Discussion:
Of all the coincidences: I know one of the stewards.
Add Reply
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 03:50:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP is a friend of
mine who is regularly an official at our track.

I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-10 04:42:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP is a friend of
mine who is regularly an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
sweet
larkim
2019-06-10 08:14:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.

Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be genuinely interested!!
RzR
2019-06-10 12:21:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be genuinely interested!!
only a complete fool can disagree with this ruling, looking solely from
the sporting aspect...
larkim
2019-06-10 12:54:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RzR
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be genuinely interested!!
only a complete fool can disagree with this ruling, looking solely from
the sporting aspect...
Harsh! There's always room for differing opinions.

Webber - "Any of the stewards ever raced at the front in F1? Mental
penalty."
Button - "For me, it's a racing incident. You can't just stop the car and
stay off the circuit."
Wurz - "My observation on Vettel rejoining: his helmet moved to look into
mirror only after steering correction! That he slid that far is laws of
physics. No space for Lewis is name of game with street tracks. What
happened to 'Let them race?' Was it sketchy? Yes! A penalty? Not in my
view."

I disagree with those three, but they are not complete fools.
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 15:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Post by RzR
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be genuinely interested!!
only a complete fool can disagree with this ruling, looking solely from
the sporting aspect...
Harsh! There's always room for differing opinions.
Webber - "Any of the stewards ever raced at the front in F1? Mental
penalty."
Button - "For me, it's a racing incident. You can't just stop the car and
stay off the circuit."
Wurz - "My observation on Vettel rejoining: his helmet moved to look into
mirror only after steering correction! That he slid that far is laws of
physics. No space for Lewis is name of game with street tracks. What
happened to 'Let them race?' Was it sketchy? Yes! A penalty? Not in my
view."
I disagree with those three, but they are not complete fools.
You literally disagree with every single F1 driver who has weighed in.
larkim
2019-06-10 18:37:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
To be fair, Jolyon Palmer :-) agreed with the penalty.

Deep experience ;-)
Darryl Johnson
2019-06-10 19:07:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
To be fair, Jolyon Palmer :-) agreed with the penalty.
Deep experience ;-)
I do not recall where I read it, but apparently the stewards noted a
second turn of the steering wheel to his right -- after he was
supposedly in control of his car. This is what really closed the door
on Hamilton and what the stewards used to justify the penalty.
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 16:36:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Darryl Johnson
Post by larkim
To be fair, Jolyon Palmer :-) agreed with the penalty.
Deep experience ;-)
I do not recall where I read it, but apparently the stewards noted a
second turn of the steering wheel to his right -- after he was
supposedly in control of his car. This is what really closed the door on
Hamilton and what the stewards used to justify the penalty.
Again.. ...completely normal when trying to regain control of a car.
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 06:59:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
To be fair, Jolyon Palmer :-) agreed with the penalty.
Deep experience ;-)
So far, then:

That's him...

...and Nico Rosberg.

Every other F1 driver who has expressed an opinion...

...including 4 WDC champions...

...thinks the penalty was a joke.
RzR
2019-06-11 07:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
To be fair, Jolyon Palmer :-) agreed with the penalty.
Deep experience ;-)
That's him...
...and Nico Rosberg.
Every other F1 driver who has expressed an opinion...
...including 4 WDC champions...
...thinks the penalty was a joke.
yup, they all hate Hamilton that much...speaks volumes...
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 08:17:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RzR
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
To be fair, Jolyon Palmer :-) agreed with the penalty.
Deep experience ;-)
That's him...
...and Nico Rosberg.
Every other F1 driver who has expressed an opinion...
...including 4 WDC champions...
...thinks the penalty was a joke.
yup, they all hate Hamilton that much...speaks volumes...
Nigel Mansell hates Hamilton?

Mario Andretti?

Damon Hill?

Allan McNish?

Mark Webber?

You know for a fact that they all "hate" Hamilton, do you?
Heron
2019-06-11 12:42:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
To be fair, Jolyon Palmer :-) agreed with the penalty.
Deep experience ;-)
That's him...
...and Nico Rosberg.
Every other F1 driver who has expressed an opinion...
...including 4 WDC champions...
...thinks the penalty was a joke.
No, the joke, as always, remains to be you.
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 15:02:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RzR
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be genuinely interested!!
only a complete fool can disagree with this ruling, looking solely from
the sporting aspect...
Really?

So Mario Andretti is a "complete fool"?

And Nigel Mansell?

And Jenson Button?

And Damon Hill?

And Allan McNish?

And even Toto Wolff?
Martin Harran
2019-06-11 07:14:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by RzR
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be
genuinely interested!!
only a complete fool can disagree with this ruling, looking solely from
the sporting aspect...
Really?
So Mario Andretti is a "complete fool"?
And Nigel Mansell?
And Jenson Button?
And Damon Hill?
And Allan McNish?
And even Toto Wolff?
How many of those saw all the data that the stewards did?
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 08:18:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Martin Harran
Post by Alan Baker
Post by RzR
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be
genuinely interested!!
only a complete fool can disagree with this ruling, looking solely from
the sporting aspect...
Really?
So Mario Andretti is a "complete fool"?
And Nigel Mansell?
And Jenson Button?
And Damon Hill?
And Allan McNish?
And even Toto Wolff?
How many of those saw all the data that the stewards did?
Do you always agree with the stewards?

