Fia Vote

[maure 1]

Hey it's not so bad! Only when I see him ruin the lives of McLaren by fining them

[Jean Todt 4]

Fcking mickey mouse would've been better than Todt.

Tragedy continues to be the theme for F1.

For once I agree with you.

[dribbler 6]

Absolutely, you made my point and then thrice over. Mickey mouse is so completely unqualified that it only makes sense that it betters Todt by a country mile.

Ah, I understand now; you don't like mice.

[Jean Todt 4]

Ah, I understand now; you don't like mice.

[Max Mosley 2]

Where's the WHO CARES option?

Yeah I'm actually with you. I have no idea what either of them propose to do and, frankly, anyone who watches F1 as a sport rather than a soap opera should probably switch to golf.

Given that most people prefered Vatanen, I'm relieved that Todt won. Imho Max did a good job in difficult circumstances. The 'sport' has become safer, fairer and more of a sport, more elite and professional and imho more exciting under his reign. He has made serious efforts to clamp down on cheating, most of which simply went unnoticed or even tacitly sanctioned before Max kicked up a fuss, and to make the formula more financially and environmentally sound. Latterly, even innovation has been boosted by Max and in a way that is more satisfying to me as a scientist than what is usually considered 'innovative' in F1 circles (my! aren't those wheels big). Efforts to achieve more were stymied by the teams - as always in history, great leaders must contend with everyone else.

A beautifully crafted but rather careful taste of history.

One need only to look at why the King later supported 'democracy and human rights' to know that he didn't really want to.

While you're at it - check why exactly Franco chose to support the Princes asperations.

Don't trust me people - look it up - a fascinating part of European history.

...but yes - not to be facetious - one could argue that the result is what matters all the same - and on that count the parallels could hold true - let's hope so.

Ah! History makes for delightful stories. Whether we can learn anything from them is another matter and one that seems rarely addressed by history aficionados.

For example, when I was in primary school, we used to have a sandpit. One day, I was appointed king of the castle by the older boys as they were called away for lunch after constructing a magnificent sandy fortress. I felt proud and determined to respect the wishes of my predecessors, who I admired very much. But the seconds passed and, in a fit of boredom, I decided to sit on it.

I have no doubt that future greats of history will devote many decades of research to this fascinating period of my life. Whether they will learn much about Jean Todt by doing so will, tantalisingly, be a matter for yet more scholars.

may sound a bit disappointing to say, but things are not that easy to handle so that democracy and equality should be the solution.

Quite so, Kati. Things aren't so simple that democracy should be the solution. (Imagine what would happen if the idealists we get on here had any real power for example. Oh look: Andres has replied to you. )

Didn't you say that you do not believe in democracy?

Anyways, "advantages", small as they might be are something FIA should not be concerned about as it is not its duty to keep up the F1 "business". FIA is there to make rules and enforce them, FOM is out there to take care of the business. Todt's record is as squeaky clean as Briatore's...enough said

Even as a Ferrari manager, the fact that he vetoed Alonso's hiring for many years just because he felt Nando had betrayed him shows that he wasn't even that great as a Ferrari manager, either.

That said, I give you that the Toad seems brighter than Max, Mosley always seemed a rather stupid guy, whose only virtue was a mix of a total lack of scruples, a giant ego and Bernie's support.

Todt is brighter than Max? He might be. I always held him in high esteem but Max was never the daftest man in the cellar. Wait a sec... No but seriously he was smart too.

No problem. A little of ancient history . In 2000, Alonso won his only race at Spa in F3000. The prize was a test drive for Minardi. Mr.Minardi loved the kid (in a platonic way, unlike Ron and Lewis ) and hired him to race for his team. Minardi was a team already heading for bankruptcy and by the end of 2001 Giancarlo Minardi was desperate for money so he sold the most thing he had: Nando . Ferrari, via Todt, offered him instantly a 5 year contract. Adrian Campos (his manager) was delighted and came to a verbal agreement with Todt. After all, the kid was going from nowhere to Ferrari in record time. But Nando said no and accepted Flavio's offer. Todt was furious and said the famous phrase that repeated years later: "As long as I am in charge at Ferrari, Alonso won't race there". And if something you have to give to Todt, is that he kept that promise

An added curiosity: during that 2001 year, at a press conference, Minardi and Todt were together at one moment. "You have only one thing I am interested about" said Todt. "You could have had him if only you had called me", said Giancarlo. "It doesn't matter. We will buy him whenever we want him", replied Jean. And they did.

(Oh, and they were talking about Nando, you filthy minded b#####ds!)

