Discussion:
Hamilton Earns Siverstone Pole
(too old to reply)
.
2017-07-15 13:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying
pole at Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take
pole away due to a complaint from a backmarker. They
won't take into account the championship, or mind spoiling
the show, as they did for Vettel.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
alister
2017-07-15 14:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due to a
complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
confirmed no further action (maybe they think they owe him one)
--
<Overfiend> partycle: I seriously do need a vacation from this
package. I actually had a DREAM about introducing a
stupid new bug into xbase-preinst last night. That's a
Bad Sign.
-- Seen on #Debian shortly before the release of Debian 2.0
Philip
2017-07-15 14:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <SopaB.218492$***@fx10.am4>, ***@ntlworld.com
says...
Post by alister
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due to a
complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
confirmed no further action (maybe they think they owe him one)
Once again the stewards chicken out because they are afraid of spoiling
"the show", even though they have accepted that HAM impeded GRO. What a
farce.
.
2017-07-15 14:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Philip
says...
Post by alister
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due to a
complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
confirmed no further action (maybe they think they owe him one)
Once again the stewards chicken out because they are afraid of spoiling
"the show", even though they have accepted that HAM impeded GRO.
No, that's not what they said. They did say "while Grosjean potentially
may have been affected by presence of Hamilton, he was not impeded."
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10945876/british-gp-lewis-hamilton-keeps-pole-position-after-stewards-investigation

RG doesn't actually belong on the same track as LH.
Post by Philip
What a
farce.
You should use that pronouncement as your sig file to
describe your risible posts.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
Philip
2017-07-15 21:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
RG doesn't actually belong on the same track as LH.
Indeed. RG belongs on a Formula 1 race track, and LH belongs on some fifth-
rate "rap" track.
News
2017-07-15 22:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Philip
Post by .
RG doesn't actually belong on the same track as LH.
Indeed. RG belongs on a Formula 1 race track, and LH belongs on some fifth-
rate "rap" track.
<rimshot>


Sir Tim
2017-07-15 15:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Philip
says...
Post by alister
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due to a
complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
confirmed no further action (maybe they think they owe him one)
Once again the stewards chicken out because they are afraid of spoiling
"the show", even though they have accepted that HAM impeded GRO. What a
farce.
And what penalty do you think would have been appropriate? Grosjean was, at
worst, mildly inconvenienced although to judge by the reaction of The Haas
team you would have thought that Lewis had deliberately parked in the
middle of the track.

Seems to me there is far too much posturing over the radio in attempts to
influence the stewards.
--
Sir Tim
Heron McKeister
2017-07-15 15:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@brooklands.co.uk
says...
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Philip
says...
Post by alister
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due to a
complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
confirmed no further action (maybe they think they owe him one)
Once again the stewards chicken out because they are afraid of spoiling
"the show", even though they have accepted that HAM impeded GRO. What a
farce.
And what penalty do you think would have been appropriate? Grosjean was, at
worst, mildly inconvenienced although to judge by the reaction of The Haas
team you would have thought that Lewis had deliberately parked in the
middle of the track.
Seems to me there is far too much posturing over the radio in attempts to
influence the stewards.
which doesnt begin to compare to the posturing on this ng.
--
Lurking on Usenet since '88.
~misfit~
2017-07-16 00:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Heron McKeister
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Philip
Post by alister
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole
at Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away
due to a complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into
account the championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did
for Vettel.
confirmed no further action (maybe they think they owe him one)
Once again the stewards chicken out because they are afraid of
spoiling "the show", even though they have accepted that HAM
impeded GRO. What a farce.
And what penalty do you think would have been appropriate? Grosjean
was, at worst, mildly inconvenienced although to judge by the
reaction of The Haas team you would have thought that Lewis had
deliberately parked in the middle of the track.
Seems to me there is far too much posturing over the radio in
attempts to influence the stewards.
which doesnt begin to compare to the posturing on this ng.
Irony thy name is "Heron".
--
Shaun.