Because if from this day forward you ever disagree even a little...
Heron
2019-06-11 12:43:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
Post by Alan Baker
Post by RzR
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be
genuinely interested!!
only a complete fool can disagree with this ruling, looking solely from
the sporting aspect...
Really?
So Mario Andretti is a "complete fool"?
And Nigel Mansell?
And Jenson Button?
And Damon Hill?
And Allan McNish?
And even Toto Wolff?
How many of those saw all the data that the stewards did?
Do you always agree with the stewards?
Because if from this day forward you ever disagree even a little...
Ooh look, almost a complete thought. Almost.
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 16:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
Post by Alan Baker
Post by RzR
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be
genuinely interested!!
only a complete fool can disagree with this ruling, looking solely from
the sporting aspect...
Really?
So Mario Andretti is a "complete fool"?
And Nigel Mansell?
And Jenson Button?
And Damon Hill?
And Allan McNish?
And even Toto Wolff?
How many of those saw all the data that the stewards did?
Do you always agree with the stewards?
Because if from this day forward you ever disagree even a little...
Ooh look, almost a complete thought. Almost.
Oh, look at two sentence fragments. (No, that sentence is complete as it
is in a mode that allows for an implicit subject.)
Martin Harran
2019-06-11 13:06:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
Post by Alan Baker
Post by RzR
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be
genuinely interested!!
only a complete fool can disagree with this ruling, looking solely from
the sporting aspect...
Really?
So Mario Andretti is a "complete fool"?
And Nigel Mansell?
And Jenson Button?
And Damon Hill?
And Allan McNish?
And even Toto Wolff?
How many of those saw all the data that the stewards did?
Do you always agree with the stewards?
I can't think offhand of any time I ever disagreed with them.
Post by Alan Baker
Because if from this day forward you ever disagree even a little...
Don't hold your breath.
RzR
2019-06-11 11:09:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by RzR
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be
genuinely interested!!
only a complete fool can disagree with this ruling, looking solely
from the sporting aspect...
Really?
So Mario Andretti is a "complete fool"?
And Nigel Mansell?
And Jenson Button?
And Damon Hill?
And Allan McNish?
And even Toto Wolff?
they are not looking solely from sporting and rulebook aspect...they are
thinking, "it would be good for the season", "lets cut ferrari some
slack, they have 0 wins, blah blah...that has nothing to do with what I
was talking about...

vettel went off and slid into hamilton uncontrollably, but as soon as he
blocked him off, he magicaly regained control, and kept going...yeah
right...penalty was harsh, but also correct...
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 16:40:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RzR
Post by Alan Baker
Post by RzR
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be
genuinely interested!!
only a complete fool can disagree with this ruling, looking solely
from the sporting aspect...
Really?
So Mario Andretti is a "complete fool"?
And Nigel Mansell?
And Jenson Button?
And Damon Hill?
And Allan McNish?
And even Toto Wolff?
they are not looking solely from sporting and rulebook aspect...they are
thinking, "it would be good for the season", "lets cut ferrari some
slack, they have 0 wins, blah blah...that has nothing to do with what I
was talking about...
Another mind-reader!
Post by RzR
vettel went off and slid into hamilton uncontrollably, but as soon as he
blocked him off, he magicaly regained control, and kept going...yeah
right...penalty was harsh, but also correct...
No. He regained control, but it took time.

Amazingly on a corner where you normally use ALL the road (right up to
the wall, he managed to gather it up just a little bit from the wall;
which is not surprising, because he started from a position that was a
little more to the left laterally and moving a little less to the right
(because he didn't complete the turn in to turn 3.

Vettel's car went exactly where you'd expect for the dynamics of the
situation.
Yuhler Speertraeger
2019-06-20 15:06:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by RzR
Post by Alan Baker
Post by RzR
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be
genuinely interested!!
only a complete fool can disagree with this ruling, looking solely
from the sporting aspect...
Really?
So Mario Andretti is a "complete fool"?
And Nigel Mansell?
And Jenson Button?
And Damon Hill?
And Allan McNish?
And even Toto Wolff?
they are not looking solely from sporting and rulebook aspect...they are
thinking, "it would be good for the season", "lets cut ferrari some
slack, they have 0 wins, blah blah...that has nothing to do with what I
was talking about...
Another mind-reader!
Post by RzR
vettel went off and slid into hamilton uncontrollably, but as soon as he
blocked him off, he magicaly regained control, and kept going...yeah
right...penalty was harsh, but also correct...
No. He regained control, but it took time.
Amazingly on a corner where you normally use ALL the road (right up to
the wall, he managed to gather it up just a little bit from the wall;
which is not surprising, because he started from a position that was a
little more to the left laterally and moving a little less to the right
(because he didn't complete the turn in to turn 3.
Vettel's car went exactly where you'd expect for the dynamics of the
situation.
+1
That was my reading too. The only reason I found for that penalty is
that those stewards (or most of them) don't like Vettel. Period.
--
Best,
Yuhler

Reply-To: partially ROT13, invalid=com
Due to spam I'm filtering-out GoogleGroups. Sorry. :(
Alan Baker
2019-06-10 15:16:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Remember that there is no requirement for stewards' decisions to be
unanimous.
Post by larkim
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be genuinely interested!!
Whatever Mike is willing to tell, I will pass on.

:-)
larkim
2019-06-11 09:36:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Remember that there is no requirement for stewards' decisions to be
unanimous.
Post by larkim
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be genuinely interested!!
Whatever Mike is willing to tell, I will pass on.
:-)
Though in this case I'm led to believe the decision was unanimous.

I strongly suspect that, no matter what Vettel did or didn't do, the very
fact that Hamilton lifted / braked persuades them that Vettel (in control
or not) came back onto the circuit unsafely.