Interesting. Is this common knowledge because I've never heard it before? I wonder why it's not said more often. Todt might well have a different take on it, verdad?

[AleHop 0]

Yeah I'm actually with you. I have no idea what either of them propose to do and, frankly, anyone who watches F1 as a sport rather than a soap opera should probably switch to golf.

Mosley, Todt or Vatanen, all of them are unnecessary and annoying. They should switch to golf but they watch F1 as a soap opera. They propose to stay in chief as long as possible. No, you're not with me and both of us don't care in spite of our extremely different point of view. You should switch to golf and you watch F1 neither as a sport nor as a soap opera. You watch F1 as a Greek tragedy.

I'm with dribbler. Todt is a cartoon.

[yurp 0]

Ah! History makes for delightful stories. Whether we can learn anything from them is another matter and one that seems rarely addressed by history aficionados.

The problem with history is that people read only what they want to read from it. A true historic understanding must be objective.

A politician's/lawyer's understanding of history is prejudiced by their aims.

A laymans understanding of history is prejudiced by their beliefs and the 'facts' they've been taught.

I was blessed with 1 good history teacher (out of the 4 I had over my schooling). That teacher taught the method and not the 'facts'. History isn't about people and dates - it's about societal movement and pressures. The famous figures throughout history are a result of their times not the causes of them. Study the true causes and that's where you'll learn something.

Moving on - the first thing any real historian studies is not history but objectivity and how to guard against a subjective assessment of sources - a skill everyone would do well to learn - especially around here.

For instance - saying ghandi was 100% good is childish falsehood. saying mussolini was 100% bad is equally so - but people find it so much harder to accept the second fact than the first. That is lack of objectivity - it will be the death of us all - without objectivity ther is no rationality - we live in an irrational world.

And before anyone says 'how can you think mussolini was good!' - I don't and you're an idiot.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

And before anyone says 'how can you think mussolini was good!' - I don't and you're an idiot.

Oh he was probably only 22% good

[yurp 0]

Oh he was probably only 22% good

and you have 100 posts too many

[AleHop 0]

Yeah I'm actually with you. I have no idea what either of them propose to do and, frankly, anyone who watches F1 as a sport rather than a soap opera should probably switch to golf.

Mosley, Todt or Vatanen, all of them are unnecessary and annoying. They should switch to golf but they watch F1 as a soap opera. They propose to stay in chief as long as possible. No, you're not with me and both of us don't care in spite of our extremely different point of view. You should switch to golf and you watch F1 neither as a sport nor as a soap opera. You watch F1 as a Greek tragedy.

I'm with dribbler. Todt is a cartoon.

Mmmm... Actually I watch F1 as a Greek tragedy.

EDITED: Yeah, I should switch to golf.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Ah, I understand now; you don't like mice.

You rodentisteric

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Mmmm... Actually I watch F1 as a Greek tragedy.

So, Jean Todt is now playing Laurence Olivier Zeus, Bernie is Medusa (nice hair ), Rosberg is Jason, the stewards are the fighting skeletons and Max is a Kraken

[Quiet One 15]

The problem with history is that people read only what they want to read from it. A true historic understanding must be objective.

A politician's/lawyer's understanding of history is prejudiced by their aims.

A laymans understanding of history is prejudiced by their beliefs and the 'facts' they've been taught.

I was blessed with 1 good history teacher (out of the 4 I had over my schooling). That teacher taught the method and not the 'facts'. History isn't about people and dates - it's about societal movement and pressures. The famous figures throughout history are a result of their times not the causes of them. Study the true causes and that's where you'll learn something.

Moving on - the first thing any real historian studies is not history but objectivity and how to guard against a subjective assessment of sources - a skill everyone would do well to learn - especially around here.

For instance - saying ghandi was 100% good is childish falsehood. saying mussolini was 100% bad is equally so - but people find it so much harder to accept the second fact than the first. That is lack of objectivity - it will be the death of us all - without objectivity ther is no rationality - we live in an irrational world.

And before anyone says 'how can you think mussolini was good!' - I don't and you're an idiot.

Funny, I was reading a very thoroughly study on Mussolini a few days ago (Richard Bosworth's biography)

Oh yes, and I agree with you. Mussolini was good.

Wait...

[Max Mosley 2]

The problem with history is that people read only what they want to read from it. A true historic understanding must be objective.

A politician's/lawyer's understanding of history is prejudiced by their aims.

A laymans understanding of history is prejudiced by their beliefs and the 'facts' they've been taught.

