Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

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

cavallino

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah

Recommended Posts

Hope the trip to church taught you not to believe you have the right to tell others what to do. If it didn't, there is always next sunday. Apply yourself.

The green lights are irrelevant for all purposes. You would have to argue that when Brawn told Schumacher to try a move on Alonso (while Alonso was being told not to do the same on Hamilton), Brawn was seeing into the future that such lights would be green. I fear you would come to the same problem you have below with (for example) whether or not the track was clean... why? Becayse you just don't know.

You are forcing my hand here. Darn it. It will have to give you the most sought after "absolute proof". Here it goes. Ready?

I don't give a flying fck.

Did it get through? I'll repeat it. No problem. I'll even type it bold, italic, and underline because it's just 3 simple clicks.

I don't give a flying fck.

Why? Because Whiting could've penalize Alonso, or Webber, or even Button despite being long retired from the race. Because the rulebook and its application are a joke and have been for years. Because whether or not Schumacher's pass Alonso means something of great significance to you, it means squat to me. In short, because, I don't give a Nac-Nac Superman-Seat-Grab Bunny-hop Saran-Wrap Frontal-Flip flying fck.

So, again, sorry your dear Schumacher got screwed over. It sucks to be you. You should get the better of it in next races since Schumacher, Brawn, etc, have gotten away (traditionally) with far more than most. In fact, Alonso is one those poor suckers that have often been trampled by Whiting... so you will have more than a chance to get your kick.

And, well, a slap on the back from Japan for having this thread blow in your face. Chin up.

AS usual you avoiding the main subjetc, where did you get the info about the error? can you answer this single question without using phrases like "my guess"? we are not discuing what you think we are discussing what happen in a race, I will bypass your previous answer and contunue in waiting mode for you answer and note that those were only reminders not question, facts and not guesses, if can't answer don't worry about about it, is not going to be the fisrt time :P life goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else hear Final Score's football round up on the BBC today? [Deep, bored voice for those who haven't seen it] "And we have one full time result in the Principality today: Schumacher won, Damon Nil. Oh wait, sorry I read that the wrong way round..."

This was a fun thread btw imho. I guess it seemed some of us were just winding others up but that wasn't the case, at least most of the time. I still think the stewards and race control got it wrong. Either way for me it sums up the problems with F1 today: the one moment of any interest whatsoever was against the rules.

I even half suspect, in a Mauresque conspiracy, that maybe the rulemakers like having daft and ambiguous rules because they are really the only source of debate and interest for the fans. People like Lewis and Michael take lots of risks and normally either get penalised for it or only derive a tiny benefit. I remember many races this season and last where Lewis was racing with the Ferraris in the midfield and overtook countless cars only to end the race with the Ferraris still right behind him, seemingly perfectly happy to tootle round safely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dribs - If you're just messing, cool.

Most definitely that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AS usual you avoiding the main subjetc, where did you get the info about the error? can you answer this single question without using phrases like "my guess"? we are not discuing what you think we are discussing what happen in a race, I will bypass your previous answer and contunue in waiting mode for you answer and note that those were only reminders not question, facts and not guesses, if can't answer don't worry about about it, is not going to be the fisrt time :P life goes on.

Yawn... post the freaking question without padding or babble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I even half suspect, in a Mauresque conspiracy, that maybe...

Nope. Not even your corpse status as the late Murray permits you to adopt a Mauresque perspective. Hop off and don't let it happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but why not? We have the space for it. We either thrash something or someone to death or have all threads like the debate thread. No disrespect to the intentions of that, but I would far rather read through everything and respond to the worthy stuff and ignore the babbling bollocks, rather than have a subject decided and put to bed. Not only that but am I the only one who reads the posts of certain members to gauge where they are mentally? We all have good and bad moods. Getting a feel for people and the way they ebb and flow is all part of the magic of forums like these and allows you to decide just how harsh or diplomatic you want to be. Does any of that make sense?

Edited to include babbling bollocks.

Depends on what you want from the forum - not everyone wants what you do I guess. For me, I have no interest in trying to deduce where people are in their mood cycles (both male and female) from their posts. And not much interest in maure's delusional rantings about a pan-F1 Lewisteric anti-Alonso conspiracy and people's responses to it. And then someone starts rehashing everything because noone can be bothered reading the whole thread.

I guess it's a difference in how people look at the forum - I have less and less interest in getting to know people here personally to be honest, and more interest in topical discussion and so the cosy personal banter doesn't interest me as much any more. I prefer socializing with real people, I'd rather come here for what I can't find in real life.