But if you can feed back any of the thought processes that helped them
come to the decision, that would be great.
Heron
2019-06-11 12:44:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Remember that there is no requirement for stewards' decisions to be
unanimous.
Post by larkim
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be genuinely interested!!
Whatever Mike is willing to tell, I will pass on.
:-)
Though in this case I'm led to believe the decision was unanimous.
I strongly suspect that, no matter what Vettel did or didn't do, the very
fact that Hamilton lifted / braked persuades them that Vettel (in control
or not) came back onto the circuit unsafely.
Yeah, I'm sure that must be it alright.
Post by larkim
But if you can feed back any of the thought processes that helped them
come to the decision, that would be great.
They're already very well known and have been widely published.
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 16:42:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Remember that there is no requirement for stewards' decisions to be
unanimous.
Post by larkim
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be
genuinely interested!!
Whatever Mike is willing to tell, I will pass on.
:-)
Though in this case I'm led to believe the decision was unanimous.
I strongly suspect that, no matter what Vettel did or didn't do, the very
fact that Hamilton lifted / braked persuades them that Vettel (in control
or not) came back onto the circuit unsafely.
Yeah, I'm sure that must be it alright.
Post by larkim
But if you can feed back any of the thought processes that helped them
come to the decision, that would be great.
They're already very well known and have been widely published.
No. The published decision doesn't reflect the thoughts of the
individual stewards.
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 16:37:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
That will be interesting, particularly as you disagree with the decision.
Remember that there is no requirement for stewards' decisions to be
unanimous.
Post by larkim
Keep us posted, especially if he convinces you he's right - I'd be genuinely interested!!
Whatever Mike is willing to tell, I will pass on.
:-)
Though in this case I'm led to believe the decision was unanimous.
Let to believe by what... ...telepathy?
Post by larkim
I strongly suspect that, no matter what Vettel did or didn't do, the very
fact that Hamilton lifted / braked persuades them that Vettel (in control
or not) came back onto the circuit unsafely.
Why would that change whether or not Vettel had any choice in the matter?
Post by larkim
But if you can feed back any of the thought processes that helped them
come to the decision, that would be great.
Bigbird
2019-06-11 15:24:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP is a friend
of mine who is regularly an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have for his efforts?

LOL. :)
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-11 16:36:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP is a friend
of mine who is regularly an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Bigbird
2019-06-11 16:48:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP is a
friend of mine who is regularly an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
News
2019-06-11 16:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP is a
friend of mine who is regularly an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
KoolAid
Alan Baker
2019-06-12 06:43:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP is a
friend of mine who is regularly an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
"Reportedly".

Tell me: can you show that any stewards' decision has ever been reported
differently?
Bigbird
2019-06-12 07:19:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP is a
friend of mine who is regularly an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
"Reportedly".
Tell me: can you show that any stewards' decision has ever been
reported differently?
You are embarrassing yourself.

Just now and again... why not wait until you have some information
before asserting your unsupported, ill-informed view.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-12 15:35:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP is a
friend of mine who is regularly an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
"Reportedly".
Tell me: can you show that any stewards' decision has ever been
reported differently?
You are embarrassing yourself.
So that wold be a "no", you can't.
Post by Bigbird
Just now and again... why not wait until you have some information
before asserting your unsupported, ill-informed view.
You have less information and experience but you spout yours.

:-)
Bigbird
2019-06-13 09:49:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP
is a friend of mine who is regularly an official at our
track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
"Reportedly".
Tell me: can you show that any stewards' decision has ever been
reported differently?
You are embarrassing yourself.
So that wold be a "no", you can't.
So that would be another rock solidly infantile inference.

How many decisions are reported either way out of the hundreds that are
made?

It's plain to anyone that if they say it was unanimous, it was
unanimous.

Further, if as you are attempting to suggest, based on absolutely no
information whatsoever, if it were not unanimous then in all likelihood
your guy figured even more strongly in pushing for a penalty. After all
you have made multiple assertions that most F1 drivers would not.

:)
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Just now and again... why not wait until you have some information
before asserting your unsupported, ill-informed view.
You have less information and experience but you spout yours.
I don't quite see how accepting the penalty, based on the likelihood
that the stewards had good reason after reviewing to the plethora of
data they have available, equates to spouting nor is comparable to your
blatantly biased pig headed conceit and no such information.

YMMV.

:)
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-13 16:43:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP
is a friend of mine who is regularly an official at our
track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
"Reportedly".
Tell me: can you show that any stewards' decision has ever been
reported differently?
You are embarrassing yourself.
So that wold be a "no", you can't.
So that would be another rock solidly infantile inference.
How many decisions are reported either way out of the hundreds that are
made?
I'll ask again:

Have you ever seen or heard of a stewards' decision that was called
anything but unanimous?
Post by Bigbird
It's plain to anyone that if they say it was unanimous, it was
unanimous.
No. That is NOT plain.
Post by Bigbird
Further, if as you are attempting to suggest, based on absolutely no
information whatsoever, if it were not unanimous then in all likelihood
your guy figured even more strongly in pushing for a penalty. After all
you have made multiple assertions that most F1 drivers would not.
And the fact that I happen to be friends with one of the guys in the
world who actually acts as a steward at F1 races...
Post by Bigbird
:)
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Just now and again... why not wait until you have some information
before asserting your unsupported, ill-informed view.
You have less information and experience but you spout yours.
I don't quite see how accepting the penalty, based on the likelihood
that the stewards had good reason after reviewing to the plethora of
data they have available, equates to spouting nor is comparable to your
blatantly biased pig headed conceit and no such information.
You've been spouting the nonsense that pretty much the entire fraternity
of F1 drivers don't know what they're seeing when the watch video of
such an incident.
Bigbird
2019-06-13 17:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the
Canadian GP is a friend of mine who is regularly an
official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have
for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
"Reportedly".
Tell me: can you show that any stewards' decision has ever
been reported differently?
You are embarrassing yourself.
So that wold be a "no", you can't.
So that would be another rock solidly infantile inference.
How many decisions are reported either way out of the hundreds that
are made?
So you are refusing to answer my question.
Post by Alan Baker
Have you ever seen or heard of a stewards' decision that was called
anything but unanimous?
I don't specifically recall any such reports of decision whether
unanimous or split.