I was blessed with 1 good history teacher (out of the 4 I had over my schooling). That teacher taught the method and not the 'facts'. History isn't about people and dates - it's about societal movement and pressures. The famous figures throughout history are a result of their times not the causes of them. Study the true causes and that's where you'll learn something.

Moving on - the first thing any real historian studies is not history but objectivity and how to guard against a subjective assessment of sources - a skill everyone would do well to learn - especially around here.

For instance - saying ghandi was 100% good is childish falsehood. saying mussolini was 100% bad is equally so - but people find it so much harder to accept the second fact than the first. That is lack of objectivity - it will be the death of us all - without objectivity ther is no rationality - we live in an irrational world.

And before anyone says 'how can you think mussolini was good!' - I don't and you're an idiot.

Yeah Adam I agree with a lot of what you say. I think it's impossible to be completely objective though. Everyone has their biases and philosophical preconceptions, it seems to me, but then it's just my opinion.

And another problem with history imho is that they extrapolate from the smallest of sample sizes, about which they don't even have all the relevant data, to the grandest of claims about life and behaviour. Psychology (and perhaps even sociology, economics, literature etc) is usually a better way to learn about human nature and behaviour. It just doesn't have the nice stories!

Btw I agree with you about Mussolini. He was a genius! But that's just our little bias, right?

Oh wait... no, I mean I agree that he wasn't 100% bad. But you picked an easy example there my friend. What about Hitler? What about Osama bin Laden? What about... Thatcher?

EDITED: Yeah, I should switch to golf.

So should Nando.

[yurp 0]

Funny, I was reading a very thoroughly study on Mussolini a few days ago (Richard Bosworth's biography)

Oh yes, and I agree with you. Mussolini was good.

Wait...

well - i know you're an idiot already - for christ's sake - you think flav told mr x to crash into alonso.

[maure 1]

The problem with history is that people read only what they want to read from it. A true historic understanding must be objective.

A politician's/lawyer's understanding of history is prejudiced by their aims.

A laymans understanding of history is prejudiced by their beliefs and the 'facts' they've been taught.

I was blessed with 1 good history teacher (out of the 4 I had over my schooling). That teacher taught the method and not the 'facts'. History isn't about people and dates - it's about societal movement and pressures. The famous figures throughout history are a result of their times not the causes of them. Study the true causes and that's where you'll learn something.

Moving on - the first thing any real historian studies is not history but objectivity and how to guard against a subjective assessment of sources - a skill everyone would do well to learn - especially around here.

For instance - saying ghandi was 100% good is childish falsehood. saying mussolini was 100% bad is equally so - but people find it so much harder to accept the second fact than the first. That is lack of objectivity - it will be the death of us all - without objectivity ther is no rationality - we live in an irrational world.

And before anyone says 'how can you think mussolini was good!' - I don't and you're an idiot.

Your writing has improved. Good for you.

The ramble on "history" is too left field to matter. Even the late Murray picked on the objectivity bit. Further, rendition of history requires not only a "proper" account of "events" but an interpretation appropriate to the times in which the rendition is to mean anything. The history into history recursive loop is too often ignored.

Nonetheless, what is amusingly agreeable is your take on the 100% good and bad "people". I still smile when I strike the "childish" with the horrible fact that Hitler might have been a good father, in other words, that the most atrocious notion is not that monsters are exceptions but, rather, normal human beings doing the inhuman... and, guess what, I've met more than a few goons that, given opportunity, would've made Hitler at his worst look like X-mas by comparison... something of relevance especially around here. Anyway, there is some revealing literature in clinical psychology for those interested.

[yurp 0]

Your writing has improved. Good for you.

nope - same as ever - you just agree for once.

that's subjectivity for you - from the king of irrational paranoia - _ironic_.

damning praise if ever there was.

The ramble on "history" is too left field to matter. Even the late Murray picked on the objectivity bit. Further, rendition of history requires not only a "proper" account of "events" but an interpretation appropriate to the times in which the rendition is to mean anything. The history into history recursive loop is too often ignored.