The debate thread again?

Seriously?

:lol:

I wish I'd never bothered starting the bollocking thing. It seems now that everything has become so bloody serious.

As I said, confine the official debate posting to the first post, and leave the rest of the thread open for lively debate / discussion. The purpose of a structured debate should be to provoke discussion, not prevent it. USe the first post for official postings, and the rest of it can be semen jokes for all that matters.

What's worse, since Cav and Chris had their little "beef", everyone seems to hold me responsible.

You misread that, it goes back a bit - he's miffed that by dragging the level of debate through the mud, virtually everyone who disagreed left the GW thread and it's now mauron and grumpy the hollowsmearer's mutual backslapping club. He's miffed that I left after he accused me of calling someone a terrorist - I have no wish to have a debate at that level.

I even half suspect, in a Mauresque conspiracy, that maybe the rulemakers like having daft and ambiguous rules because they are really the only source of debate and interest for the fans.

Nah that would be a gross violation of Hanlon's razor :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on what you want from the forum - not everyone wants what you do I guess. For me, I have no interest in trying to deduce where people are in their mood cycles (both male and female) from their posts. And not much interest in maure's delusional rantings about a pan-F1 Lewisteric anti-Alonso conspiracy and people's responses to it. And then someone starts rehashing everything because noone can be bothered reading the whole thread.

I guess it's a difference in how people look at the forum - I have less and less interest in getting to know people here personally to be honest, and more interest in topical discussion and so the cosy personal banter doesn't interest me as much any more. I prefer socializing with real people, I'd rather come here for what I can't find in real life.

I bet you kick kittens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Your hysterical thread and how it has blown in your face. From title to this last post, it pretty much sums up what you amount to, contradiction man... and that is, not much.

And how can I not laugh when you still mention me despite much screaming about blacklisting people... oh well, sorry I didn't bother to read your post/babbling, though, I've just replaced it with 3 dots and it sure amounts to much of the same, namely, me, me, me, me, me which is the only matter of relevance to you, contradition man.

And I smile again, who knew. I've seen in passing that your post/babbling includes a self-excusing-yet-so-failing reference to the embarrasment you endured in the GW thread. Well, it's all in the me, me, me, me,...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maure,

Your posts are very sensible, something rare in F1 forums...

Looks like we are in the same boat... The blacklisted boat ... :) Or should I say "the not-so-blacklisted boat".... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like we are in the same boat...

I wonder if torpedoes are expensive.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn the torpedoes.

edit: Full speed ahead?

:lol: Undoubtedly. It's getting very Mobile Bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are claiming the track was clear.

I say the SC went into the pitlane to allow Webber, the winner, to pass the finish line first. I consider it the reason for the rule. Is it possible that all this was a scheme Whiting-Brawn to screw Alonso? Could certainly be.

From the final turn to the finish line, the track was clear.

We all know what the rules state by now, but here's a few questions for you (and everyone). First, how is Webber the winner before crossing the finish line? How is it right that the cars drive on a green track with no SC deployed but are not allowed to overtake? Is this rule in the 'spirit' of racing? I'm not concerned with who broke what rule, I'm concerned with whether or not that rule should be in F1.

Everything is clear... to Brawn, the acclaimed genius who was short of deification last season. Strange that this season he is no genius at all and Mercedes sucks rather than blasting the field away.

And yet, Brawn sees what no one else does. Ferrari told Alonso not to pass Hamilton while Brawn said the opposite to Schumacher. Must be something in the rulebook... as if it matter. I still say that it was Alonso who deserved a fine, a drive through, and a 24 position penalty on the grid for the next 15 races... at least.

Brawn has a long history of presenting cases before the stewards and the FIA. He has rarely lost.

I realize now that I only responded partially.

Do I consider everything fixed in general when speaking of FIA and F1? You bet. F1 is a "sport" (or whatever alike) for you, I, and some others. F1 is a business for those that run it. As a business, one does not let it run on its own merry way on principle. Moreover, the history of F1 plainly demonstrates that FIA interferes as it sees fit and with devastating consequences to fair play. Summing up, only those naive, gullible, or new to F1 are allowed to believe F1 is both "clean" and a "sport". The rest of us should know better.

Specifics regarding a particular race or driver should be explained on account of whether FIA wanted things to be moved in this or that direction. Even when no penalties are handed, FIA decided so and, therefore, interfered in such a manner.