I can see why they would reveal that a few of the more controversial of
the thousands of decision were unanimous if indeed they were.

So are you going to attempt to answer my question now.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
It's plain to anyone that if they say it was unanimous, it was
unanimous.
No. That is NOT plain.
Oh FFS stop embarrassing yourself.

Do you have some examples of split decisions that were falsely reported
as unanimous?
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Further, if as you are attempting to suggest, based on absolutely no
information whatsoever, if it were not unanimous then in all
likelihood your guy figured even more strongly in pushing for a
penalty. After all you have made multiple assertions that most F1
drivers would not.
And the fact that I happen to be friends with one of the guys in the
world who actually acts as a steward at F1 races...
"And" that is not an "And" that is no answer at all.

? What is that apparently redundant and meaningless partial sentence
meant to imply?
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
:)
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Just now and again... why not wait until you have some
information before asserting your unsupported, ill-informed
view.
You have less information and experience but you spout yours.
I don't quite see how accepting the penalty, based on the likelihood
that the stewards had good reason after reviewing to the plethora of
data they have available, equates to spouting nor is comparable to
your blatantly biased pig headed conceit and no such information.
You've been spouting the nonsense that pretty much the entire
fraternity of F1 drivers don't know what they're seeing when the
watch video of such an incident.
No, I have not.

You are resorting to lies again Alan. Stop that now.

I have said that you do not have the knowledge or experience to fully
support your assertions and I will defer to those that do over your pig
headed and biased self.

I have also reminded you that none of the very few of the "entire F1
fraternity" who have been referred to here have had access to the
plethora of data available to the stewards.

I suspect most of their opinions are focussed on the unpalatable nature
of the penalty and not their express view had they been stewards and
had to enforce the regulations.

That I think you are a useless twat does not reflect on anyone else.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-13 17:33:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the
Canadian GP is a friend of mine who is regularly an
official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next
weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have
for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
"Reportedly".
Tell me: can you show that any stewards' decision has ever
been reported differently?
You are embarrassing yourself.
So that wold be a "no", you can't.
So that would be another rock solidly infantile inference.
How many decisions are reported either way out of the hundreds that
are made?
So you are refusing to answer my question.
Post by Alan Baker
Have you ever seen or heard of a stewards' decision that was called
anything but unanimous?
I don't specifically recall any such reports of decision whether
unanimous or split.
I can see why they would reveal that a few of the more controversial of
the thousands of decision were unanimous if indeed they were.
And does this decision seem "controversial" to you?
Post by Bigbird
So are you going to attempt to answer my question now.
Which question would that be? The one where you make the implicit and
utterly naive assumption that because the FIA says something, it must be
true?
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
It's plain to anyone that if they say it was unanimous, it was
unanimous.
No. That is NOT plain.
Oh FFS stop embarrassing yourself.
Do you have some examples of split decisions that were falsely reported
as unanimous?
You're the claiming that because they say it was unanimous, it must be.

Can you see any reason to trust the FIA on this?
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Further, if as you are attempting to suggest, based on absolutely no
information whatsoever, if it were not unanimous then in all
likelihood your guy figured even more strongly in pushing for a
penalty. After all you have made multiple assertions that most F1
drivers would not.
And the fact that I happen to be friends with one of the guys in the
world who actually acts as a steward at F1 races...
"And" that is not an "And" that is no answer at all.
? What is that apparently redundant and meaningless partial sentence
meant to imply?
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
:)
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Just now and again... why not wait until you have some
information before asserting your unsupported, ill-informed
view.
You have less information and experience but you spout yours.
I don't quite see how accepting the penalty, based on the likelihood
that the stewards had good reason after reviewing to the plethora of
data they have available, equates to spouting nor is comparable to
your blatantly biased pig headed conceit and no such information.
You've been spouting the nonsense that pretty much the entire
fraternity of F1 drivers don't know what they're seeing when the
watch video of such an incident.
No, I have not.
Yes. You have.

You have repeatedly said that because they haven't seen the telemetry,
they must be wrong.
Post by Bigbird
You are resorting to lies again Alan. Stop that now.
I have said that you do not have the knowledge or experience to fully
support your assertions and I will defer to those that do over your pig
headed and biased self.
I have vastly more knowledge and experience than you, sunshine.
Post by Bigbird
I have also reminded you that none of the very few of the "entire F1
fraternity" who have been referred to here have had access to the
plethora of data available to the stewards.
See, there you go again!
Post by Bigbird
I suspect most of their opinions are focussed on the unpalatable nature
of the penalty and not their express view had they been stewards and
had to enforce the regulations.
You 'suspect' that, do you?

Based on what? You're always going on about what I believe and suspect
even when I have experience to base it on, so what's your basis for that?
Bigbird
2019-06-13 17:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the
Canadian GP is a friend of mine who is regularly
an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next
weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you
have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
"Reportedly".
Tell me: can you show that any stewards' decision has ever
been reported differently?
You are embarrassing yourself.
So that wold be a "no", you can't.
So that would be another rock solidly infantile inference.
How many decisions are reported either way out of the hundreds
that are made?
So you are refusing to answer my question.
Post by Alan Baker
Have you ever seen or heard of a stewards' decision that was
called anything but unanimous?
I don't specifically recall any such reports of decision whether
unanimous or split.
I can see why they would reveal that a few of the more
controversial of the thousands of decision were unanimous if indeed
they were.
And does this decision seem "controversial" to you?
Why the fucking stupid question?
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
So are you going to attempt to answer my question now.
Which question would that be?
"How many decisions are reported either way out of the hundreds
that are made?"
Post by Alan Baker
The one where you make the implicit
and utterly naive assumption that because the FIA says something, it
must be true?
No.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
It's plain to anyone that if they say it was unanimous, it was
unanimous.
No. That is NOT plain.
Oh FFS stop embarrassing yourself.
Do you have some examples of split decisions that were falsely
reported as unanimous?
You're the claiming that because they say it was unanimous, it must be.
There is absolutely no reason to assume otherwise, is there?
Post by Alan Baker
Can you see any reason to trust the FIA on this?
Yes.

