Discussion:
Joe Saward has lunch with Emanuele Pirro
(too old to reply)
Mark Jackson
2019-06-13 16:12:06 UTC
Permalink
"You can blame the rules, if you like, but they were written that way
for a reason and while one can understand that people felt it was harsh,
the bottom line was that Vettel had made a crucial mistake – again – and
lost the race as a result. You cannot have things both ways. If one
creates a rigid rule structure, without the possibility to be
interpreted in different ways, one is condemned to have some decisions
that are too harsh or too lenient because one does not have flexibility."

https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00514
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
I can't help that I was born privileged and oblivious.
- J. Barnard Pillsbury (Gene and Dan Weingarten)
Sir Tim
2019-06-13 19:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jackson
"You can blame the rules, if you like, but they were written that way
for a reason and while one can understand that people felt it was harsh,
the bottom line was that Vettel had made a crucial mistake – again – and
lost the race as a result. You cannot have things both ways. If one
creates a rigid rule structure, without the possibility to be
interpreted in different ways, one is condemned to have some decisions
that are too harsh or too lenient because one does not have flexibility."
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00514
Great minds ... :-)
Sorry Mark, I hadn’t read your post when I sent mine.
--
Sir Tim
~misfit~
2019-06-14 23:21:18 UTC
Permalink
"You can blame the rules, if you like, but they were written that way for a reason and while one
can understand that people felt it was harsh, the bottom line was that Vettel had made a crucial
mistake – again – and lost the race as a result. You cannot have things both ways. If one creates a
rigid rule structure, without the possibility to be interpreted in different ways, one is condemned
to have some decisions that are too harsh or too lenient because one does not have flexibility."
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00514
Thanks Mark. Seems I have to set my browser to accept third-party cookies to read it though.

(I have it set not to and it rarely interferes with my browsing, sometimes there's a small pop-up
that covers maybe 1/4 of the bottom of the screen which can be ignored. Not with that site though,
you can't scroll without accepting them.)

Correction: There was a clickable link where I could see all of the third parties who they are
sharing with and select or de-select the ones I was happy with. I de-selected them all, hit 'save'
and can now read the page.
--
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
2019-06-14 23:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Thanks Mark. Seems I have to set my browser to accept third-party cookies to read it though.
(I have it set not to and it rarely interferes with my browsing, sometimes there's a small pop-up
that covers maybe 1/4 of the bottom of the screen which can be ignored. Not with that site though,
you can't scroll without accepting them.)
Correction: There was a clickable link where I could see all of the third parties who they are
sharing with and select or de-select the ones I was happy with. I de-selected them all, hit 'save'
and can now read the page.
Thank you for the update on your IT woes.
On your 11 yr old laptop.
That is full of pirated F1 downloads.
~misfit~
2019-06-14 23:38:52 UTC
Permalink
"You can blame the rules, if you like, but they were written that way for a reason and while one
can understand that people felt it was harsh, the bottom line was that Vettel had made a crucial
mistake – again – and lost the race as a result. You cannot have things both ways. If one creates a
rigid rule structure, without the possibility to be interpreted in different ways, one is condemned
to have some decisions that are too harsh or too lenient because one does not have flexibility."
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00514
He agrees with me on this:

"It should perhaps be added that Vettel was quite fortunate to avoid any punishment for his daft
theatricals after the chequered flag as in previous ages he might have been heavily punished for
his disrespect of the sport."
--
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
2019-06-14 23:45:58 UTC
Permalink
What is his stance on losers pirating F1 races?
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-14 23:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
"It should perhaps be added that Vettel was quite fortunate to avoid any punishment for his daft
theatricals after the chequered flag as in previous ages he might have been heavily punished for
his disrespect of the sport."
They need the theatrics to bring in more viewers.
To compensate for pirating losers like you.
Alan Baker
2019-06-18 03:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Mark Jackson
"You can blame the rules, if you like, but they were written that way
for a reason and while one can understand that people felt it was
harsh, the bottom line was that Vettel had made a crucial mistake –
again – and lost the race as a result. You cannot have things both
ways. If one creates a rigid rule structure, without the possibility
to be interpreted in different ways, one is condemned to have some
decisions that are too harsh or too lenient because one does not have
flexibility."
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00514
"It should perhaps be added that Vettel was quite fortunate to avoid any
punishment for his daft theatricals after the chequered flag as in
previous ages he might have been heavily punished for his disrespect of
the sport."
Or perhaps, the powers-that-be realized that penalizing Vettel for his
"antics" (ones that even Toto Wolff agreed with—think about that, if
that's possible for you) might have just pointed up how ridiculous the
original penalty was.
Bigbird
2019-06-18 13:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Mark Jackson
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00514
"It should perhaps be added that Vettel was quite fortunate to
avoid any punishment for his daft theatricals after the chequered
flag as in previous ages he might have been heavily punished for
his disrespect of the sport."
Or perhaps, the powers-that-be realized that penalizing Vettel for
his "antics" (ones that even Toto Wolff agreed with—think about that,
if that's possible for you)
Cite please

