian Automobile Club - according to The Daily Telegraph, they "represent 60 per cent of the membership but had only two votes between them".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Mosley had support of just 5% of FIA membership'

Wednesday 4th June 2008

Max Mosley, the disgraced FIA president, was able to stay in his post through the support of national bodies that represent just 5% of the organisation's membership, it has been calculated

While Mosley secured a resounding victory in terms of vote cast in Tuesday's meeting in Paris, his detractors, of whom there are many, claim that the 103 votes cast in his favour were made by clubs that account for only a fraction of the governing body's membership. It is believed that the vast majority of countries which endorsed Mosley's presidency were from Eastern Europe, Africa and the developing world.

While Bernie Ecclestone has already argued that the vote of confidence in Mosley should not be regarded as a reason for him to stay on, pointing out that "Just because he gets a few clubs from Africa voting for him will not make the King of Spain want to shake his hand", a number of heavyweight bodies have already threatened to withdraw from the FIA. They include the AAA and the Canadian Automobile Club - according to The Daily Telegraph, they "represent 60 per cent of the membership but had only two votes between them".

Dof, the 'fools' still wont get it regardless of how overwhelming the real evidence is out there. They'll still argue about individual morality issues when the real issue is that of confidence.

Good post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. People can talk morals and complicate the argument as much as they like it'll still be totally irrelevant bollocks! The practical and realistic argument is Max can't do his job fully, still no counter arguments for this, because it's true. He stays on and it's a farce and further damages the FIA and the already tarnished image the sport has, again, no counter arguments here either, because it's true.

I might add once again that Max is an intelligent man, would know the extent of the coverage this would get (even if it shouldn't get that much coverage), and therefore would have known the damage this would do to F1's image. Despite this knowledge he stayed on, all the while knowing that due to his dictatorial leadership he could rely on weaker countries votes, and that the sport would be damaged. It seems no one is interested in arguing for/against the fact that Mosley clearly has no concern for the best interests of F1. But please do carry on talking about morals, racism, principles etc :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. People can talk morals and complicate the argument as much as they like it'll still be totally irrelevant bollocks! The practical and realistic argument is Max can't do his job fully, still no counter arguments for this, because it's true. He stays on and it's a farce and further damages the FIA and the already tarnished image the sport has, again, no counter arguments here either, because it's true.

It is such a great word! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In case you hadn't noticed, but my word of the moment is bollocks. So bollocks to this. All I am saying is that I recognise that different countries have different moral values and that they see Max's indiscretion differently to me. How is that being happy that other people are essentially being immoral?? In fact, if anything it is the opposite, it is accepting that other people have higher standards of morality than I do. I accepted long ago that not everybody is happy to remain below gutter level, like me. I don't understand it, but I accept it. :D

Personally, yes I do agree, I do think it's irrelevant to Max, I stated that ages ago when the scandal first broke out. However, not everybody and certainly not every country thinks the same. And it would be arrogant presumption to think that we are the only ones who are right :whistling:

I think you are getting completely confused. You say that Max's sexual preferences are irrelevant in your opinion. Then you say that those who disagree have "higher standards of morality". :lol: What you ought to say is that they are just wrong, and bigoted. And it's not arrogant presumption to say so - it's called standing up for your own principles.

Nobody mentioned putting a gun to your head, you were asked if it affected your income or something like that, it was only a vague point and you said you would then question your principles. So stop harping on to everyone else about their principles, when you only stick to yours when it suits you. That was my point.

:rolleyes: My answer was honest. I said if my income was going to be seriously damaged by my principles, then yes I would have to weigh up whether to stick to them or not. If you were faced with the choice of eg turning a blind eye to racism, or standing up for your principles at the cost of bankrupting your family, we both know what you would do too. This is totally different to how we ought to behave in a forum like this where we can freely express our views, especially when the choice is between our principles and no more than a glorified game. Yet instead of condemning bigots and prudes, you laud their "higher moral standards".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. People can talk morals and complicate the argument as much as they like it'll still be totally irrelevant bollocks! The practical and realistic argument is Max can't do his job fully, still no counter arguments for this, because it's true. He stays on and it's a farce and further damages the FIA and the already tarnished image the sport has, again, no counter arguments here either, because it's true.

