• Re: Pit Error - The Definitive Word

    From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sat Sep 12 17:04:02 2020
    In article <rjip9d$89f$3@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-12 8:11 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:

    I can honestly say I've never given any of those much thought.
    *With proper checks and balances in position* do private services
    have any advantages. Something tells me that's not what you're
    driving at.

    You not having giving something much thought comes as no surprise.

    Cheap and silly.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sat Sep 12 17:07:24 2020
    In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
    CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
    news feeds.

    Give a concrete example of this.

    In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
    CBA arguing with lefties.


    Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.

    If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
    stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.

    Perhaps you believe men can menstruate and that there are more that
    two sexes and genders. Go on, please tell me you do so I can laugh at
    you.

    Bob.



    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sat Sep 12 13:40:22 2020
    On 2020-09-12 9:07 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
    CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
    news feeds.

    Give a concrete example of this.

    In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
    CBA arguing with lefties.


    Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.

    If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
    stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.

    Perhaps you believe men can menstruate and that there are more that
    two sexes and genders. Go on, please tell me you do so I can laugh at
    you.

    What I believe is that people should be free to call themselves whatever
    they want...

    ...and that there are quite a few variations on the two standard genders...

    ...on a purely biological basis.

    What you clearly believe is that anything that causes you to have a
    moment where you feel discomfited by what someone else is doing must be stopped.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From ~misfit~@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 13:50:43 2020
    On 13/09/2020 4:07 am, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
    CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
    news feeds.

    Give a concrete example of this.

    In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
    CBA arguing with lefties.


    Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.

    If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
    stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.

    It's not that which makes you right wing, it's as much the sites that you read and quote.

    You're obviously reading and watching to get information on this subject yet from the leftist
    propaganda that you spout I can see you didn't bother to watch '13th' which I suggested to you.
    --
    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 13:56:44 2020
    On 12/09/2020 10:25 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <Ub6dnWiM-s4mtcHCnZ2dnUU7-eVh4p2d@giganews.com>,
    geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

    You haven't got a clue what a marxist is ! Or what a socialist is.

    I'm guessing you and your mates have inside knowledge .

    Unfortunately ignorance reigns supreme in the USA.

    Good job I've never been there then.

    That is because you are totally away with the fairies on this one.

    Sorry it is as always, leftie idiots that are away with the fairies.

    Basic principal - why start your own company or work hard or develop something if the the rewards for doing so are then evenly distributed.


    Capitalism = unequal distribution of wealth.
    Socialism = equal distribution of misery.

    Bob.



    Thank you for such a succinct and profound explanation of political
    science. Until now I had no idea that it was so black and white.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 14:11:10 2020
    On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:


    Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
    ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
    the USA watches.

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected CNN
    and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not news feeds.

    Bob.


    Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda, it must be
    FALSE NEWS !

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 14:26:22 2020
    On 13/09/2020 4:07 am, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
    CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
    news feeds.

    Give a concrete example of this.

    In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
    CBA arguing with lefties.


    Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.

    If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
    stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.

    Perhaps you believe men can menstruate and that there are more that
    two sexes and genders. Go on, please tell me you do so I can laugh at
    you.

    Bob.

    You tell us, coming from a country famous for a high proportion of the
    upper crust being into all sorts of weird shit, while being in denial,
    hiding it all in the closet, and perpetuating a myth of nothing but tea
    and scones with the click of willow on leather is the distant background.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sat Sep 12 19:27:28 2020
    On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 8:11:22 PM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

    Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda, it must be
    FALSE NEWS !

    You annoying piece of shit.
    This is a F1 group.
    Get lost
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sat Sep 12 19:38:22 2020
    On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 8:11:22 PM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

    Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda, it must be
    FALSE NEWS !

    Take this crap elsewhere.
    You fucking idiot.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 08:11:57 2020
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
    Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On 9/9/20 1:10 PM, Mark wrote:

    Personally, I would suggest retracting your comments and apologising, or >>> I think people are entitled to draw the obvious inference.

    It's entirely up to you, however.

    At least yourCOve got that part right!

    I think I have a lot more than that right.

    Feel free to address my arguments above if you believe I'm wrong.

    Remember: address the argument not the individual.

    Nothing to add, Edmund?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 20:57:52 2020
    On 12/09/2020 4:19 am, Bob Latham wrote:


    Yes, we'll go as a mob and threaten people in restaurants and make
    them give the black fist salute with intimidation. Being annoyed at
    the police would obviously cause that.

    Then we'll go and burn down a city, our city, such a sensible
    approach.

    Have you not seen these violent horrible people looting shops,
    punching white people in the face as they just pass in the street?

    I will never support BLM and I question the sanity/motives of anyone
    who does.


    Bob.


    Have you seen the statistic that says over 93% of BLM street protests
    have resulted in absolutely no violence (or looting etc) from any party involved ? How does that work ?

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 10:05:33 2020
    In article <rjjbnm$769$1@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-12 9:07 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
    CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
    news feeds.

    Give a concrete example of this.

    In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
    CBA arguing with lefties.


    Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.

    If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
    stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.

    Perhaps you believe men can menstruate and that there are more that
    two sexes and genders. Go on, please tell me you do so I can laugh at
    you.

    What I believe is that people should be free to call themselves
    whatever they want...

    Oh right, so you believe a man should be able to identify as a woman
    and walk into a ladies changing rooms?

    ...and that there are quite a few variations on the two standard
    genders...

    ...on a purely biological basis.

    Ha-ha right.

    What you clearly believe is that anything that causes you to have a
    moment where you feel discomfited by what someone else is doing
    must be stopped.

    Sure of that are you? never mind.

    As far as I'm concerned people can identify as whatever they like -
    with two provisos, you don't reduce someone else's rights eg. no men
    in women's changing rooms and secondly don't involve me.

    When as we have, we get to the stage of advertising sanitary products
    as for people who menstruate because some idiot says you can't says
    for women then we have reached the point of utter madness.

    Both pathetic and laughable.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 10:10:55 2020
    In article <rjjttm$7c6$1@dont-email.me>,
    ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 13/09/2020 4:07 am, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
    CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
    news feeds.

    Give a concrete example of this.

    In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
    CBA arguing with lefties.


    Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.

    If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
    stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.

    It's not that which makes you right wing, it's as much the sites
    that you read and quote.

    You're obviously reading and watching to get information on this
    subject yet from the leftist propaganda that you spout I can see
    you didn't bother to watch '13th' which I suggested to you.

    From my perspective and I would suggest the great majority of the UK
    the left have slipped into a world of utter nonsense that makes them
    a laughing stock and completely unelectable as we saw a few months
    ago.

    Listening to reactions here anyone would think I was in KKK, English
    league or whatever it's called, I'm not. As my view is so widely
    shared it's not extreme or particularly right wing, sorry.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 10:12:06 2020
    In article <u6udnaWbkM_PHsDCnZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:


    You tell us, coming from a country famous for a high proportion of
    the upper crust being into all sorts of weird shit, while being in
    denial, hiding it all in the closet, and perpetuating a myth of
    nothing but tea and scones with the click of willow on leather is
    the distant background.

    I think you need a lie down.


    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 10:18:26 2020
    In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
    On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:


    Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
    ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
    the USA watches.

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected CNN
    and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not news feeds.

    Bob.


    Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda, it must be
    FALSE NEWS !

    Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
    the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?

    So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
    change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
    go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.