Do you have any evidence that they might not be telling the truth?
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Further, if as you are attempting to suggest, based on
absolutely no information whatsoever, if it were not unanimous
then in all likelihood your guy figured even more strongly in
pushing for a penalty. After all you have made multiple
assertions that most F1 drivers would not.
And the fact that I happen to be friends with one of the guys in
the world who actually acts as a steward at F1 races...
"And" that is not an "And" that is no answer at all.
? What is that apparently redundant and meaningless partial sentence
meant to imply?
So it was just intentionally meaningless. You are even faking retorts
now.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
:)
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Just now and again... why not wait until you have some
information before asserting your unsupported, ill-informed
view.
You have less information and experience but you spout yours.
I don't quite see how accepting the penalty, based on the
likelihood that the stewards had good reason after reviewing to
the plethora of data they have available, equates to spouting
nor is comparable to your blatantly biased pig headed conceit
and no such information.
You've been spouting the nonsense that pretty much the entire
fraternity of F1 drivers don't know what they're seeing when the
watch video of such an incident.
No, I have not.
Yes. You have.
You have repeatedly said that because they haven't seen the
telemetry, they must be wrong.
That is another lie.

When you start lying Alan you just don't know when to stop.

PPOR

There is no point in continuing while you are lying.

Retract or go fuck yourself.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-13 17:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the
Canadian GP is a friend of mine who is regularly
an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next
weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you
have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the
decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
"Reportedly".
Tell me: can you show that any stewards' decision has ever
been reported differently?
You are embarrassing yourself.
So that wold be a "no", you can't.
So that would be another rock solidly infantile inference.
How many decisions are reported either way out of the hundreds
that are made?
So you are refusing to answer my question.
Post by Alan Baker
Have you ever seen or heard of a stewards' decision that was
called anything but unanimous?
I don't specifically recall any such reports of decision whether
unanimous or split.
I can see why they would reveal that a few of the more
controversial of the thousands of decision were unanimous if indeed
they were.
And does this decision seem "controversial" to you?
Why the fucking stupid question?
I'll take that as a "yes".

So you've just agree that when a decision is controversial, they might
call it unanimous even when it isn't, AND that this decision is
controversial.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
So are you going to attempt to answer my question now.
Which question would that be?
"How many decisions are reported either way out of the hundreds
that are made?"
I've never seen a single decision that was reported as split.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
The one where you make the implicit
and utterly naive assumption that because the FIA says something, it
must be true?
No.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
It's plain to anyone that if they say it was unanimous, it was
unanimous.
No. That is NOT plain.
Oh FFS stop embarrassing yourself.
Do you have some examples of split decisions that were falsely
reported as unanimous?
You're the claiming that because they say it was unanimous, it must be.
There is absolutely no reason to assume otherwise, is there?
I've just explained why.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Can you see any reason to trust the FIA on this?
Yes.
Do you have any evidence that they might not be telling the truth?
I have the agreed-upon-by-you contention that this is a controversial
decision and that you can see why they might lie and call such decisions
unanimous even when they were not.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Further, if as you are attempting to suggest, based on
absolutely no information whatsoever, if it were not unanimous
then in all likelihood your guy figured even more strongly in
pushing for a penalty. After all you have made multiple
assertions that most F1 drivers would not.
And the fact that I happen to be friends with one of the guys in
the world who actually acts as a steward at F1 races...
"And" that is not an "And" that is no answer at all.
? What is that apparently redundant and meaningless partial sentence
meant to imply?
So it was just intentionally meaningless. You are even faking retorts
now.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
:)
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Just now and again... why not wait until you have some
information before asserting your unsupported, ill-informed
view.
You have less information and experience but you spout yours.
I don't quite see how accepting the penalty, based on the
likelihood that the stewards had good reason after reviewing to
the plethora of data they have available, equates to spouting
nor is comparable to your blatantly biased pig headed conceit
and no such information.
You've been spouting the nonsense that pretty much the entire
fraternity of F1 drivers don't know what they're seeing when the
watch video of such an incident.
No, I have not.
Yes. You have.
You have repeatedly said that because they haven't seen the
telemetry, they must be wrong.
That is another lie.
It's not.
Post by Bigbird
When you start lying Alan you just don't know when to stop.
PPOR
There is no point in continuing while you are lying.
Retract or go fuck yourself.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
I have also reminded you that none of the very few of the "entire F1
fraternity" who have been referred to here have had access to the
plethora of data available to the stewards.
See, there you go again!
Post by Bigbird
I suspect most of their opinions are focussed on the unpalatable nature
of the penalty and not their express view had they been stewards and
had to enforce the regulations.
You 'suspect' that, do you?
Based on what? You're always going on about what I believe and suspect
even when I have experience to base it on, so what's your basis for that?
Awfully convenient snipping (for you), wasn't it?
Bigbird
2019-06-13 19:20:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the
Canadian GP is a friend of mine who is
regularly an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision
next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain
you have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the
decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
"Reportedly".
Tell me: can you show that any stewards' decision has
ever been reported differently?
You are embarrassing yourself.
So that wold be a "no", you can't.
So that would be another rock solidly infantile inference.
How many decisions are reported either way out of the
hundreds that are made?
So you are refusing to answer my question.
Post by Alan Baker
Have you ever seen or heard of a stewards' decision that was
called anything but unanimous?
I don't specifically recall any such reports of decision whether
unanimous or split.
I can see why they would reveal that a few of the more
controversial of the thousands of decision were unanimous if
indeed they were.
And does this decision seem "controversial" to you?
Why the fucking stupid question?
I'll take that as a "yes".
So you've just agree that when a decision is controversial
I don't "have to agree" I already fucking implied it by what I said in
my previous post.