It's been addressed many times. We care about our principles more than the glorified game of F1. And in any case, I don't think his performance will be affected as much as people make out once the fuss has died down. And I find all these views quite funny. Fancy people talking morals!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been addressed many times. We care about our principles more than the glorified game of F1. And in any case, I don't think his performance will be affected as much as people make out once the fuss has died down. And I find all these views quite funny. Fancy people talking morals!

Is that the Royal 'we' ??? :lol:

Of course, I agree with you, though. His performance is already so low, it can't get much worse, no arguments there :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow personal attacks now.

Why are they irrelevant? The royal stayed because he is a royal, he is judged by the Daily Mail. The president stayed because he was judged by the congress. Max stays becauswe he people who elected him still want him to stay.

Sorry for the late reply. I blinked.

A personal attack? Not intended to be, so apologies for that Cav, my frustration's showing due to (I think) a fairly simple thing. The 'fairly simple thing' is that we've gone on and on about ethics, morals, rights and wrongs, comparisons with other so-called similar situations ad sickium.

The Royal? Maybe it's not right, maybe it is, but are we always going to bring up past so-called examples to justify another? How do we know who did or didn't agree with those at the time? It's a non-argument - but I don't think we'll agree on that one.

My point is a simple one (to me :P ), and that is I understand (different to 'like' or 'agree') why many bodies and or/people don't want to meet Max. The reasons are many, some correct (in their view) some not (in our view!), but as long as they don't want to be associated with him, it affects his position and that of the FIA. I've taken the rip out of Max since he sold Frank Williams a used March chassis, telling him it was a new one but my dislike for him has nothing to do with this. I understand that if you are not perceived to be adequate for the job, then your role is diminished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is a simple one (to me :P ), and that is I understand (different to 'like' or 'agree') why many bodies and or/people don't want to meet Max. The reasons are many, some correct (in their view) some not (in our view!), but as long as they don't want to be associated with him, it affects his position and that of the FIA. I've taken the rip out of Max since he sold Frank Williams a used March chassis, telling him it was a new one but my dislike for him has nothing to do with this. I understand that if you are not perceived to be adequate for the job, then your role is diminished.

Complete agree. That's my view on it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. People can talk morals and complicate the argument as much as they like it'll still be totally irrelevant bollocks! The practical and realistic argument is Max can't do his job fully, still no counter arguments for this, because it's true. He stays on and it's a farce and further damages the FIA and the already tarnished image the sport has, again, no counter arguments here either, because it's true.

I might add once again that Max is an intelligent man, would know the extent of the coverage this would get (even if it shouldn't get that much coverage), and therefore would have known the damage this would do to F1's image. Despite this knowledge he stayed on, all the while knowing that due to his dictatorial leadership he could rely on weaker countries votes, and that the sport would be damaged. It seems no one is interested in arguing for/against the fact that Mosley clearly has no concern for the best interests of F1. But please do carry on talking about morals, racism, principles etc :lol:

It's been addressed many times. We care about our principles more than the glorified game of F1. And in any case, I don't think his performance will be affected as much as people make out once the fuss has died down. And I find all these views quite funny. Fancy people talking morals!

I haven't got any problem talking about morals and such things, but I don't like people doing it when I think the aim of it is to complicate and cloud the real, irrefutable and actually relevant arguments :D

The first point I made is that Max can't fully function in his job, perhaps we will see things calm down with time and people will forgive and forget. I doubt it though and I think more damage has been done to F1's image and that Max doesn't care.

Sorry for the late reply. I blinked.

A personal attack? Not intended to be, so apologies for that Cav, my frustration's showing due to (I think) a fairly simple thing. The 'fairly simple thing' is that we've gone on and on about ethics, morals, rights and wrongs, comparisons with other so-called similar situations ad sickium.

The Royal? Maybe it's not right, maybe it is, but are we always going to bring up past so-called examples to justify another? How do we know who did or didn't agree with those at the time? It's a non-argument - but I don't think we'll agree on that one.

My point is a simple one (to me :P ), and that is I understand (different to 'like' or 'agree') why many bodies and or/people don't want to meet Max. The reasons are many, some correct (in their view) some not (in our view!), but as long as they don't want to be associated with him, it affects his position and that of the FIA. I've taken the rip out of Max since he sold Frank Williams a used March chassis, telling him it was a new one but my dislike for him has nothing to do with this. I understand that if you are not perceived to be adequate for the job, then your role is diminished.

Yes, it is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Complete agree. That's my view on it too.