    I understand now.

    Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.


    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 21:28:34 2020
    On 13/09/2020 9:18 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
    On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:


    Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
    ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
    the USA watches.

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected CNN
    and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not news feeds.

    Bob.


    Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly partisan
    preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda, it must be
    FALSE NEWS !

    Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
    the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?

    No, the truth is the truth. And Trump does very little that is actually
    good for the people in anything but an immediate sense. And even then
    much of that is false claims, verifiably so. Unless you have had your
    head buried so deeply in the sand lately, you would have realised by now
    that Trump does only what Trump thinks is good for Trump. Nobody or
    nothing else comes into the equation.

    So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
    change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
    go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.

    Um, no. A remarkable extrapolation.

    I understand now.

    Very little it seems.


    Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.

    Clearly.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 12:02:34 2020
    In article <58af453f60bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,


    As far as I'm concerned people can identify as whatever they like -
    with two provisos, you don't reduce someone else's rights eg. no men
    in women's changing rooms and secondly don't involve me.

    I suppose I should qualify that, I feel for people who really do feel
    they were born in the wrong body and have a sex change. Life can be
    hard enough without having that extra difficulty. Those people have
    my sympathy and I wish them well with their decision.

    I can think of two people I've met in my life who have done this,
    both nice people.


    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From CS@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 04:27:21 2020
    Trump does very little that is actually
    good for the people in anything but an immediate sense. And even then....

    Even his supporters fuck up in spades. Take Dumbkirk where they sank their poxy little boats all by their own stupidity.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 13:47:23 2020
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
    CBA arguing with lefties.


    Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.

    If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
    stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.


    Like identifying people as left wing and declining to consider/discuss
    their position... that's the identity politics you're not subscribing
    to?

    YFI

    --
    Bozo bin
    Texasgate
    Heron
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 08:39:35 2020
    On 2020-09-13 2:18 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
    On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:


    Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
    ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
    the USA watches.

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected CNN
    and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not news feeds.

    Bob.


    Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly partisan
    preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda, it must be
    FALSE NEWS !

    Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
    the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?

    Trump is, at best, immoral...

    ...but corrupt is closer to than mark than actual evil, I think.

    Fortunately, he's not nearly bright enough to be truly evil.


    So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
    change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
    go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.

    I understand now.

    Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.

    You understand nothing.

    I don't "love" BLM...

    ...but I support their fight to stop the killings and violence that
    police disproportionately commit against non-white people.

    I don't "love" climate change...

    ...but I do believe the evidence that we are affecting our climate is
    growing stronger all the time.

    I don't want to force anyone anywhere to "go socialist"...

    ...but I have seen the misery that unbridled capitalism can wreak.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 08:41:09 2020
    On 2020-09-13 4:02 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <58af453f60bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,


    As far as I'm concerned people can identify as whatever they like -
    with two provisos, you don't reduce someone else's rights eg. no men
    in women's changing rooms and secondly don't involve me.

    I suppose I should qualify that, I feel for people who really do feel
    they were born in the wrong body and have a sex change. Life can be
    hard enough without having that extra difficulty. Those people have
    my sympathy and I wish them well with their decision.

    I can think of two people I've met in my life who have done this,
    both nice people.

    But according to you, there is no possible way that that can have
    anything to do with biology, right?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 08:47:59 2020
    On 2020-09-13 2:05 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjjbnm$769$1@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-12 9:07 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected >>>>>>> CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
    news feeds.

    Give a concrete example of this.

    In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
    CBA arguing with lefties.


    Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.

    If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
    stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.

    Perhaps you believe men can menstruate and that there are more that
    two sexes and genders. Go on, please tell me you do so I can laugh at
    you.

    What I believe is that people should be free to call themselves
    whatever they want...

    Oh right, so you believe a man should be able to identify as a woman
    and walk into a ladies changing rooms?

    Yup. What great evil do you think will happen?


    ...and that there are quite a few variations on the two standard
    genders...

    ...on a purely biological basis.

    Ha-ha right.

    Fact.

    You understand that fetal development is more complex than merely XX vs
    XY, right?

    No... ...you have no clue at all, do you?


    What you clearly believe is that anything that causes you to have a
    moment where you feel discomfited by what someone else is doing
    must be stopped.

    Sure of that are you? never mind.

    Yup. Completely certain of it.

    You're just like the fans at a recent NFL game where they made it clear
    that it's a lie that they object to players taking a knee during the
    anthem... ...because they booed the players even though they didn't
    protest during the anthem.


    As far as I'm concerned people can identify as whatever they like -
    with two provisos, you don't reduce someone else's rights eg. no men
    in women's changing rooms and secondly don't involve me.

    So you get that there are gay men in changing rooms with straight men in changes rooms all the time, right? And the same for women, right?

    So how about we just grow up?

    I've played hockey with women who have just changed and showered with
    the guys and guess what? Nothing happened.


    When as we have, we get to the stage of advertising sanitary products
    as for people who menstruate because some idiot says you can't says
    for women then we have reached the point of utter madness.

    Cite, please...


    Both pathetic and laughable.

    You are pathetic and contemptible.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 08:48:32 2020
    On 2020-09-13 1:57 a.m., geoff wrote:
    On 12/09/2020 4:19 am, Bob Latham wrote:


    Yes, we'll go as a mob and threaten people in restaurants and make
    them give the black fist salute with intimidation. Being annoyed at
    the police would obviously cause that.

    Then we'll go and burn down a city, our city, such a sensible
    approach.

    Have you not seen these violent horrible people looting shops,
    punching white people in the face as they just pass in the street?

    I will never support BLM and I question the sanity/motives of anyone
    who does.

    Bob.


    Have you seen the statistic that says over 93% of BLM street protests
    have resulted in absolutely no violence (or looting etc) from any party involved ? How does that work ?

    It wouldn't matter if he had.

    The violence is his EXCUSE.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 13 18:17:16 2020
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
    On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:


    Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
    ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
    the USA watches.

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
    CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
    news feeds.

    Bob.


    Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly
    partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda,
    it must be FALSE NEWS !

    Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
    the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?

    You do love your hyperbole but no that isn't quite the story.

    He is a pathological liar (20,000+ fact checked falsehoods,
    misrepresentations and misleading statements since 2016 IIRC), a
    narcissist, a misogynist, a racist, a bully, a sexual predator, an
    adulterer, corrupt, nepotistic, divisive, attacks allies and fawns over
    other authoritarians including mass murderers, he has funded
    continuance of the economic boom he inherited by borrowing trillions
    and mostly benefiting the already incredibly wealthy. He has made
    politics even more divisive and partisan and congress has been even
    less productive than when Mitch McConnell initiated the persistent obstructionism under Obama. He has achieved little of his own doing and
    a great deal of what he has claimed credit for he has done so
    dishonestly. He even funded his own campaign by self dealing from the
    funds of a charitable foundation in his name. He has torpedoed attempts
    to make sure as many people as possible had healthcare cover and has
    presided over one of the worlds worst responses to the pandemic,
    misinforming, confusing and again causing divisions. He is currently
    attempting to undermine the election by encouraging people to
    unwittingly commit felonies by unnecessarily going to the polls to
    vote after already voting in advance.

    Now that doesn't not mean that ordinary people have not benefited to
    some degree but they may find the price staggering when the reckoning
    is done.


    So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
    change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
    go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.

    I understand now.

    Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.