The bottom line is that F1 is not "fair game" by any standard. It is a business with business interests and objectives for institution to teams and drivers. Furthermore, the ruling folks milking this particular line of business have no regard for F1 beyond how much they can pocket. Their drunken swaggers over the years demonstrate this. For instance, the opening (and reopening) of new (and old) "markets" by means of "allowing" some drivers to briefly shine. Same goes for "green" efforts and similar ridiculous schemes in the face of what F1 should be. Anyway, sht comes and go, teams/drivers/rules, etc, the only thing that remains is Ecclestone p**sing all around the perimeter of the fence that chockes F1.

And we all know why.

I understand now your view towards F1. I'll remember that in future responses to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maure,

Your posts are very sensible, something rare in F1 forums...

Looks like we are in the same boat... The blacklisted boat ... :) Or should I say "the not-so-blacklisted boat".... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Funny.

I wonder if torpedoes are expensive.....

Do not look in your pants for one (or gorilla's since he put his pinky in the way), that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the final turn to the finish line, the track was clear.

So the track was not clear.

We all know what the rules state by now, but here's a few questions for you (and everyone). First, how is Webber the winner before crossing the finish line? How is it right that the cars drive on a green track with no SC deployed but are not allowed to overtake? Is this rule in the 'spirit' of racing? I'm not concerned with who broke what rule, I'm concerned with whether or not that rule should be in F1.

As I said, it seems an issue of politeness to the crowd. If a race is to finish on a track that cannot be raced on, let the guy on the lead to take the win.

In all truth, there are many instances when the guy on the lead wins and some of these are far more difficult to justify than a track that cannot be raced on. Take for example the 2 hour limit and find a way to justify why the leader at that particular end of an arbritary time span should simply win.

Brawn has a long history of presenting cases before the stewards and the FIA. He has rarely lost.

He lost this time.

However, a "rarely" regarding FIA is like talking about a fellow that rarely loses to the mafia... it simply makes it more evident why it is so difficult to distinguish one from the other.

If you feel entertained, call up Brawn's quarrels with FIA and let those corpses take a walk in plain view. There will be a few lessons for the gullible... but do it in another thread. The title of this one alone brings about cavallino's madness which, let's be honest, is a fcking bore.

I understand now your view towards F1. I'll remember that in future responses to you.

Sure, I consider F1 a scripted play... and as a "competition", it has mde me laugh long and hard many, many times. I've said this as often as FIA has made it evident for all of us. Of course, many other times, I only imply it because many of you don't have access to the relevant information... not that it matters. Even when FIA's hand is in plain view, many choose to look the other way.

You know how it goes, the smoking gun is just a cigar and, although Ecclestone is holding the "cigar" in plain view, Whiting will chew your legs for stating the obvious in his role as the fierce, remorseless, and dishonorable thug he is hired to be.

But let's play fair in the close quarters of this forum. How do you understand FIA's role in F1? And, interestingly, what do you consider is left of F1 as a motorsport under Ecclestone's FIA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the track was not clear.

Ah, lawyer tricks. How fun. You can't be this ignorant of how racing works, can you? I can only assume you're getting enjoyment out of arguing an irrelevant point with me. Irrelevant because the race was ending and the cars were not going to pass Trulli's wreckage at speed. Now, had the race a few more laps left, then the SC would have stayed out until the wreckage was cleared.

As I said, it seems an issue of politeness to the crowd. If a race is to finish on a track that cannot be raced on, let the guy on the lead to take the win.

Politeness to the crowd? You mean the crowd that paid to see a race? More to the point, the race had exactly one turn left, and as Schumacher had shown us, there were still opportunities for racing in that one corner. You seem a genuine fan of racing, and lament what you deem to be orchestrated results, yet you're strangely accepting of this one.

In all truth, there are many instances when the guy on the lead wins and some of these are far more difficult to justify than a track that cannot be raced on. Take for example the 2 hour limit and find a way to justify why the leader at that particular end of an arbritary time span should simply win.

You err. Schumacher has already proven that at the one corner of the race that was left, it certainly could be raced on. I find preventing drivers from racing to be far harder to justify than a 2 hour time limit. I would think any sane race fan would agree with me on this.

He lost this time.

However, a "rarely" regarding FIA is like talking about a fellow that rarely loses to the mafia... it simply makes it more evident why it is so difficult to distinguish one from the other.

If you feel entertained, call up Brawn's quarrels with FIA and let those corpses take a walk in plain view. There will be a few lessons for the gullible... but do it in another thread. The title of this one alone brings about cavallino's madness which, let's be honest, is a fcking bore.