What Wolff actual did say

"The worst case would be that the stewards, after looking at the data,
find that more punishment is needed.
"I talked to Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto and he thinks what
happened isn't 100 per cent worth a penalty. I think he is 100 per cent
wrong.
Post by Alan Baker
might have just pointed up how ridiculous
the original penalty was.
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
2019-06-18 16:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Mark Jackson
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00514
"It should perhaps be added that Vettel was quite fortunate to
avoid any punishment for his daft theatricals after the chequered
flag as in previous ages he might have been heavily punished for
his disrespect of the sport."
Or perhaps, the powers-that-be realized that penalizing Vettel for
his "antics" (ones that even Toto Wolff agreed with—think about that,
if that's possible for you)
Cite please
What Wolff actual did say
David Croft: "You can probably guess what we're talking about, Toto".

...

Toto Wolff: "Well first of all, Jenson is absolutely right. I think if
it would have happened to me, I would have kicked the damn board and
thrown it against the car...uh...uh...so, emotions are...logic and are
good for the sport."
Post by Bigbird
"The worst case would be that the stewards, after looking at the data,
find that more punishment is needed.
"I talked to Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto and he thinks what
happened isn't 100 per cent worth a penalty. I think he is 100 per cent
wrong.
And now you pivot to talking about what Wolff said about the penalty
when we were talking about whether Vettel should have got a penalty for
his "antics"
Bigbird
2019-06-18 18:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Mark Jackson
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00514
"It should perhaps be added that Vettel was quite fortunate to
avoid any punishment for his daft theatricals after the
chequered flag as in previous ages he might have been heavily
punished for his disrespect of the sport."
Or perhaps, the powers-that-be realized that penalizing Vettel for
his "antics" (ones that even Toto Wolff agreed with—think about
that, if that's possible for you)
Cite please
What Wolff actual did say
David Croft: "You can probably guess what we're talking about, Toto".
...
Toto Wolff: "Well first of all, Jenson is absolutely right. I think
if it would have happened to me, I would have kicked the damn board
and thrown it against the car...uh...uh...so, emotions are...logic
and are good for the sport."
So he was just agreeing that Vettel might be annoyed at receiving a
penalty. Hardly worthy of comment no matter implying otherwise.

So did you think about that, was it possible for you? LOL, you are such
a moron.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
"The worst case would be that the stewards, after looking at the
data, find that more punishment is needed.
"I talked to Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto and he thinks
what happened isn't 100 per cent worth a penalty. I think he is 100
per cent wrong.
And now you pivot to talking about what Wolff said about the penalty
when we were talking about whether Vettel should have got a penalty
for his "antics"
No. You brought up what Wolff said. I provided his own words saying
what he felt about the penalty.
You appeared to be attempting to imply something which that quote
directly contradicts. There was no other reason to bring it up.
You are such a moron.

So you have been shown to be a purveyor of falsehoods yet again.

Job done.