    --
    Bozo bin
    Texasgate
    Heron
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 09:51:24 2020
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
    Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:

    Personally, I would suggest retracting your comments and apologising, or >>> I think people are entitled to draw the obvious inference.

    It's entirely up to you, however.

    At least yourCOve got that part right!

    I think I have a lot more than that right.

    Feel free to address my arguments above if you believe I'm wrong.

    Remember: address the argument not the individual.

    After all that, do you really have nothing to add?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Brian Lawrence@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 13:10:21 2020
    On 13/09/2020 19:17, Bigbird wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
    On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:


    Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
    ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
    the USA watches.

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
    CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
    news feeds.

    Bob.


    Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly
    partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda,
    it must be FALSE NEWS !

    Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
    the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?

    You do love your hyperbole but no that isn't quite the story.

    He is a pathological liar (20,000+ fact checked falsehoods, misrepresentations and misleading statements since 2016 IIRC), a
    narcissist, a misogynist, a racist, a bully, a sexual predator, an adulterer, corrupt, nepotistic, divisive, attacks allies and fawns over
    other authoritarians including mass murderers, he has funded
    continuance of the economic boom he inherited by borrowing trillions
    and mostly benefiting the already incredibly wealthy. He has made
    politics even more divisive and partisan and congress has been even
    less productive than when Mitch McConnell initiated the persistent obstructionism under Obama. He has achieved little of his own doing and
    a great deal of what he has claimed credit for he has done so
    dishonestly. He even funded his own campaign by self dealing from the
    funds of a charitable foundation in his name. He has torpedoed attempts
    to make sure as many people as possible had healthcare cover and has
    presided over one of the worlds worst responses to the pandemic, misinforming, confusing and again causing divisions. He is currently attempting to undermine the election by encouraging people to
    unwittingly commit felonies by unnecessarily going to the polls to
    vote after already voting in advance.

    Now that doesn't not mean that ordinary people have not benefited to
    some degree but they may find the price staggering when the reckoning
    is done.


    So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
    change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
    go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.

    I understand now.

    Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.

    Usually it annoys me when someone replies to a poster from my bozo bin,
    but I'm glad to have seen the above.

    I agree with all of your comments about the worst president ever.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Sir Tim@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 13:47:54 2020
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
    On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:


    Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
    ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
    the USA watches.

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
    CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
    news feeds.

    Bob.


    Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly
    partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda,
    it must be FALSE NEWS !

    Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
    the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?

    You do love your hyperbole but no that isn't quite the story.

    He is a pathological liar (20,000+ fact checked falsehoods, misrepresentations and misleading statements since 2016 IIRC), a
    narcissist, a misogynist, a racist, a bully, a sexual predator, an adulterer, corrupt, nepotistic, divisive, attacks allies and fawns over
    other authoritarians including mass murderers, he has funded
    continuance of the economic boom he inherited by borrowing trillions
    and mostly benefiting the already incredibly wealthy. He has made
    politics even more divisive and partisan and congress has been even
    less productive than when Mitch McConnell initiated the persistent obstructionism under Obama. He has achieved little of his own doing and
    a great deal of what he has claimed credit for he has done so
    dishonestly. He even funded his own campaign by self dealing from the
    funds of a charitable foundation in his name. He has torpedoed attempts
    to make sure as many people as possible had healthcare cover and has
    presided over one of the worlds worst responses to the pandemic, misinforming, confusing and again causing divisions. He is currently attempting to undermine the election by encouraging people to
    unwittingly commit felonies by unnecessarily going to the polls to
    vote after already voting in advance.

    Now that doesn't not mean that ordinary people have not benefited to
    some degree but they may find the price staggering when the reckoning
    is done.


    So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
    change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
    go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.

    I understand now.

    Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.





    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be remembered
    as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    --
    Sir Tim
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 15:41:35 2020
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    What will you do if he gets re-elected?

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 09:17:06 2020
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under the
    previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and made it
    worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?


    What will you do if he gets re-elected?

    Bob.

    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark Jackson@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 12:53:00 2020
    On 9/15/2020 9:47 AM, Sir Tim wrote:
    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    Unless the wrong victors get to write the histories.

    --
    Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
    When all you have is a hammer every problem becomes a nail.
    When all you have is the police every problem becomes a crime.
    - Danielle Ponder
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 19:12:17 2020
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of america love him?

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 11:17:23 2020
    On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of america love him?

    More hate him than love him.

    And there are idiots in every population.

    There are Trump supporters who believe that:

    Unemployment went UP under Obama (it didn't).

    That Biden is at least partly to blame for the COIVD-19 response of the
    US government...

    ...despite him not having any role IN that government.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 19:41:37 2020
    In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of america love him?

    More hate him than love him.

    We shall see, perhaps you're right.

    And there are idiots in every population.

    Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think that's
    called arrogance and possibly a few other words.

    Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 12:05:52 2020
    On 2020-09-15 11:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of america love him?

    More hate him than love him.

    We shall see, perhaps you're right.

    What was your source for your claim?

    Provide it, and I'll provide mine


    And there are idiots in every population.

    Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think that's
    called arrogance and possibly a few other words.

    Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.

    I notice you've carefully snipped a couple of concrete points.

    Sorry, but there are many people who believe things that are patently
    untrue about Trump and/or Biden and/or Obama.

    Those people ARE idiots.

    Anyone who believes that Biden is somehow to blame for the way the US
    federal government responded to COVID-19...

    ...is an idiot. Sorry, but that's just a fact.

    Anyone who believes that unemployment went up under Obama, or that Trump
    has done a better job of growing the economyrCoeven discounting the
    current situation...

    ...is an idiot.

    Deal with those facts like a big boy.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 20:27:59 2020
    In article <rjr3ai$kir$1@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for >>>>> people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of america love him?

    More hate him than love him.

    We shall see, perhaps you're right.

    What was your source for your claim?

    What claim? oh that a large portion of usa love him, have you seen
    the rallies?

    Provide it, and I'll provide mine

    Oh it's very clear many people have a pathological hatred of the man.


    And there are idiots in every population.

    Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think
    that's called arrogance and possibly a few other words.

    Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.

    I notice you've carefully snipped a couple of concrete points.

    Sorry, but there are many people who believe things that are
    patently untrue about Trump and/or Biden and/or Obama.

    Those people ARE idiots.

    Ah, master of truth. I see.

    Anyone who believes that Biden is somehow to blame for the way the
    US federal government responded to COVID-19...

    ...is an idiot. Sorry, but that's just a fact.

    I don't know anything about Biden talks as is he's only half here,
    like he's lost it. Saw him explaining his transgressions with some
    women, he was wasn't lucid. Sorry that's all I know about him.

    Anyone who believes that unemployment went up under Obama, or that
    Trump has done a better job of growing the economyyeven
    discounting the current situation...

    ...is an idiot.

    I've got the message.

    Deal with those facts like a big boy.

    Yes, I've got your message loud and clear.
    Imagine how impressed I am.

    We shall see...


    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 12:43:42 2020
    On 2020-09-15 12:27 p.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjr3ai$kir$1@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be >>>>>>>> remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for >>>>>>> people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of america love him?

    More hate him than love him.

    We shall see, perhaps you're right.

    What was your source for your claim?

    What claim? oh that a large portion of usa love him, have you seen
    the rallies?

    Wow.

    You're not just poorly informed: you're just not very bright.