"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)
t***@gmail.com
2017-07-18 01:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Irony thy name is "Heron".
you cunt
alister
2017-07-15 17:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Philip
Post by alister
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due to
a complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
confirmed no further action (maybe they think they owe him one)
Once again the stewards chicken out because they are afraid of spoiling
"the show", even though they have accepted that HAM impeded GRO. What a
farce.
And what penalty do you think would have been appropriate? Grosjean was,
at worst, mildly inconvenienced although to judge by the reaction of The
Haas team you would have thought that Lewis had deliberately parked in
the middle of the track.
Seems to me there is far too much posturing over the radio in attempts
to influence the stewards.
If I was responsible for these decisions I would be asking 2 questions.

1) Was the driver driving unreasonably during the inlap (road position &
speed) & could he have done anything different if he was aware of the
approaching driver.

2) Was the affected driver significantly affected or was he able to set a
representative time on a subsequent lap.


Question 2 is a difficult one to answer but i would say for Q1 & Q2 if
the driver still progressed to the next session then there was no
significant affect in Q3 sector times could be checked to see if the
driver was likely to have set a faster lap. obviously this would be
difficult if the incident occurred in Sector 1 but that is the least
likely sector for this type on incident to occur.

My earlier statement "maybe they think they owe him one"
was tongue in cheek & not meant to be taken seriously.

To be honest I did not see any reasonable replays to form an opinion
either way.
looking at the times Gro would only have needed to improve by 0.13
seconds to gain a place so definitely possible, although he did have
plenty of time to complete another lap.
--
In Oz, never say "krizzle kroo" to a Woozy.
Sir Tim
2017-07-15 22:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
My earlier statement "maybe they think they owe him one"
was tongue in cheek & not meant to be taken seriously.
Nevertheless you make a serious point. Having let Vettel off comparatively
lightly for what was a *much* more serious offence, and having admitted
that they took the championship position into account when making that
decision, the stewards would surely have found it hard to justify a
grid-place penalty for Hamilton.
--
Sir Tim
Bigbird
2017-07-16 06:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Philip
Post by alister
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole
at >>>> Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole
away due to >>>> a complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into
account the >>>> championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did
for Vettel. >>>
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Philip
Post by alister
confirmed no further action (maybe they think they owe him one)
Once again the stewards chicken out because they are afraid of
spoiling >> "the show", even though they have accepted that HAM
impeded GRO. What a >> farce.
Post by Sir Tim
And what penalty do you think would have been appropriate? Grosjean
was, at worst, mildly inconvenienced although to judge by the
reaction of The Haas team you would have thought that Lewis had
deliberately parked in the middle of the track.
Seems to me there is far too much posturing over the radio in
attempts to influence the stewards.
If I was responsible for these decisions I would be asking 2
questions.
1) Was the driver driving unreasonably during the inlap (road
position & speed) & could he have done anything different if he was
aware of the approaching driver.
2) Was the affected driver significantly affected or was he able to
set a representative time on a subsequent lap.
Question 2 is a difficult one to answer but i would say for Q1 & Q2
if the driver still progressed to the next session then there was no
significant affect in Q3 sector times could be checked to see if the
driver was likely to have set a faster lap. obviously this would be
difficult if the incident occurred in Sector 1 but that is the least
likely sector for this type on incident to occur.
My earlier statement "maybe they think they owe him one"
was tongue in cheek & not meant to be taken seriously.
To be honest I did not see any reasonable replays to form an opinion
either way.
looking at the times Gro would only have needed to improve by 0.13
seconds to gain a place so definitely possible, although he did have
plenty of time to complete another lap.
Actually it would have to have cost him 0.26 to have cost him an
improved positon (0.13 better than his subsequent lap). So the decision
looks fairer than it first appeared though I still think it should have
been a closer call than a number here claim.

In general I think you are asking a bit much of the stewards. I think
you have to keep it relatively simple and more importantly consistent.