GNF.
--
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
2019-06-18 18:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Mark Jackson
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00514
"It should perhaps be added that Vettel was quite fortunate to
avoid any punishment for his daft theatricals after the
chequered flag as in previous ages he might have been heavily
punished for his disrespect of the sport."
Or perhaps, the powers-that-be realized that penalizing Vettel for
his "antics" (ones that even Toto Wolff agreed with—think about
that, if that's possible for you)
Cite please
What Wolff actual did say
David Croft: "You can probably guess what we're talking about, Toto".
...
Toto Wolff: "Well first of all, Jenson is absolutely right. I think
if it would have happened to me, I would have kicked the damn board
and thrown it against the car...uh...uh...so, emotions are...logic
and are good for the sport."
So he was just agreeing that Vettel might be annoyed at receiving a
penalty. Hardly worthy of comment no matter implying otherwise.
So why did you directly challenge me to prove it?
Post by Bigbird
So did you think about that, was it possible for you? LOL, you are such
a moron.
I never said it was anything more.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
"The worst case would be that the stewards, after looking at the
data, find that more punishment is needed.
"I talked to Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto and he thinks
what happened isn't 100 per cent worth a penalty. I think he is 100
per cent wrong.
And now you pivot to talking about what Wolff said about the penalty
when we were talking about whether Vettel should have got a penalty
for his "antics"
No. You brought up what Wolff said. I provided his own words saying
what he felt about the penalty.
Which wasn't what was being discussed:

"It should perhaps be added that Vettel was quite fortunate to avoid any
punishment for his daft theatricals after the chequered flag as in
previous ages he might have been heavily punished for his disrespect of
the sport."

This is why I don't snip material.
Post by Bigbird
You appeared to be attempting to imply something which that quote
directly contradicts. There was no other reason to bring it up.
You are such a moron.
My reply to that paragraph:

'Or perhaps, the powers-that-be realized that penalizing Vettel for his
"antics" (ones that even Toto Wolff agreed with—think about that, if
that's possible for you)'

And you:

Cite please.
Bigbird
2019-06-18 19:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Mark Jackson
https://www.motorsportweek.com/joesaward/id/00514
"It should perhaps be added that Vettel was quite fortunate
to avoid any punishment for his daft theatricals after the
chequered flag as in previous ages he might have been
heavily punished for his disrespect of the sport."
Or perhaps, the powers-that-be realized that penalizing
Vettel for his "antics" (ones that even Toto Wolff agreed
with—think about that, if that's possible for you)
Cite please
What Wolff actual did say
David Croft: "You can probably guess what we're talking about, Toto".
...
Toto Wolff: "Well first of all, Jenson is absolutely right. I
think if it would have happened to me, I would have kicked the
damn board and thrown it against the car...uh...uh...so, emotions
are...logic and are good for the sport."
So he was just agreeing that Vettel might be annoyed at receiving a
penalty. Hardly worthy of comment no matter implying otherwise.
So why did you directly challenge me to prove it?
Perhaps because your comments appear absolutely worthless yet you
appear to imply they are not.

"think about that, if that's possible for you" when there was
absolutely nothing worth further thought.

If you were not trying to imply anything then your comment was totally
redundant.

Really all you have done is proved that you have nothing better to do
than waste any readers time.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
So did you think about that, was it possible for you? LOL, you are
such a moron.
I never said it was anything more.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
"The worst case would be that the stewards, after looking at the
data, find that more punishment is needed.
"I talked to Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto and he thinks
what happened isn't 100 per cent worth a penalty. I think he is
100 per cent wrong.
And now you pivot to talking about what Wolff said about the
penalty when we were talking about whether Vettel should have got
a penalty for his "antics"
No. You brought up what Wolff said. I provided his own words saying
what he felt about the penalty.
"It should perhaps be added that Vettel was quite fortunate to avoid
any punishment for his daft theatricals after the chequered flag as
in previous ages he might have been heavily punished for his
disrespect of the sport."
You are repeating what is quoted above for no reasoned purpose.
Post by Alan Baker
This is why I don't snip material.
Irrelevant non-sequitur and another attempted falsehood; implying the
"material" you quoted had been snipped.

Grow up Alan.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
You appeared to be attempting to imply something which that quote
directly contradicts. There was no other reason to bring it up.
You are such a moron.
'Or perhaps, the powers-that-be realized that penalizing Vettel for
his "antics" (ones that even Toto Wolff agreed with—think about that,
if that's possible for you)'
Cite please.
Again you fail to make any point whatsoever. You simply repeat what is
quoted above.

Have you suffered brain damage?

GNF.
--
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.
Loading...