    It doesn't take a large portion of the population for someone's rallies
    to be well attended.


    Provide it, and I'll provide mine

    Oh it's very clear many people have a pathological hatred of the man.

    Or a justified hatred, because he is a documented liar...




    And there are idiots in every population.

    Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think
    that's called arrogance and possibly a few other words.

    Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.

    I notice you've carefully snipped a couple of concrete points.

    Sorry, but there are many people who believe things that are
    patently untrue about Trump and/or Biden and/or Obama.

    Those people ARE idiots.

    Ah, master of truth. I see.

    Anyone who believes that Biden is somehow to blame for the way the
    US federal government responded to COVID-19...

    ...is an idiot. Sorry, but that's just a fact.

    I don't know anything about Biden talks as is he's only half here,
    like he's lost it. Saw him explaining his transgressions with some
    women, he was wasn't lucid. Sorry that's all I know about him.

    I notice you can't address yourself to the point.

    But Biden is quite obviously far more intelligent than Trump. He has a
    stutter that he some times struggles with.

    And Trump has had far, FAR more accusations and more serious accusations leveled against him.


    Anyone who believes that unemployment went up under Obama, or that
    Trump has done a better job of growing the economy-Leven
    discounting the current situation...

    ...is an idiot.

    I've got the message.

    Deal with those facts like a big boy.

    Yes, I've got your message loud and clear.
    Imagine how impressed I am.

    You're just utterly unable to rebut my message.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 16 09:24:37 2020
    On 16/09/2020 6:12 am, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of america love him?

    Bob.


    Because a significantly large proportion of America are one or all of
    stupid, gullible, divorced from reality (not helped by Hollywood,
    religion, Fox News, and reality TV), outright rednecks, xenophobic, and
    some even simply nasty and evil.

    But equally many (most ?) are not. Unfortunately their version of the democratic process does not help.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 16 09:27:10 2020
    On 16/09/2020 6:41 am, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of america love him?

    More hate him than love him.

    We shall see, perhaps you're right.

    And there are idiots in every population.

    Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think that's
    called arrogance and possibly a few other words.

    Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.

    Bob.


    Given the level of 'rationality' that summation, you are correct.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 16 09:31:08 2020
    On 16/09/2020 7:05 am, Alan Baker wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
    -a-a-a Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    -a-a-a-a Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    -a-a-a-a-a Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for >>>>>> people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of america love him?

    More hate him than love him.

    We shall see, perhaps you're right.

    What was your source for your claim?

    Provide it, and I'll provide mine


    And there are idiots in every population.

    Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think that's
    called arrogance and possibly a few other words.

    Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.

    I notice you've carefully snipped a couple of concrete points.

    Sorry, but there are many people who believe things that are patently
    untrue about Trump and/or Biden and/or Obama.

    Those people ARE idiots.

    Anyone who believes that Biden is somehow to blame for the way the US federal government responded to COVID-19...

    ...is an idiot. Sorry, but that's just a fact.

    Anyone who believes that unemployment went up under Obama, or that Trump
    has done a better job of growing the economyrCoeven discounting the
    current situation...

    ...is an idiot.

    Deal with those facts like a big boy.


    To be fair Alan, they are victims of the US media and do not realise
    that the likes of Fox News is faux news. And the lies and bizarre interpretations have been so ingrained they have effectively been
    brainwashed every bit as Chinese, Russians, North Koreans, etc.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Sir Tim@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 23:17:43 2020
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    What will you do if he gets re-elected?

    The same thing I shall do if Biden gets elected: continue living a quiet
    life in rural Shropshire whilst worrying about the effect that Covid-19 and Brexit may have on my grand-daughterrCOs future.

    --
    Sir Tim
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Sir Tim@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 23:38:32 2020
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of America love him?

    That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking. I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: rCLIf you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

    If you have not read rCLIt CanrCOt Happen HererCY by Sinclair Lewis you might find it instructive.

    --
    Sir Tim
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From ~misfit~@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 16 14:51:35 2020
    On 16/09/2020 12:10 am, Brian Lawrence wrote:
    On 13/09/2020 19:17, Bigbird wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    -a-a-a geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
    On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:


    Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
    ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
    the USA watches.

    Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
    CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
    news feeds.

    Bob.


    Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly
    partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda,
    it must be FALSE NEWS !

    Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
    the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?

    You do love your hyperbole but no that isn't quite the story.

    He is a pathological liar (20,000+ fact checked falsehoods,
    misrepresentations and misleading statements since 2016 IIRC), a
    narcissist, a misogynist, a racist, a bully,-a a sexual predator, an
    adulterer, corrupt, nepotistic, divisive, attacks allies and fawns over
    other authoritarians including mass murderers, he has funded
    continuance of the economic boom he inherited by borrowing trillions
    and mostly benefiting the already incredibly wealthy. He has made
    politics even more divisive and partisan and congress has been even
    less productive than when Mitch McConnell initiated the persistent
    obstructionism under Obama. He has achieved little of his own doing and
    a great deal of what he has claimed credit for he has done so
    dishonestly. He even funded his own campaign by self dealing from the
    funds of a charitable foundation in his name. He has torpedoed attempts
    to make sure as many people as possible had healthcare cover and has
    presided over one of the worlds worst responses to the pandemic,
    misinforming, confusing and again causing divisions. He is currently
    attempting to undermine the election by encouraging people to
    unwittingly commit-a felonies by unnecessarily going to the polls to
    vote after already voting in advance.

    Now that doesn't not mean that ordinary people have not benefited to
    some degree but they may find the price staggering when the reckoning
    is done.


    So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
    change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
    go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.

    I understand now.

    Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.

    Usually it annoys me when someone replies to a poster from my bozo bin, but I'm glad to have seen
    the above.

    I agree with all of your comments about the worst president ever.

    +1
    --
    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Sep 15 20:08:04 2020
    On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 8:51:37 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:

    +1

    --
    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.

    you fucking useless cunt hole
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 16 16:38:23 2020
    In article <rjr5hg$45u$1@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 12:27 p.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjr3ai$kir$1@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be >>>>>>>> remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for >>>>>>> people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under >>>>>> the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to >>>>>> corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of america love him?

    More hate him than love him.

    We shall see, perhaps you're right.

    What was your source for your claim?

    What claim? oh that a large portion of usa love him, have you seen
    the rallies?

    Wow.

    You're not just poorly informed: you're just not very bright.

    Is that the level, just insults and hate, ok.

    It doesn't take a large portion of the population for someone's
    rallies to be well attended.

    Not seen anything like that for Biden.



    Provide it, and I'll provide mine

    Oh it's very clear many people have a pathological hatred of the
    man.

    Or a justified hatred, because he is a documented liar...

    Really, I don't hate anyone. I have self control.


    And there are idiots in every population.

    Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think
    that's called arrogance and possibly a few other words.

    Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.

    I notice you've carefully snipped a couple of concrete points.

    Sorry, but there are many people who believe things that are
    patently untrue about Trump and/or Biden and/or Obama.

    Those people ARE idiots.

    Ah, master of truth. I see.

    Anyone who believes that Biden is somehow to blame for the way the
    US federal government responded to COVID-19...

    ...is an idiot. Sorry, but that's just a fact.

    I don't know anything about Biden talks as is he's only half here,
    like he's lost it. Saw him explaining his transgressions with some
    women, he was wasn't lucid. Sorry that's all I know about him.

    I notice you can't address yourself to the point.