For example, if the impeded car proceeds after using another set of
tyres that he otherwise may not have used has no harm been done?
alister
2017-07-16 10:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Philip
Post by alister
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole
at >>>> Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away
due to >>>> a complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account
the >>>> championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for
Vettel. >>>
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Philip
Post by alister
confirmed no further action (maybe they think they owe him one)
Once again the stewards chicken out because they are afraid of
spoiling >> "the show", even though they have accepted that HAM impeded
GRO. What a >> farce.
Post by Sir Tim
And what penalty do you think would have been appropriate? Grosjean
was, at worst, mildly inconvenienced although to judge by the
reaction of The Haas team you would have thought that Lewis had
deliberately parked in the middle of the track.
Seems to me there is far too much posturing over the radio in
attempts to influence the stewards.
If I was responsible for these decisions I would be asking 2 questions.
1) Was the driver driving unreasonably during the inlap (road position
& speed) & could he have done anything different if he was aware of the
approaching driver.
2) Was the affected driver significantly affected or was he able to set
a representative time on a subsequent lap.
Question 2 is a difficult one to answer but i would say for Q1 & Q2 if
the driver still progressed to the next session then there was no
significant affect in Q3 sector times could be checked to see if the
driver was likely to have set a faster lap. obviously this would be
difficult if the incident occurred in Sector 1 but that is the least
likely sector for this type on incident to occur.
My earlier statement "maybe they think they owe him one"
was tongue in cheek & not meant to be taken seriously.
To be honest I did not see any reasonable replays to form an opinion
either way.
looking at the times Gro would only have needed to improve by 0.13
seconds to gain a place so definitely possible, although he did have
plenty of time to complete another lap.
Actually it would have to have cost him 0.26 to have cost him an
improved positon (0.13 better than his subsequent lap). So the decision
looks fairer than it first appeared though I still think it should have
been a closer call than a number here claim.
In general I think you are asking a bit much of the stewards. I think
you have to keep it relatively simple and more importantly consistent.
For example, if the impeded car proceeds after using another set of
tyres that he otherwise may not have used has no harm been done?
My examples were given to indicate the difficulty of the job.

I am still not sure where I stand on this particular case.

I tend to agree with the decision but is this because of my Bias as a
Hamilton fan, a more general Bias because I want to see a clean fight
between the championship contenders with no artificial monkeying around
or is it because i genuinely think it was just unfortunate timing for GRO
and one of those things drivers should accept?
--
Look! Before our very eyes, the future is becoming the past.
Bigbird
2017-07-15 18:27:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Philip
Post by alister
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole
at >>> Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away
due to a >>> complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into
account the >>> championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did
for Vettel. >>
Post by Philip
Post by alister
confirmed no further action (maybe they think they owe him one)
Once again the stewards chicken out because they are afraid of
spoiling "the show", even though they have accepted that HAM
impeded GRO. What a farce.
And what penalty do you think would have been appropriate? Grosjean
was, at worst, mildly inconvenienced although to judge by the
reaction of The Haas team you would have thought that Lewis had
deliberately parked in the middle of the track.
It looked worthy of investigating to me. It certainly looked like it
could have cost Grosjean a place.
Alan Baker
2017-07-16 06:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying
pole at Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take
pole away due to a complaint from a backmarker. They
won't take into account the championship, or mind spoiling
the show, as they did for Vettel.
Please...

When has Lewis Hamilton ever received a penalty anyone could describe as
"iffy"?
alister
2017-07-16 10:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due to a
complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
Please...
When has Lewis Hamilton ever received a penalty anyone could describe as
"iffy"?
SPA 2008 for starters, they changed the rules to make that one stick!