Sure, I consider F1 a scripted play... and as a "competition", it has mde me laugh long and hard many, many times. I've said this as often as FIA has made it evident for all of us. Of course, many other times, I only imply it because many of you don't have access to the relevant information... not that it matters. Even when FIA's hand is in plain view, many choose to look the other way.

You know how it goes, the smoking gun is just a cigar and, although Ecclestone is holding the "cigar" in plain view, Whiting will chew your legs for stating the obvious in his role as the fierce, remorseless, and dishonorable thug he is hired to be.

I wonder why you're here, talking about a sport that you don't seem to enjoy.

But let's play fair in the close quarters of this forum. How do you understand FIA's role in F1? And, interestingly, what do you consider is left of F1 as a motorsport under Ecclestone's FIA?

Truthfully, I really don't care. My only concern is for the drivers and their battles. As long as they battle as fiercely as Schumacher at Monaco, I'll be happy. FIA be damned. Governing bodies come and go. Manufacturers come and go. Corporations come and go. So, what is left of F1 as a motorsport under Ecclestone? Find the answer with the drivers. Go ask Schumacher, who, despite finding himself on the wrong end of a bad rule, still pulled off one helluva move on Alonso. Totally unscripted. You might be right and the FIA might have a script, and they might enforce it by ridiculous rules and penalties, but as long as the driver's aren't given that script, or, in being given it, ignore it, then I'm happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I long ago stated my opinion on the inevitability of the penalty and the silliness of the rules, but I just thought I'd throw this in...

It doesn't aid anybody's argument here, but its connected.

Hypothetical situation:

Cars crash (a la Trulli & Chandok) 3 laps before end of race but after the pit lane entrance and before the finish line.

SC comes out and does 2 laps leading field through the debris scattered all over the track.

Clean up can not be completed before end of race.

According to the rules the SC should come in and let the field go through the debris to the finish line. Is that sensible? Personally, I don't think so.

These are the kind of situations the FIA should be considering when they make their random rule changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I long ago stated my opinion on the inevitability of the penalty and the silliness of the rules, but I just thought I'd throw this in...

It doesn't aid anybody's argument here, but its connected.

Hypothetical situation:

Cars crash (a la Trulli & Chandok) 3 laps before end of race but after the pit lane entrance and before the finish line.

SC comes out and does 2 laps leading field through the debris scattered all over the track.

Clean up can not be completed before end of race.

According to the rules the SC should come in and let the field go through the debris to the finish line. Is that sensible? Personally, I don't think so.

These are the kind of situations the FIA should be considering when they make their random rule changes.

In your hypothetical, the decision that would best fulfill all the rules is for the race to be stopped, as happens if the weather prevents a race from continuing. Time permitting, the best solution would be to clear the track and let the cars do the last lap under green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - I can't really make out what you guys are still arguing about here.

If the question is "Should Schumi have been given a 20 second penalty?" then the answer from the rule book is obviously YES.

If the question is "Are the rules silly?" then again, the answer is obviously YES.

If the question is "How could the rules be better?" then the answer is, return to last year's rules (passing after start/finish line).

simples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - I can't really make out what you guys are still arguing about here.

If the question is "Should Schumi have been given a 20 second penalty?" then the answer from the rule book is obviously YES.

If the question is "Are the rules silly?" then again, the answer is obviously YES.

If the question is "How could the rules be better?" then the answer is, return to last year's rules (passing after start/finish line).

simples

Indeed. I may have muddied up the water a bit with my uncontrollable romanticism, but you've summed it up nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another reason for changing the rule back to before (i.e. passing only after start/finish line, not SC line)...

Another hypothetical...

What if someone's radio is broken?

They will rely on the pit boards yes?

I don't believe there's a pit board message for "Although they will wave green flags, you still can't pass anyone".

In this instance undoubtably Schumi can't complain, but if he didn't have radio contact with his team, he wouldn't have any way of knowing if the safety car was coming in because it was the last lap, or because the track was properly clear and the race was resuming.

Perhaps you could say he should know the article 40.13 (and I'm sure he does now!), but can we expect drivers to remember every rule and be able to think about how they interact/counteract each other while trying to keep their tyres warm behind a safety car, or while pelting down a straight?

The rules have to be straight forward enough for drivers not to have to rely on the pits telling them what to do.

Again - no passing until after the start/finish line - (last lap or not doesn't matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...