You are such a fucking moron.
Post by Alan Baker
, they
might call it unanimous even when it isn't,
You might claim that but have you one iota of evidence that that is
what they have done this time or in the past?
Post by Alan Baker
AND that this decision is
controversial.
Stop wanking in public.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
So are you going to attempt to answer my question now.
Which question would that be?
"How many decisions are reported either way out of the hundreds
that are made?"
I've never seen a single decision that was reported as split.
Don't just repeat what I have said answer the question. Of the
thousands of decisions how many are explicitly stated as anonymous or
not?
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
The one where you make the implicit
and utterly naive assumption that because the FIA says something,
it must be true?
No.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
It's plain to anyone that if they say it was unanimous, it
was unanimous.
No. That is NOT plain.
Oh FFS stop embarrassing yourself.
Do you have some examples of split decisions that were falsely
reported as unanimous?
You're the claiming that because they say it was unanimous, it must be.
There is absolutely no reason to assume otherwise, is there?
I've just explained why.
No you haven't.

Another lie.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Can you see any reason to trust the FIA on this?
Yes.
Do you have any evidence that they might not be telling the truth?
I have the agreed-upon-by-you contention that this is a controversial
decision and that you can see why they might lie and call such
decisions unanimous even when they were not.
Another lie.

Give it up Alan

You really piss me off when you resort to a multitude of lies.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Further, if as you are attempting to suggest, based on
absolutely no information whatsoever, if it were not
unanimous then in all likelihood your guy figured even more
strongly in pushing for a penalty. After all you have made
multiple assertions that most F1 drivers would not.
And the fact that I happen to be friends with one of the guys
in the world who actually acts as a steward at F1 races...
"And" that is not an "And" that is no answer at all.
? What is that apparently redundant and meaningless partial
sentence meant to imply?
So it was just intentionally meaningless. You are even faking
retorts now.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
:)
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Just now and again... why not wait until you have some
information before asserting your unsupported,
ill-informed view.
You have less information and experience but you spout yours.
I don't quite see how accepting the penalty, based on the
likelihood that the stewards had good reason after
reviewing to the plethora of data they have available,
equates to spouting nor is comparable to your blatantly
biased pig headed conceit and no such information.
You've been spouting the nonsense that pretty much the entire
fraternity of F1 drivers don't know what they're seeing when
the watch video of such an incident.
No, I have not.
Yes. You have.
You have repeatedly said that because they haven't seen the
telemetry, they must be wrong.
That is another lie.
It's not.
Post by Bigbird
When you start lying Alan you just don't know when to stop.
PPOR
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THE BIG FAT NOTHING HERE SAYS EVERYTHING

I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU AND YOUR LIES ALAN

JUST FUCK OFF NOW, THERE'S A GOOD CHAP.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-14 16:00:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the
Canadian GP is a friend of mine who is
regularly an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision
next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain
you have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the
decision?
Post by Bigbird
LOL. :)
Reportedly unanimous; so what's your guess?
"Reportedly".
Tell me: can you show that any stewards' decision has
ever been reported differently?
You are embarrassing yourself.
So that wold be a "no", you can't.
So that would be another rock solidly infantile inference.
How many decisions are reported either way out of the
hundreds that are made?
So you are refusing to answer my question.
Post by Alan Baker
Have you ever seen or heard of a stewards' decision that was
called anything but unanimous?
I don't specifically recall any such reports of decision whether
unanimous or split.
I can see why they would reveal that a few of the more
controversial of the thousands of decision were unanimous if
indeed they were.
And does this decision seem "controversial" to you?
Why the fucking stupid question?
I'll take that as a "yes".
So you've just agree that when a decision is controversial
I don't "have to agree" I already fucking implied it by what I said in
my previous post.
You are such a fucking moron.
Post by Alan Baker
, they
might call it unanimous even when it isn't,
You might claim that but have you one iota of evidence that that is
what they have done this time or in the past?
Post by Alan Baker
AND that this decision is
controversial.
Stop wanking in public.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
So are you going to attempt to answer my question now.
Which question would that be?
"How many decisions are reported either way out of the hundreds
that are made?"
I've never seen a single decision that was reported as split.
Don't just repeat what I have said answer the question. Of the
thousands of decisions how many are explicitly stated as anonymous or
not?
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
The one where you make the implicit
and utterly naive assumption that because the FIA says something,
it must be true?
No.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
It's plain to anyone that if they say it was unanimous, it
was unanimous.
No. That is NOT plain.
Oh FFS stop embarrassing yourself.
Do you have some examples of split decisions that were falsely
reported as unanimous?
You're the claiming that because they say it was unanimous, it must be.
There is absolutely no reason to assume otherwise, is there?
I've just explained why.
No you haven't.
Another lie.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Can you see any reason to trust the FIA on this?
Yes.
Do you have any evidence that they might not be telling the truth?
I have the agreed-upon-by-you contention that this is a controversial
decision and that you can see why they might lie and call such
decisions unanimous even when they were not.
Another lie.
Give it up Alan
You really piss me off when you resort to a multitude of lies.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Further, if as you are attempting to suggest, based on
absolutely no information whatsoever, if it were not
unanimous then in all likelihood your guy figured even more
strongly in pushing for a penalty. After all you have made
multiple assertions that most F1 drivers would not.
And the fact that I happen to be friends with one of the guys
in the world who actually acts as a steward at F1 races...
"And" that is not an "And" that is no answer at all.
? What is that apparently redundant and meaningless partial
sentence meant to imply?
So it was just intentionally meaningless. You are even faking
retorts now.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
:)
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Just now and again... why not wait until you have some
information before asserting your unsupported,
ill-informed view.
You have less information and experience but you spout
yours.
I don't quite see how accepting the penalty, based on the
likelihood that the stewards had good reason after
reviewing to the plethora of data they have available,
equates to spouting nor is comparable to your blatantly
biased pig headed conceit and no such information.
You've been spouting the nonsense that pretty much the entire
fraternity of F1 drivers don't know what they're seeing when
the watch video of such an incident.
No, I have not.
Yes. You have.
You have repeatedly said that because they haven't seen the
telemetry, they must be wrong.
That is another lie.
It's not.
Post by Bigbird
When you start lying Alan you just don't know when to stop.
PPOR
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THE BIG FAT NOTHING HERE SAYS EVERYTHING
I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU AND YOUR LIES ALAN
JUST FUCK OFF NOW, THERE'S A GOOD CHAP.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
I have also reminded you that none of the very few of the "entire F1
fraternity" who have been referred to here have had access to the
plethora of data available to the stewards.
See, there you go again!
Post by Bigbird
I suspect most of their opinions are focussed on the unpalatable nature
of the penalty and not their express view had they been stewards and
had to enforce the regulations.
You 'suspect' that, do you?
Based on what? You're always going on about what I believe and suspect
even when I have experience to base it on, so what's your basis for that?
Awfully convenient snipping (for you), wasn't it?
geoff
2019-06-15 00:13:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Tell me - why do you leave many irrelevant page-downs of un-snipped
material on most of your replies? Makes you even more of a pain than
just the vacuous content of your arguments.