Oops sorry that decision was not "Iffy" it was blatantly wrong.
--
* james would be more impressed if netgod's magic powers could stop the
splits in the first place...
* netgod notes debian developers are notoriously hard to impress
Sir Tim
2017-07-16 13:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due to a
complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
Please...
When has Lewis Hamilton ever received a penalty anyone could describe as
"iffy"?
SPA 2008 for starters, they changed the rules to make that one stick!
Oops sorry that decision was not "Iffy" it was blatantly wrong.
Agreed. I was so disgusted with that decision that I gave up watching F1
for the rest of the season.
--
Sir Tim
Bob Latham
2017-07-17 11:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due
to a complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
Please...
When has Lewis Hamilton ever received a penalty anyone could describe
as "iffy"?
SPA 2008 for starters, they changed the rules to make that one stick!
Oops sorry that decision was not "Iffy" it was blatantly wrong.
Agreed. I was so disgusted with that decision that I gave up watching F1
for the rest of the season.
+1
The most disgusting steward's decision in the history of F1 if not motor
sport. Should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Bob.
Alan Baker
2017-07-17 22:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Latham
Post by Sir Tim
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due
to a complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
Please...
When has Lewis Hamilton ever received a penalty anyone could describe
as "iffy"?
SPA 2008 for starters, they changed the rules to make that one stick!
Oops sorry that decision was not "Iffy" it was blatantly wrong.
Agreed. I was so disgusted with that decision that I gave up watching F1
for the rest of the season.
+1
The most disgusting steward's decision in the history of F1 if not motor
sport. Should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Bob.
The penalty was too large, I agree, but he did cut the chicane and
gained an advantage, right?
Geoff
2017-07-17 22:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
The penalty was too large, I agree, but he did cut the chicane and
gained an advantage, right?
Then ceded that advantage.

Maybe a penalty for 'optionally' cutting the chicane, but nowhere near
the penalty given.

geoff
Bigbird
2017-07-18 05:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Alan Baker
The penalty was too large, I agree, but he did cut the chicane and
gained an advantage, right?
Then ceded that advantage.
Maybe a penalty for 'optionally' cutting the chicane, but nowhere
near the penalty given.
There was not a lesser penalty option.
Bob Latham
2017-07-18 06:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Snip]
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bob Latham
Post by Sir Tim
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
When has Lewis Hamilton ever received a penalty anyone could
describe as "iffy"?
SPA 2008 for starters, they changed the rules to make that one stick!
Oops sorry that decision was not "Iffy" it was blatantly wrong.
Agreed. I was so disgusted with that decision that I gave up watching
F1 for the rest of the season.
+1
The most disgusting steward's decision in the history of F1 if not
motor sport. Should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Bob.
The penalty was too large, I agree, but he did cut the chicane and
gained an advantage, right?
I realise you enjoy arguing an anti Hamilton position either just for the
pleasure of it or as a troll wind-up. So I should know better than to
engage you on it and I'm certainly not going to get embroiled in a large
and pointless argument.

However.

Lewis was closing on Kimi very rapidly and clearly mush faster at that
point in the race and before the attack Lewis was right up Kimi's exhaust
pipe.

Lewis challenged Kimi into the chicane and got a nose ahead.

As they slowed for the chicane Kimi got back ahead because he had the
inside line and lewis had to slow more as he was on the outside and
probably suspected that Kimi would run him off the road which he did.

Lewis had the choice of going off track or having an accident. He went off
track and cut the chicane, forced by Kimi.

I agree that Lewis should have guessed Kimi would leave him no room and
not attacked when he did.

Having therefore gained an advantage certainly of position and just
possibly of speed, Lewis slowed down and allowed Kimi to pass him.

Lewis dropping behind Kimi *must* mean that at that point Lewis was going
slower than Kimi. Any possible speed advantage gone.

Lewis went behind Kimi and attacked him on the other side, therefore his
track position advantage also gone.

Had Lewis not attacked into the chicane but just tucked up behind Kimi and
followed him through, he would have been better off on the chicane exit as
he would never have needed to drop below Kimi's speed.

It is therefore profoundly clear that lewis gained no overall advantage
and was punished by biased stewards who where a disgrace.

Obviously, you will not agree and will argue some nonsense against the
facts. I'm sure no one here will be able to get you to concede on this or
any other Lewis hate missions.

Bob.
alister
2017-07-18 14:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Sir Tim
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due
to a complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
Please...
When has Lewis Hamilton ever received a penalty anyone could
describe as "iffy"?
SPA 2008 for starters, they changed the rules to make that one stick!
Oops sorry that decision was not "Iffy" it was blatantly wrong.
Agreed. I was so disgusted with that decision that I gave up watching
F1 for the rest of the season.
+1 The most disgusting steward's decision in the history of F1 if not
motor sport. Should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Bob.
The penalty was too large, I agree, but he did cut the chicane and
gained an advantage, right?
And gave the place back as was accepted practice at the time, FIA then
changes the rules to sy you could not then re-pass for at least 1 corner.