    What point?

    But Biden is quite obviously far more intelligent than Trump. He
    has a stutter that he some times struggles with.

    Really.

    And Trump has had far, FAR more accusations and more serious
    accusations leveled against him.

    Accusations, dear me.




    Anyone who believes that unemployment went up under Obama, or that
    Trump has done a better job of growing the economy#even
    discounting the current situation...

    ...is an idiot.

    I've got the message.

    Deal with those facts like a big boy.

    Yes, I've got your message loud and clear.
    Imagine how impressed I am.

    You're just utterly unable to rebut my message.

    You're confusing me with someone who gives a shit. No point arguing
    with lefties or people that think it's fine to go burning, looting
    and murdering.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 16 16:46:24 2020
    In article <hsd1joFr26pU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of America love him?

    That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking.
    I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become
    tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only
    served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be
    that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: oIf you tell a lie big enough and
    keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

    What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
    beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.
    The other side are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.

    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to and
    have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves supporting
    the most awful behaviour from their side.

    If you have not read oIt Canat Happen Hereo by Sinclair Lewis you
    might find it instructive.

    I recommend The Madness of crowds.


    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 16 08:55:22 2020
    On 2020-09-16 8:46 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsd1joFr26pU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of America love him?

    That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking.
    I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become
    tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only
    served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be
    that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: rCYIf you tell a lie big enough and
    keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

    What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
    beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.
    The other side are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.

    In the case of Trump, everyone who is against him has truth on their side.


    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to and
    have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves supporting
    the most awful behaviour from their side.

    I suggest you give an example of a lie that has been promulgated about Trump...


    If you have not read rCYIt CanrCyt Happen HererCo by Sinclair Lewis you
    might find it instructive.

    I recommend The Madness of crowds.


    Bob.

    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 16 08:58:07 2020
    On 2020-09-16 8:38 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjr5hg$45u$1@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 12:27 p.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjr3ai$kir$1@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be >>>>>>>>>> remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for >>>>>>>>> people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under >>>>>>>> the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and >>>>>>>> made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to >>>>>>>> corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a >>>>>>> large portion of america love him?

    More hate him than love him.

    We shall see, perhaps you're right.

    What was your source for your claim?

    What claim? oh that a large portion of usa love him, have you seen
    the rallies?

    Wow.

    You're not just poorly informed: you're just not very bright.

    Is that the level, just insults and hate, ok.

    Sorry. But truth is truth.


    It doesn't take a large portion of the population for someone's
    rallies to be well attended.

    Not seen anything like that for Biden.

    Because he has CHOSEN not to do rallies.

    Perhaps you hadn't heard, but there's a pandemic going on.




    Provide it, and I'll provide mine

    Oh it's very clear many people have a pathological hatred of the
    man.

    Or a justified hatred, because he is a documented liar...

    Really, I don't hate anyone. I have self control.

    LOL!



    And there are idiots in every population.

    Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think
    that's called arrogance and possibly a few other words.

    Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.

    I notice you've carefully snipped a couple of concrete points.

    Sorry, but there are many people who believe things that are
    patently untrue about Trump and/or Biden and/or Obama.

    Those people ARE idiots.

    Ah, master of truth. I see.

    Anyone who believes that Biden is somehow to blame for the way the
    US federal government responded to COVID-19...

    ...is an idiot. Sorry, but that's just a fact.

    I don't know anything about Biden talks as is he's only half here,
    like he's lost it. Saw him explaining his transgressions with some
    women, he was wasn't lucid. Sorry that's all I know about him.

    I notice you can't address yourself to the point.

    What point?

    The point that I was demonstrating how many of Trump supporters are
    willing to believe things that are patently false.


    But Biden is quite obviously far more intelligent than Trump. He
    has a stutter that he some times struggles with.

    Really.


    Yes. Really.

    And Trump has had far, FAR more accusations and more serious
    accusations leveled against him.

    Accusations, dear me.

    And that's all they are against Biden...

    ...but suddenly it's different for you, is it?





    Anyone who believes that unemployment went up under Obama, or that
    Trump has done a better job of growing the economy#even
    discounting the current situation...

    ...is an idiot.

    I've got the message.

    Deal with those facts like a big boy.

    Yes, I've got your message loud and clear.
    Imagine how impressed I am.

    You're just utterly unable to rebut my message.

    You're confusing me with someone who gives a shit. No point arguing
    with lefties or people that think it's fine to go burning, looting
    and murdering.

    No one thinks any of that is fine, you idiot.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Sir Tim@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 16 20:38:21 2020
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <hsd1joFr26pU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of America love him?

    That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking.
    I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become
    tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only
    served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be
    that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: -oIf you tell a lie big enough and
    keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

    What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
    beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.
    The other side are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.

    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to and
    have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves supporting
    the most awful behaviour from their side.

    If you have not read -oIt Can-at Happen Here-o by Sinclair Lewis you
    might find it instructive.

    I recommend The Madness of Crowds.

    Yes, that would figure.

    --
    Sir Tim
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 11:05:58 2020
    On 17/09/2020 3:46 am, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsd1joFr26pU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of America love him?

    That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking.
    I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become
    tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only
    served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be
    that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: rCYIf you tell a lie big enough and
    keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

    What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
    beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.
    The other side are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.

    Unlike you ...

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 16 16:18:01 2020
    On 2020-09-16 4:05 p.m., geoff wrote:
    On 17/09/2020 3:46 am, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsd1joFr26pU1@mid.individual.net>,
    -a-a-a Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    -a-a-a Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for >>>>>> people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of America love him?

    That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking.
    I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become
    tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only
    served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be
    that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: rCYIf you tell a lie big enough and
    keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

    What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
    beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.
    The other side are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.

    Unlike you ...

    geoff

    Did you like the way he showed his conviction that no one on the left
    (of him) can be normal?

    :-)
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 16 23:25:29 2020
    Bob Latham wrote:

    What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
    beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.

    The other side

    What no cutsie generalisation? What would you like to be known as,
    Trumpers?

    are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.

    Well yes. Something over 20,000 have been catalogued from just Trump
    himself.

    I have often challenged Trump supporters to take a critical look at a
    fact check of any one of Trumps rallies or rants and not one has been
    willing to take up the challenge.
    The inference is clear.

    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to and
    have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves supporting
    the most awful behaviour from their side.


    Do they?

    I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and arson
    but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Texasgate
    Heron
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 16 16:29:18 2020
    On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:06:07 PM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

    Unlike you ...

    thanks dipshit
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 10:07:57 2020
    In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:


    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to
    and have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves
    supporting the most awful behaviour from their side.


    Do they?

    I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and arson
    but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.

    Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their
    condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with the
    mob.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 10:45:17 2020
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:


    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to
    and have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves
    supporting the most awful behaviour from their side.


    Do they?

    I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and arson
    but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.

    Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their
    condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with the
    mob.


    That's some conspicuous backpedaling there, Bob.

    Not "screaming their condemnation" = support.
    Which particular rioting and arson in this country are you talking
    about?

    I think most of those without a nefarious agenda have not been
    distracted from the anti-racist message.

    The far right have an incentive to belabour a discussion of the
    criminal minority. They, like you, cannot mention the protests without mischaracterising them all as riots and looting or the millions who
    peacefully protested as anything other than "the mob".

    So for the second time of asking do you have any evidence to support
    your claim of "the left" here supporting rioting and arson?