geoff
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-15 00:29:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Makes you even more of a pain
More self induced hardship by another
NZ dumb fuck.
Alan Baker
2019-06-15 06:13:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Tell me - why do you leave many irrelevant page-downs of un-snipped
material on most of your replies?  Makes you even more of a pain than
just the vacuous content of your arguments.
Precisely to prevent being misquoted.
Bigbird
2019-06-15 07:06:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Tell me - why do you leave many irrelevant page-downs of un-snipped
material on most of your replies?  Makes you even more of a pain
than just the vacuous content of your arguments.
Precisely to prevent being misquoted.
Doesn't prevent you lying about what others have said does it? Snipping
doesn't stop you from quoting previous posts if there were any proof
that you were not lying does it?

You do realise that your previous posts are not deleted and can be
referred back to if necessary, that if the pages of previous
discussion/argument are not pertinent to a reply they is no reason to
quote them.

Quoting reams of previous posts that are not being directly addressed
does nothing to help the clarity of the ongoing discussion.

Stop making excuses and learn to snip.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Bigbird
2019-06-15 06:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Tell me - why do you leave many irrelevant page-downs of un-snipped
material on most of your replies? Makes you even more of a pain than
just the vacuous content of your arguments.
The guy is a moron.

He knows I snipped where I lost patience with his lies and the whole
spinning dishonest and unintelligent direction his replies continue.

He is but a grain of sand on the the beach of opinion claiming to have
a better vantage than the cliffs towering above.

He has no answer to the fact that those who made the decision were
those best placed to do so. To not like it is fine, it was not the most
palatable of penalties. To not understand it is fine. It is not the
clearest of situations and not many people are familiar with the
regulations (including Alan who has made false claims before) not
matter the guidelines and technical aspects of their implementation. To
assume that your first biased impression (or to jump on the bandwagon
of those who's opinions support your bias) is more informed than that
of the stewards with all the aids they have and without knowing how
they reached their decision is quite simply blind conceit.

He embarrasses himself when he then asserts that anything the FIA say
is dishonest when he is the only one shown to be lying. Lies which he
is too conceited and infantile to retract.

He embarrasses himself when he claims any opinion FOM publish should be
dismissed, because it supports a view he dislikes, without any regard
or respect to the content.

He embarrasses himself when he refuses to address the fundamental
questions.

He embarrasses himself when he belittles people for not deferring to
his clearly biased arguments rather than defer to the better placed and
better informed and more experienced stewards until they have reason to
do otherwise.

He knows he is wrong to do so but his pig headed conceit causes him to
spin and lie and wriggle like a worm.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-15 07:04:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
He is but a grain of sand on the the beach of opinion claiming to have
a better vantage than the cliffs towering above.
Hey bigturd, thats pretty fucking sweet
but poetry did not help you in ww2 either
~misfit~
2019-06-14 23:50:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<sfa snipped>
Post by Bigbird
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THE BIG FAT NOTHING HERE SAYS EVERYTHING
I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU AND YOUR LIES ALAN
JUST FUCK OFF NOW, THERE'S A GOOD CHAP.
If only!

I'm still waiting for this friend of Alans' information on the decision. Surely we should have
heard it by now? I mean he 'knows' him after all so they're not mere casual acquaintances. Surely
almost a week later Alan's had time to talk with this person whom he knows.