This argument was done to death at the time, it was cited as just one
example of an unjust penalty issued to Hamilton as you seemed to be
unaware of any.

"iffy" penalties get issued on occasions, no one can be perfect & it is
something that the affected driver simply needs to accept & move on from.
--
"OK, now let's look at four dimensions on the blackboard."
-- Dr. Joy
Alan Baker
2017-07-17 22:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due to a
complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
Please...
When has Lewis Hamilton ever received a penalty anyone could describe as
"iffy"?
SPA 2008 for starters, they changed the rules to make that one stick!
Oops sorry that decision was not "Iffy" it was blatantly wrong.
I would agree, but that was quite a while ago, and Ferrari was the team
that got the favoritism back then.
alister
2017-07-18 14:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due to
a complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
Please...
When has Lewis Hamilton ever received a penalty anyone could describe
as "iffy"?
SPA 2008 for starters, they changed the rules to make that one stick!
Oops sorry that decision was not "Iffy" it was blatantly wrong.
I would agree, but that was quite a while ago, and Ferrari was the team
that got the favoritism back then.
but your question was "When has Lewis Hamilton ever received a penalty
anyone could describe as "iffy"?"

That was simply one clear cut example (& I did not even have to take into
account your sarcastic "Please..."

I will now issue another question can you recall any other indecent when
the stewards/FIA have shown Hamilton any favouritism?
--
From the Pro 350 Pocket Service Guide, p. 49, Step 5 of the
instructions on removing an I/O board from the card cage, comes a new
experience in sound:

5. Turn the handle to the right 90 degrees. The pin-spreading
sound is normal for this type of connector.
Alan Baker
2017-07-18 16:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
Post by alister
Post by Alan Baker
Hamilton sets fastest qualifying lap and earns record tying pole at
Silverstone. They'll probably (because it's LH) take pole away due to
a complaint from a backmarker. They won't take into account the
championship, or mind spoiling the show, as they did for Vettel.
Please...
When has Lewis Hamilton ever received a penalty anyone could describe
as "iffy"?
SPA 2008 for starters, they changed the rules to make that one stick!
Oops sorry that decision was not "Iffy" it was blatantly wrong.
I would agree, but that was quite a while ago, and Ferrari was the team
that got the favoritism back then.
but your question was "When has Lewis Hamilton ever received a penalty
anyone could describe as "iffy"?"
That was simply one clear cut example (& I did not even have to take into
account your sarcastic "Please..."
I will now issue another question can you recall any other indecent when
the stewards/FIA have shown Hamilton any favouritism?
When he ran Rosberg off the track at the Canadian GP a couple of years ago.
Bigbird
2017-07-18 18:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by alister
I will now issue another question can you recall any other indecent
when the stewards/FIA have shown Hamilton any favouritism?
When he ran Rosberg off the track at the Canadian GP a couple of years ago.
YFI

He didn't ask for another example of an incident you failed to analyse
correctly.
Alan Baker
2017-07-18 19:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by alister
I will now issue another question can you recall any other indecent
when the stewards/FIA have shown Hamilton any favouritism?
When he ran Rosberg off the track at the Canadian GP a couple of years ago.
YFI
He didn't ask for another example of an incident you failed to analyse
correctly.
Sorry, but that is absolutely what happened.

Rosberg was entitled to racing room and Hamilton didn't give him any.

Rosber was AHEAD.
Bigbird
2017-07-18 19:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

Hush now. Sorry, but it was discussed at length at the time and you as
usual relied on falsehoods and evasion. There is no need to rehash what
can be read in the archives.

Sorry. :)
Alan Baker
2017-07-18 19:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Hush now. Sorry, but it was discussed at length at the time and you as
usual relied on falsehoods and evasion. There is no need to rehash what
can be read in the archives.
Sorry. :)
Sorry, but the evidence was completely unequivocal.

Rosberg was more than alongside, he was actually ahead.

Hamilton unwound his steering more than he needed to.