    --
    Bozo bin
    Texasgate
    Heron
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 22:58:58 2020
    On 17/09/2020 9:07 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:


    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to
    and have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves
    supporting the most awful behaviour from their side.


    Do they?

    I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and arson
    but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.

    Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their
    condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with the
    mob.

    Bob.


    You still appear to think that those burning and rioting are something
    more than a minute minority of BLM supporters.

    What information do you have to support this bizarre point of view ?

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 13:26:28 2020
    In article <xn0mj0gbsa65wm001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:


    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to
    and have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves
    supporting the most awful behaviour from their side.


    Do they?

    I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and arson
    but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.

    Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their
    condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with the
    mob.


    That's some conspicuous backpedaling there, Bob.

    Not "screaming their condemnation" = support.
    Which particular rioting and arson in this country are you talking
    about?

    I think most of those without a nefarious agenda have not been
    distracted from the anti-racist message.

    The far right have an incentive to belabour a discussion of the
    criminal minority. They, like you, cannot mention the protests without mischaracterising them all as riots and looting or the millions who peacefully protested as anything other than "the mob".

    So for the second time of asking do you have any evidence to support
    your claim of "the left" here supporting rioting and arson?

    Do you have evidence that they don't?

    I guarantee support is not from the right.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 12:44:42 2020
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <xn0mj0gbsa65wm001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:


    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied
    to and have it completely wrong, even when they find
    themselves supporting the most awful behaviour from their
    side.


    Do they?

    I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and
    arson but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.

    Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with
    the mob.


    That's some conspicuous backpedaling there, Bob.

    Not "screaming their condemnation" = support.
    Which particular rioting and arson in this country are you talking
    about?

    I think most of those without a nefarious agenda have not been
    distracted from the anti-racist message.

    The far right have an incentive to belabour a discussion of the
    criminal minority. They, like you, cannot mention the protests
    without mischaracterising them all as riots and looting or the
    millions who peacefully protested as anything other than "the mob".

    So for the second time of asking do you have any evidence to support
    your claim of "the left" here supporting rioting and arson?

    Do you have evidence that they don't?

    I guarantee support is not from the right.


    So for the second consecutive post you show an inability to support
    your claims.

    Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the obvious;
    that you are an habitual liar and your claims are inventions or your
    bigoted mind.


    --
    Bozo bin
    Texasgate
    Heron
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 06:22:23 2020
    On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 4:59:06 AM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

    What information do you have to support this bizarre point of view ?

    go fuck yourself
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 06:23:51 2020
    On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 6:44:44 AM UTC-6, Bigbird wrote:

    shall we

    Who is 'we'?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 16:11:03 2020
    In article <xn0mj0jh0efqaq000@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <xn0mj0gbsa65wm001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:


    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied
    to and have it completely wrong, even when they find
    themselves supporting the most awful behaviour from their
    side.


    Do they?

    I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and
    arson but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.

    Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with
    the mob.


    That's some conspicuous backpedaling there, Bob.

    Not "screaming their condemnation" = support.
    Which particular rioting and arson in this country are you talking
    about?

    I think most of those without a nefarious agenda have not been
    distracted from the anti-racist message.

    The far right have an incentive to belabour a discussion of the
    criminal minority. They, like you, cannot mention the protests
    without mischaracterising them all as riots and looting or the
    millions who peacefully protested as anything other than "the mob".

    So for the second time of asking do you have any evidence to support
    your claim of "the left" here supporting rioting and arson?

    Do you have evidence that they don't?

    I guarantee support is not from the right.


    So for the second consecutive post you show an inability to support
    your claims.

    Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the
    obvious; that you are an habitual liar and your claims are
    inventions or your bigoted mind.

    Haha.

    Another that thinks I give a damn what lefties think of me.

    What is easy to observe about lefties is they are the big pushers
    for:..

    BLM - marxism - race war - destruction of west/capitalism.
    ACC - no CO2 - economic collapse - destruction of west/capitalism.
    Covid lockdowns - economic collapse - destruction of west/capitalism.

    Support from the right for all 3 is vastly less.

    Can't think why.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 16:19:40 2020
    Bob Latham wrote:

    Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the
    obvious; that you are an habitual liar and your claims are
    inventions or your bigoted mind.

    Haha.

    So that's a no and yes respectively then.


    Another that thinks I give a damn what lefties think of me.

    That you have to label everyone who thinks you are a lying dirtbag as a political opponent belies your inability to recognise that it is not
    simply your extreme political views but your lack of decency that is so repugnant.

    ps I am not a "lefty" just a long way left of repugnant.


    [snip who gives a shit]


    --
    Bozo bin
    Texasgate
    Heron
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 09:42:39 2020
    On 2020-09-17 8:11 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <xn0mj0jh0efqaq000@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <xn0mj0gbsa65wm001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:


    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied
    to and have it completely wrong, even when they find
    themselves supporting the most awful behaviour from their
    side.


    Do they?

    I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and
    arson but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.

    Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their
    condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with
    the mob.


    That's some conspicuous backpedaling there, Bob.

    Not "screaming their condemnation" = support.
    Which particular rioting and arson in this country are you talking
    about?

    I think most of those without a nefarious agenda have not been
    distracted from the anti-racist message.

    The far right have an incentive to belabour a discussion of the
    criminal minority. They, like you, cannot mention the protests
    without mischaracterising them all as riots and looting or the
    millions who peacefully protested as anything other than "the mob".

    So for the second time of asking do you have any evidence to support
    your claim of "the left" here supporting rioting and arson?

    Do you have evidence that they don't?

    I guarantee support is not from the right.


    So for the second consecutive post you show an inability to support
    your claims.

    Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the
    obvious; that you are an habitual liar and your claims are
    inventions or your bigoted mind.

    Haha.

    Another that thinks I give a damn what lefties think of me.

    What is easy to observe about lefties is they are the big pushers
    for:..

    BLM - marxism - race war - destruction of west/capitalism.

    False - false - false - false.

    ACC - no CO2 - economic collapse - destruction of west/capitalism.

    False - false - false - false.



    Covid lockdowns - economic collapse - destruction of west/capitalism.

    Or, the thing you fail to mention:

    Not killing hundreds of thousands of people.



    Support from the right for all 3 is vastly less.

    Can't think why.

    "Can't think" would be near the mark for you.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 19:38:26 2020
    In article <xn0mj0p6cm46tj000@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the
    obvious; that you are an habitual liar and your claims are
    inventions or your bigoted mind.

    Haha.

    So that's a no and yes respectively then.


    Another that thinks I give a damn what lefties think of me.

    That you have to label everyone who thinks you are a lying dirtbag as a political opponent belies your inability to recognise that it is not
    simply your extreme political views but your lack of decency that is so repugnant.

    ps I am not a "lefty" just a long way left of repugnant.

    Pleased to hear it.

    This lovely girl...

    https://twitter.com/samanthamarika1/status/1306342131229810688?s=21

    has it spot on. I know exactly how she feels.


    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 11:56:48 2020
    On 2020-09-17 11:38 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <xn0mj0p6cm46tj000@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the
    obvious; that you are an habitual liar and your claims are
    inventions or your bigoted mind.

    Haha.

    So that's a no and yes respectively then.


    Another that thinks I give a damn what lefties think of me.