Unless of course it was just another ploy by Baker trying to embiggen himself in public?
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-15 00:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
I'm still waiting for this friend of Alans' information on the decision. Surely we should have
heard it by now? I mean he 'knows' him after all so they're not mere casual acquaintances. Surely
almost a week later Alan's had time to talk with this person whom he knows.
While waiting.
Get some fresh air.
Get off your fat cunt.
Stop mooching off the government.
You stinky fuck.
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-15 00:48:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
If only!
Ya, and then could continue on
with your sad ass, pathetic existence.
Alan Baker
2019-06-15 06:12:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
<sfa snipped>
Post by Bigbird
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THE BIG FAT NOTHING HERE SAYS EVERYTHING
I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU AND YOUR LIES ALAN
JUST FUCK OFF NOW, THERE'S A GOOD CHAP.
If only!
I'm still waiting for this friend of Alans' information on the decision.
Surely we should have heard it by now? I mean he 'knows' him after all
so they're not mere casual acquaintances. Surely almost a week later
Alan's had time to talk with this person whom he knows.
I see him on race weekends, Shaun (it is "Shaun", right? I have such a
hard time keeping up with all of you who aren't brave enough to post
under your own names).
Post by ~misfit~
Unless of course it was just another ploy by Baker trying to embiggen himself in public?
Nope. Mike Kearnes. SCCBC and CACC member and official and a friend of mine.

I expect he'll be working at the track this weekend (while I race. What
were you planning to do this weekend?).
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-15 06:29:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What were you planning to do this weekend?).
That is a fucking weird question.
Anyway misfart is a weirdo and
does goofy shit on the weekend.
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-15 06:33:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Shaun (it is "Shaun", right? I have such a
hard time keeping up with all of you who aren't brave enough to post
under your own names).
My name is You Are A Fucking Idiot.
Sir Tim
2019-06-12 09:14:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP is a friend
of mine who is regularly an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
I thought the decision was “unanimous”.
--
Sir Tim
Alan Baker
2019-06-12 15:35:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
It turns out that one of the stewards for the Canadian GP is a friend
of mine who is regularly an official at our track.
I'll be sure to ask him about the decision next weekend.
Will you be letting him know how much disdain you have for his efforts?
Do you even know if he actually agreed with the decision?
I thought the decision was “unanimous”.
From what I've seen, ALL stewards' decisions are "unanimous".

:-)
CS
2019-06-26 10:17:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Anyone seen Vettel's braking data??
He should have touched the brakes to avoid a collision as LH was halfway alongside.
No he prefers a collision to nullify the points differential.
Ask your "friend" about the history of the crowding rule and how it came to be developed??
Alan Baker
2019-06-26 17:15:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CS
Anyone seen Vettel's braking data??
Outside of the stewards and the very minimal information given in the
video analysis Formula1 posted done by Jolyon Palmer.
Post by CS
He should have touched the brakes to avoid a collision as LH was halfway alongside.
Yet he didn't hit his brakes and there was no collision.
Post by CS
No he prefers a collision to nullify the points differential.
No gain in points is BAD for Vettel. You understand that, right?
Post by CS
Ask your "friend" about the history of the crowding rule and how it came to be developed??
I don't play games like this. If you have something to say: say it.
CS
2019-06-26 18:28:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Yet he didn't hit his brakes and there was no collision.
Because LH braked and avoided. SV has form of being happy to hit LH - Baku 2018 and he suffers undue "red mist" moments - and this was another after he cocked up.
Post by Alan Baker
No gain in points is BAD for Vettel. You understand that, right?
Doh!! Not sure you understand it??
LH 1 SV 2 = LH increases lead by 7 points.
SV 1 LH 2 = SV reduces LH lead by 7 points.
SV hits LH, both crash out. = points difference stays the same as at start of race. Best option for SV if he can't win!!
Post by Alan Baker
I don't play games like this. If you have something to say: say it.
Not a game. Just curious to know if your "friend" knows the history of the current F1 rules, their development and the current precedents??
ie how well informed a steward is he on F1 matters??
Alan Baker
2019-06-26 18:31:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CS
Post by Alan Baker
Yet he didn't hit his brakes and there was no collision.
Because LH braked and avoided. SV has form of being happy to hit LH
- Baku 2018 and he suffers undue "red mist" moments - and this was
another after he cocked up.
Nope. He was clearly driving to regain control of his car.

Cars brake and avoid other cars that suffer from loss of control all the
time. There is no fundamental difference in the situation because
Vettel's car went off track. This was a racing incident.
Post by CS
Post by Alan Baker
No gain in points is BAD for Vettel. You understand that, right?
Doh!! Not sure you understand it?? LH 1 SV 2 = LH increases lead by
7 points. SV 1 LH 2 = SV reduces LH lead by 7 points. SV hits LH,
both crash out. = points difference stays the same as at start of
race. Best option for SV if he can't win!!
Except he could win. He WAS in the lead. Perhaps you'd forgotten.
Post by CS
Post by Alan Baker
I don't play games like this. If you have something to say: say it.
Not a game. Just curious to know if your "friend" knows the history
of the current F1 rules, their development and the current
precedents?? ie how well informed a steward is he on F1 matters??
You talk like you have some knowledge of this process...
CS
2019-06-26 19:19:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
You talk like you have some knowledge of this process...
No knowledge at all. Just a bleeding glimpse of the obvious.
If you are going to act in a professional capacity, best you have a better than good and deep knowledge of the subject.
Alan Baker
2019-06-26 19:52:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CS
Post by Alan Baker
You talk like you have some knowledge of this process...
No knowledge at all. Just a bleeding glimpse of the obvious.
Again: you imply some understanding you refuse to share...
Post by CS
If you
are going to act in a professional capacity, best you have a better
than good and deep knowledge of the subject.
Try acting a bit more honestly.

Loading...