Period.
geoff
2017-07-18 20:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Hush now. Sorry, but it was discussed at length at the time and you as
usual relied on falsehoods and evasion. There is no need to rehash what
can be read in the archives.
Sorry. :)
Sorry, but the evidence was completely unequivocal.
Rosberg was more than alongside, he was actually ahead.
Hamilton unwound his steering more than he needed to.
Period.
We realise you are still having your period. But you shouldn't let it
cloud your 'judgement', such as it is ....


geoff
t***@gmail.com
2017-07-18 21:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
We realise
Who is "we"?
Sheep fucking homosexuals?
geoff
2017-07-18 20:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by alister
I will now issue another question can you recall any other indecent
when the stewards/FIA have shown Hamilton any favouritism?
When he ran Rosberg off the track at the Canadian GP a couple of years ago.
YFI
He didn't ask for another example of an incident you failed to analyse
correctly.
Sorry, but that is absolutely what happened.
Rosberg was entitled to racing room and Hamilton didn't give him any.
Rosber was AHEAD.
Maybe. But Rosberg wasn't.

geoff
Alan Baker
2017-07-18 21:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by alister
I will now issue another question can you recall any other indecent
when the stewards/FIA have shown Hamilton any favouritism?
When he ran Rosberg off the track at the Canadian GP a couple of years ago.
YFI
He didn't ask for another example of an incident you failed to analyse
correctly.
Sorry, but that is absolutely what happened.
Rosberg was entitled to racing room and Hamilton didn't give him any.
Rosber was AHEAD.
Maybe. But Rosberg wasn't.
geoff
Sorry, but he really was:


geoff
2017-07-18 22:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by alister
I will now issue another question can you recall any other indecent
when the stewards/FIA have shown Hamilton any favouritism?
When he ran Rosberg off the track at the Canadian GP a couple of years ago.
YFI
He didn't ask for another example of an incident you failed to analyse
correctly.
Sorry, but that is absolutely what happened.
Rosberg was entitled to racing room and Hamilton didn't give him any.
Rosber was AHEAD.
Maybe. But Rosberg wasn't.
geoff
http://youtu.be/8smrOHvb8lA
I think most reasonable observers would call that aloingside, and
sticking to his line would have ended up with ROS taking them both out.

geoff
Alan Baker
2017-07-18 22:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by alister
I will now issue another question can you recall any other indecent
when the stewards/FIA have shown Hamilton any favouritism?
When he ran Rosberg off the track at the Canadian GP a couple of years ago.
YFI
He didn't ask for another example of an incident you failed to analyse
correctly.
Sorry, but that is absolutely what happened.
Rosberg was entitled to racing room and Hamilton didn't give him any.
Rosber was AHEAD.
Maybe. But Rosberg wasn't.
geoff
http://youtu.be/8smrOHvb8lA
I think most reasonable observers would call that aloingside, and
I think that when his tire was clearly further forward than Hamilton's
it's "ahead".

:-)
Post by geoff
sticking to his line would have ended up with ROS taking them both out.
Why? Explain that, please.
t***@gmail.com
2017-07-18 21:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Maybe. But Rosberg wasn't.
You fucking raging homosexual.
Bigbird
2017-07-19 09:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Rosber was AHEAD.
Maybe. But Rosberg wasn't.
This discussion was had months ago. There is no reason to humour Alan
so he can attempt to claim alternative facts. His false information was
clearly demonstrated to be so at the time. It's all in the archive.

Perpetuating a lie does not change the facts.
Alan Baker
2017-07-19 09:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Rosber was AHEAD.
Maybe. But Rosberg wasn't.
This discussion was had months ago. There is no reason to humour Alan
so he can attempt to claim alternative facts. His false information was
clearly demonstrated to be so at the time. It's all in the archive.
Prove it.
Post by Bigbird
Perpetuating a lie does not change the facts.
Bigbird
2017-07-19 10:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
There is no reason to humour
Alan so he can attempt to claim alternative facts. His false
information was clearly demonstrated to be so at the time. It's all
in the archive.
Prove it.
Post by Bigbird
Perpetuating a lie does not change the facts.
LOL

t***@gmail.com
2017-07-18 20:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
YFI
Oh my. Listen to this jackoff.
Loading...