Nonetheless, what is amusingly agreeable is your take on the 100% good and bad "people". I still smile when I strike the "childish" with the horrible fact that Hitler might have been a good father, in other words, that the most atrocious notion is not that monsters are exceptions but, rather, normal human beings doing the inhuman... and, guess what, I've met more than a few goons that, given opportunity, would've made Hitler at his worst look like X-mas by comparison... something of relevance especially around here. Anyway, there is some revealing literature in clinical psychology for those interested.

you like hitler?

yada yada yada

[Schumikonen 2]

No problem. A little of ancient history . In 2000, Alonso won his only race at Spa in F3000. The prize was a test drive for Minardi. Mr.Minardi loved the kid (in a platonic way, unlike Ron and Lewis ) and hired him to race for his team. Minardi was a team already heading for bankruptcy and by the end of 2001 Giancarlo Minardi was desperate for money so he sold the most thing he had: Nando . Ferrari, via Todt, offered him instantly a 5 year contract. Adrian Campos (his manager) was delighted and came to a verbal agreement with Todt. After all, the kid was going from nowhere to Ferrari in record time. But Nando said no and accepted Flavio's offer. Todt was furious and said the famous phrase that repeated years later: "As long as I am in charge at Ferrari, Alonso won't race there". And if something you have to give to Todt, is that he kept that promise

An added curiosity: during that 2001 year, at a press conference, Minardi and Todt were together at one moment. "You have only one thing I am interested about" said Todt. "You could have had him if only you had called me", said Giancarlo. "It doesn't matter. We will buy him whenever we want him", replied Jean. And they did.

(Oh, and they were talking about Nando, you filthy minded b#####ds!)

I guess you didn't notice the part I worte in white so you would hand out the info easier just take a look at my post and highlight it

[Schumikonen 2]

Mmmm... Actually I watch F1 as a Greek tragedy.

EDITED: Yeah, I should switch to golf.

never, Golf may be the dumber sport to watch on TV, playing it may be fun but not on TV.

You rodentisteric

So lewisteric are those who hate Lewis? I thought those were the name for Lewis suppoerter, thanks God I never used that word before I could have done a lio.

So should Nando.

yes, the sooner the better.

well - i know you're an idiot already - for christ's sake - you think flav told mr x to crash into alonso.

that's impossible X adn Alonso are the same.

[AleHop 0]

And another problem with history imho is that they extrapolate from the smallest of sample sizes, about which they don't even have all the relevant data, to the grandest of claims about life and behaviour. Psychology (and perhaps even sociology, economics, literature etc) is usually a better way to learn about human nature and behaviour. It just doesn't have the nice stories!

That's why history and story is just the same word in Spanish. History is a democratic subject, isn't it?

So should Nando.

Nando Golf? No, it's a Volkswagen he should switch to Testarossa.

[Quiet One 15]

I guess you didn't notice the part I worte in white so you would hand out the info easier just take a look at my post and highlight it

I just read it. Not that you need any reason to dislike Alonso.

But if you want some more reasons: that same year Sauber made an offer to Nando to replace...you guessed it, Kimi! Ahhh...the irony!

[Jean Todt 4]

I just read it. Not that you need any reason to dislike Alonso.

But if you want some more reasons: that same year Sauber made an offer to Nando to replace...you guessed it, Kimi! Ahhh...the irony!

That was because Kimi was moving to bigger teams,

[Schumikonen 2]

That was because Kimi was moving to bigger teams,

Right answer besides that Kimi was never demoted to test driver as Alonso was

now look at what I found about Kimi:

Early career (until 2000)

R

[Quiet One 15]

That was because Kimi was moving to bigger teams,

Let's see...Alonso was at Minardi, only one season in his pocket. Yet he was offered to replace Kimi at Sauber, Barrichello at Ferrari (eventually) or Button at Renault (2 future WDCs!), he finally went there and won 2 back to back WDCs before the other two guys who were into "bigger things".

Yup, the guy is such a failure. I bow to you and Tommy's wisdom

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

History isn't about people and dates - it's about societal movement and pressures.

The famous figures throughout history are a result of their times not the causes of them. Study the true causes and that's where you'll learn something.

Societal movement, which is a "people" thing and pressures brought by people on other people.

People who can be directed by individuals with a plan, purpose or ability to motivate.

"Societal movement and pressures" is an environment thing. A tiger in a jungle will hunt and kill things and is in its natural environment. Stick a tiger in a zoo and its still a tiger. May be out of its environment but get in its cage and it will still bite your arse off.

People are all a mix of good and bad - heaven and hell is inside you. I don't for one minute believe that Hitler or Mussolini or any of the other nutbags would be "nice" people if they were around today in our so-called peace-loving, democratic set up. Its the old argument about nature or nurture with kids. Are children a product of their environment or is it hard-wired into their brains? The answer, as any parent will know is that it is a little bit of both. Stick a kid with a weakness into a dodgy environment and the bad traits will surface.

True it may be more difficult for another Hitler now, but then how do you measure evil? The number of people who die in Africa from unsanitary water, famine, malaria and AIDS dwarf what Hitler did and all are preventable.