Post by Bigbird Post by Alan Baker Post by Bigbird Post by Alan Baker Post by Bigbird Post by Alan Baker Post by geoff
Post by ~misfit~ Post by geoff
Well clearly your understanding of the word "alongside"
is somewhat different to that of others.
If it wasn't alongside he wouldn't have hit it.
So you believe in the hierarchical version of alongside.
Where your woman walking alongside you much actually walk
at heel ?
I believe that if an object in motion in one direction is
"alongside" another object in motion in the same direction,
then either of them shifting toward the other at 90 degrees
to the path of motion would result in contact.
A pretty ignorant assessment.
If someone's gets their foot shut in the door who is to blame?
or do you need some context for that?
If the person who shuts the door knows the foot is there, and
slams it shut anyway, is that assault?
Yes or no.
Now you are adding context, not enough to answer you question but
enough to prove my point. Do you see how important that is?
Yes or no?
Yes. I do see how important that is.
Nothing more important than you proving my point. :)
Post by Alan Baker
Perez had just passed Ocon at La Source by diving inside and
sacrificing good exit speed which he knew (any race driver knows)
Ocon was going to have.
So Perez had no excuse for not knowing Ocon would be alongside him...
...and he moved over anyway.
This si what I was alluding to with my earlier post about good drivers
having spacial awareness and a knowledge of closing speeds and vectors etc.
Post by Bigbird
All every well I suppose. I wouldn't know I haven't looked closely
enough to consider anything but what resulted.
I was simply pointing out that assuming something was "alongside" just
because there was contact ignores relevant context.
Perhaps you didn't fully appreciate my analogy as you chose to go in a
different direction by trying to find a way to blame the person
"shutting the door" rather than considering any other context.
Perhaps that is what you are doing above. You do have a habit of
choosing a conclusion and making arguments to fit that conclusion
rather than considering the facts.
I sometimes do what you're saying Alan does above. However the 'conclusion'
made is based on shitloads of input and experience. What you call 'making
arguments' is often simply trying to explain the (often semi-subconscious)
reason for the conclusion to other people. Sometimes people who insist on
explainations of a position rather than accepting that a person has a right
to a position and often good reasons for it.
If we all had to explain the processes that lead to every conclusion we'd be
tapping keys to the exclusion enjoying Formula 1 and even of living life.
(IMO this is what Bob tries to force posters to do that I so dislike -
atempting to make people explain concusions and opinions while undermining
them and diverting from the issue at hand, taking snide side-swipes over
days and days - all to stroke his own ego rather than find truth or discuss
IMO his egotistical 'must win or demolish 'opposition' tendancies while
debating to his own rules (with veiled ad hominems) make his post less about
F1 and more about him.)
Again IMO after a while (and to an extent) peoples views and opinions can
either be taken or queitly disregarded without incessant questioning and
deliberate undermining. That's not to say a few civil questions as to why
that concusion was reached can't be asked and answered. :)
A usenet 'discussion group' should be more about the groups *subject* than
the art and deviousness of discussion for its own sake.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)