    That you have to label everyone who thinks you are a lying dirtbag as a
    political opponent belies your inability to recognise that it is not
    simply your extreme political views but your lack of decency that is so
    repugnant.

    ps I am not a "lefty" just a long way left of repugnant.

    Pleased to hear it.

    This lovely girl...

    https://twitter.com/samanthamarika1/status/1306342131229810688?s=21

    has it spot on. I know exactly how she feels.

    I'm sure you are every bit as loony as she is.

    You get that she actually BELIEVES COVID-19 is a "psychological
    operation", and not an actual disease and pandemic, right?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 11:25:30 2020
    On 18/09/2020 12:26 am, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <xn0mj0gbsa65wm001@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:


    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to
    and have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves
    supporting the most awful behaviour from their side.


    Do they?

    I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and arson
    but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.

    Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their
    condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with the
    mob.


    That's some conspicuous backpedaling there, Bob.

    Not "screaming their condemnation" = support.
    Which particular rioting and arson in this country are you talking
    about?

    I think most of those without a nefarious agenda have not been
    distracted from the anti-racist message.

    The far right have an incentive to belabour a discussion of the
    criminal minority. They, like you, cannot mention the protests without
    mischaracterising them all as riots and looting or the millions who
    peacefully protested as anything other than "the mob".

    So for the second time of asking do you have any evidence to support
    your claim of "the left" here supporting rioting and arson?

    Do you have evidence that they don't?

    I guarantee support is not from the right.

    Bob.

    No more that you don't have proof that those actions are of agents-provocateurs of your fellow right-wing fascist sympathisers.

    But do you not ever watch or research any current events or news items,
    or are you oblivious to what is around you every day? If you did, you
    would know and you wouldn't be making such ridiculous Trumpoid assertions..

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From keithr0@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 11:53:06 2020
    On 9/17/2020 1:46 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsd1joFr26pU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
    Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
    On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:

    A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
    remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.

    You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
    people all be it, many lost through covid.

    You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
    the previous administration, right?

    And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
    made it worse?

    And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
    corporations and the extremely rich?

    I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
    large portion of America love him?

    That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking.
    I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become
    tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only
    served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be
    that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: rCYIf you tell a lie big enough and
    keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

    What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
    beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.
    The other side are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.

    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to and
    have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves supporting
    the most awful behaviour from their side.

    What I find amazing with right wingers is that they are absolutely
    certain beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their
    side. The other side are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.

    They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to and
    have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves supporting
    the most awful behaviour from their side.

    If you have not read rCYIt CanrCyt Happen HererCo by Sinclair Lewis you
    might find it instructive.

    I recommend The Madness of crowds.


    Bob.

    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 20:12:07 2020
    On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:25:40 PM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

    No more that you don't have proof that those actions are of agents-provocateurs of your fellow right-wing fascist sympathisers.

    But do you not ever watch or research any current events or news items,
    or are you oblivious to what is around you every day? If you did, you
    would know and you wouldn't be making such ridiculous Trumpoid assertions..

    you stupid cunthole
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 20:14:57 2020
    On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 12:56:52 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

    I'm sure you are every bit as loony as she is.

    You get that she actually BELIEVES COVID-19 is a "psychological
    operation", and not an actual disease and pandemic, right?

    You fucking moronic, piece of shit,
    cock sucking, cunthole, ass fucker.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 20:25:20 2020
    On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 9:12:09 PM UTC-6, texas gate wrote:
    On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:25:40 PM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

    No more that you don't have proof that those actions are of agents-provocateurs of your fellow right-wing fascist sympathisers.

    But do you not ever watch or research any current events or news items,
    or are you oblivious to what is around you every day? If you did, you would know and you wouldn't be making such ridiculous Trumpoid assertions..

    Find a piston and connecting rod and shove it up
    your asshole until it comes out your pie hole.
    Then call it day.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Thu Sep 17 20:26:10 2020
    On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 9:14:59 PM UTC-6, texas gate wrote:
    On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 12:56:52 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

    I'm sure you are every bit as loony as she is.

    You get that she actually BELIEVES COVID-19 is a "psychological operation", and not an actual disease and pandemic, right?

    Find a piston and connecting rod and shove it up
    your asshole until it comes out your pie hole.
    Then call it day.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bigbird@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 06:09:32 2020
    Bob Latham wrote:

    In article <xn0mj0p6cm46tj000@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham wrote:

    Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the
    obvious; that you are an habitual liar and your claims are
    inventions or your bigoted mind.

    Haha.

    So that's a no and yes respectively then.


    Another that thinks I give a damn what lefties think of me.

    That you have to label everyone who thinks you are a lying dirtbag
    as a political opponent belies your inability to recognise that it
    is not simply your extreme political views but your lack of decency
    that is so repugnant.

    ps I am not a "lefty" just a long way left of repugnant.

    Pleased to hear it.

    This lovely girl...

    https://twitter.com/samanthamarika1/status/1306342131229810688?s=21

    has it spot on. I know exactly how she feels.


    Manipulated?

    A victim of post truth America.

    Is she another that refuses to fact check her Liar in Chief.

    The first sentence is misleading and continues to build a straw man;
    blatant sophistry.

    If you are comforted by manipulated facts that goes to show that you
    have a closed mind and a broken moral compass.


    --
    Bozo bin
    Texasgate
    Heron
    Enjoy!
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 10:33:30 2020
    In article <8dOdndx8UsLwbf7CnZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
    On 18/09/2020 12:26 am, Bob Latham wrote:

    Do you have evidence that they don't?

    I guarantee support is not from the right.

    Bob.

    No more that you don't have proof that those actions are of agents-provocateurs of your fellow right-wing fascist sympathisers.

    Firstly, if I am right wing it is only slightly, I'm not even a
    member of the tory party and certainly not anything unpleasant on the
    extreme edge. To my eternal shame I voted for the war monger Blair.

    Secondly I am concerned by why I'm described as fascist. Do you
    actually understand what the word means?

    One of the key identifiers of fascism is the cancel culture and
    forcing the silence of people who do not support you views. Indeed
    only this week we've heard calls to begin book burning of a novel
    that hasn't been released yet because the mob has decided they no
    longer like the author.

    That is fascism. That is the PC, woke, left.

    I don't ever recall the right, wishing to silence anyone else, not
    once.

    I don't advocate anything nasty at all, I hate nobody, I wish to see
    fair play to everyone regardless of colour or creed.

    I want to see black treated properly in the states and the police
    sorted out on this. I'd also be pleased to see measure which help
    keep people away from crime.

    But do you not ever watch or research any current events or news
    items, or are you oblivious to what is around you every day?

    I am aware that the media in the UK is extremely biased on just about
    every topic. The news is no longer the news in the UK, it's the
    hourly opinion run of the metro elite left. I find it unwatchable as
    do millions of others.

    We know the entire tv media is:
    Pro EU.
    Pro immigration.
    Dinghy crosses are desperate asylum seekers escaping terrible things.
    Very PC and increasingly woke.
    Anti Trump and then some - psychotic on the subject.
    Man's CO2 is destroying the world through climate change.
    Pro liberal/left
    Anti Israel.
    etc. etc.

    If you did, you would know and you wouldn't be making such
    ridiculous Trumpoid assertions..

    Says an obviously left wing, woke, observer who claims another
    similar media is worth watching.

    I don't share your views, can't you live with that or are you too
    totalitarian and fascist?