Me too. Meds you are poet :)

Two questions remain for me:

1) How will FIA be able to bring any action in future about "bringing sport into disrepute"? If I was a team/driver caught up in such action I would get a sharp lawyer on the case and cite this as an example. Ignoring the morals of the case, any lawyers worth their salt would be able to argue that there was a lot of negative publicity surrounding this and use that as a precedent. I'm not a lawyer but know enough about law to say that the FIA's position has been weakened legally.

2) Doesn't this demonstrate the need for the FIA to have some decent HR policies around employee behaviour? This in any other business would fall foul of "gross misconduct" (again, like you Meds, not saying whether it is right or that I agree) and if I did the same and got my a*se pictured on website I would be sacked on that basis. I actually checked into the constitution of the FIA and there is absolutely no mention in there of how a president can be "terminated" - lots of things about how he/she is appointed, but nothing about how they can be ousted. If nothing else, irrespective of the Max situation, this is a major flaw in their setup - what if, for example one of their future presidents did something more serious/illegal? At the moment there is nothing that I could see that would allow them to easily take action, short of getting a court/lawyers involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it's an issue because people like you have made a huge issue out of it.

"People like you"? And what are these "people like me" then Cav? Seems to be getting a bit personal! Sticks and stones...., etc

And I should point out that you have been arguing just as vociferously, which funnily enough makes you one of those "people like me".... :D

If we were all mature and ignored a report aimed at people who's IQ is not a positive rational number, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Er, didn't you say that you read this NOTW report??? So from your description above..... :)

I should just add that I have not read it as it insults my intelligence :D:D:D

Rubbish. The biggest crime is seemingly intelligent people like you paying attention to it.

Well, thanks I'll take that as a compliment. I have an IQ of 156 so no "seemingly intelligent" about it :D

If we could all be grown up and ignore it and focus on more important things, the world would be a better place. So you saying that we are discussing an old man's sex life is quite ironical, because it's precisely because of people like you who made an issue out of it that we are discussing it.

Again, I refer you to my point above, you are also discussing it which makes you no different. Takes two or more people to discuss things.

Kati posted the text here, and I did read it to be qualified to comment on it. I never watched the video though, I don't see the need.

Uh-huh. You originally said:

I read the original piece in NOTW, and that's an insult to anyone's intelligence

Anyway, let's move on... People like me are getting bored with all this. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are getting completely confused. You say that Max's sexual preferences are irrelevant in your opinion. Then you say that those who disagree have "higher standards of morality". :lol: What you ought to say is that they are just wrong, and bigoted. And it's not arrogant presumption to say so - it's called standing up for your own principles.

:rolleyes: My answer was honest. I said if my income was going to be seriously damaged by my principles, then yes I would have to weigh up whether to stick to them or not. If you were faced with the choice of eg turning a blind eye to racism, or standing up for your principles at the cost of bankrupting your family, we both know what you would do too. This is totally different to how we ought to behave in a forum like this where we can freely express our views, especially when the choice is between our principles and no more than a glorified game. Yet instead of condemning bigots and prudes, you laud their "higher moral standards".

Where did this post appear from, it wasn't here before I left for lunch! :lol:

Anyway.....bollocks, I said no such thing. The higher standards of morals was then followed by my standards being at gutter level. Which bit of that did you not get?? :rolleyes:

I said I accept that other people have different views and live by different moral codes. And Max's preferences are irrelevant in my opinion, however, I accept that not everybody feels that way. And while you may be arrogant enough to convince yourself that only you and whoever agrees with you is right, I am much more intelligent than that :whistling::lol:

Now onto your principles. I am afraid it is you who is misguided, young Skywalker. You cannot keep taking about principles when you admit freely that the first time your principles affect you directly then you will question and maybe refute those principles. What you have there are not principles, they are just something that you say to make you feel better about yourself. True principles are the things that you will uphold even if it means that you will suffer, not just the ideals you will change as soon as it affects you personally. As they say, actions speak louder than words........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dribbler, Cavallino, Wapi - address this point, please!!!

At the end of the day they will have to work with him, because he is the one signing some papers, he is the one deciding on some issues, so if you disqualify yourself you are damaging yourself not him. He is damaged beyond repair, anyhow :)

Anyone taking care of their own money, are willing to put everything behind and continue bussiness as usual. Because it is much more damaging to play stubborn child than to accept the fact that you lost in democratic process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...