    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Sir Tim@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 11:36:05 2020
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

    I am aware that the media in the UK is extremely biased on just about
    every topic. The news is no >longer the news in the UK, it's the hourly opinion run of the metro elite left. I find it unwatchable as do >millions of others.

    So you donrCOt read the Daily Mexpress or the Telegraph then.

    My son works for an organization which runs masterclasses for aspiring
    writers. As a LibDem voter he is well to the right of all his colleagues.
    These colleagues universally condemn the BBC as being an organ of the Tory party and genuinely believe that it, along with the press, was entirely responsible for the defeat of Jeremy Corbin at the last election.

    Conversely, many contributors to John RedwoodrCOs web site seem to believe
    that the BBC is an unreconstructed left wing organization which ought to be closed down as soon as possible. They often refer to it as the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.

    The above divergence of opinions suggests to me the BeebrCOs output is generally pretty well balanced

    --
    Sir Tim
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 23:45:22 2020
    On 18/09/2020 9:33 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <8dOdndx8UsLwbf7CnZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
    On 18/09/2020 12:26 am, Bob Latham wrote:

    Do you have evidence that they don't?

    I guarantee support is not from the right.

    Bob.

    No more that you don't have proof that those actions are of
    agents-provocateurs of your fellow right-wing fascist sympathisers.

    Firstly, if I am right wing it is only slightly, I'm not even a
    member of the tory party and certainly not anything unpleasant on the
    extreme edge. To my eternal shame I voted for the war monger Blair.

    Secondly I am concerned by why I'm described as fascist. Do you
    actually understand what the word means?

    One of the key identifiers of fascism is the cancel culture and
    forcing the silence of people who do not support you views. Indeed
    only this week we've heard calls to begin book burning of a novel
    that hasn't been released yet because the mob has decided they no
    longer like the author.

    That is fascism. That is the PC, woke, left.

    I don't ever recall the right, wishing to silence anyone else, not
    once.

    I don't advocate anything nasty at all, I hate nobody, I wish to see
    fair play to everyone regardless of colour or creed.

    I want to see black treated properly in the states and the police
    sorted out on this. I'd also be pleased to see measure which help
    keep people away from crime.

    But do you not ever watch or research any current events or news
    items, or are you oblivious to what is around you every day?

    I am aware that the media in the UK is extremely biased on just about
    every topic. The news is no longer the news in the UK, it's the
    hourly opinion run of the metro elite left. I find it unwatchable as
    do millions of others.

    We know the entire tv media is:
    Pro EU.

    Sensible to point out the pros and cons of both sides. If one happens to outweigh the other, then maybe there is a reason for that.

    Pro immigration.

    Maybe just not isolationist.

    Dinghy crosses are desperate asylum seekers escaping terrible things.

    "Crossers" - yes people taking action in an attempt to improve (or in
    some cases preserve) the lives of them and their families.

    Very PC and increasingly woke.

    Better crude and redneck then ?

    Anti Trump and then some - psychotic on the subject.

    No need to be psychcotic on the subject - just watch his average public
    day for psychosis in action. Rightfully a high degree of coverage and
    interest as it is a subject that gravely affects the whole world.

    Man's CO2 is destroying the world through climate change.

    You haven't figured that what man has done in the last few centuries
    might just have have a little negative effect on things ? And thathe
    likes of Trump apparently know more about that sort of thing than the scientists who have spent their lives learning about and studying such things.

    Pro liberal/left

    If pro intelligence and reason equates to pro-liberal-left in your view,
    then yes.

    Anti Israel.

    No, anti further Zionist illegal and immoral appropriation of
    Palestinian land, because their god said they could.

    etc. etc.

    If you did, you would know and you wouldn't be making such
    ridiculous Trumpoid assertions..

    Says an obviously left wing, woke, observer who claims another
    similar media is worth watching.

    I guess if you don't watch or read anything you'll never know.


    I don't share your views, can't you live with that or are you too totalitarian and fascist?


    Bob.


    Obviously.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 13:20:33 2020
    In article <hsjkd5F83r5U1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

    I am aware that the media in the UK is extremely biased on just
    about every topic. The news is no >longer the news in the UK,
    it's the hourly opinion run of the metro elite left. I find it
    unwatchable as do >millions of others.

    So you donat read the Daily Mexpress or the Telegraph then.

    My son works for an organization which runs masterclasses for
    aspiring writers. As a LibDem voter he is well to the right of all
    his colleagues. These colleagues universally condemn the BBC as
    being an organ of the Tory party and genuinely believe that it,
    along with the press, was entirely responsible for the defeat of
    Jeremy Corbin at the last election.

    No I think that was due mostly to Labour telling their working class
    supporters to 'do one' Labour was now metro elite.

    But the words of Mandy Rice-Davies springs to mind :-).

    Conversely, many contributors to John Redwoodas web site seem to
    believe that the BBC is an unreconstructed left wing organization
    which ought to be closed down as soon as possible. They often refer
    to it as the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.

    The above divergence of opinions suggests to me the Beebas output
    is generally pretty well balanced

    10 years ago and probably less, I was a huge supporter of the BBC. So
    much so that my then boss jokingly bought me a BBC mug for the office.

    In those days, I was unaware of the BBCs opinion, now I cannot escape
    it.

    What was Angela Rippon's opinions - still no idea.

    What about Maitlis, I think we know hers and Fiona Bruce by who she
    shuts down again and again and the faces she pulls and Marr he
    doesn't hide his view either.

    This isn't news, its opinion.

    The BBC loves diversity, except diversity of opinion which it will
    not tolerate.


    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 07:27:32 2020
    On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 12:09:34 AM UTC-6, Bigbird wrote:

    Find a piston and connecting rod and shove it up
    your asshole until it comes out your pie hole.
    Then call it day.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 07:28:37 2020
    On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 5:36:07 AM UTC-6, Sir Tim wrote:

    Find a piston and connecting rod and shove it up
    your asshole until it comes out your pie hole.
    Then call it day.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 07:29:46 2020
    On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 5:45:33 AM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

    Find a piston and connecting rod and shove it up
    your asshole until it comes out your pie hole.
    Then call it day.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 18:26:16 2020
    Please just click on unless you like politics. I generally keep
    politics out of my posts on rasf1, but it's an interest and (given this
    thread is entirely political), what the hell...

    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

    Secondly I am concerned by why I'm described as fascist. Do you
    actually understand what the word means?

    One of the key identifiers of fascism is the cancel culture and
    forcing the silence of people who do not support you views. Indeed
    only this week we've heard calls to begin book burning of a novel
    that hasn't been released yet because the mob has decided they no
    longer like the author.

    That is fascism. That is the PC, woke, left.

    Actually, there are fascists evident on both (extreme) ends of the
    spectrum. You don't have to look very far to find examples of
    suppression of views at both ends e.g. Momentum on the left, similar
    echo chambering by ERG, the likes of Farage and large parts of the right
    wing press.

    I don't ever recall the right, wishing to silence anyone else, not
    once.

    Really? Politically, I can't remember an example of a government more hell-bent on silencing the opposition than Johnson proroguing parliament
    for bogus reasons, shutting down not just the debate in parliament, but ensuring that all select committees couldn't sit. Or doesn't that
    count?

    The fact is, both sides are terrible for trying to create an environment
    in which their position is not only dominant, but the only one in town.

    While I would agree that the style employed by the left is quite
    distinct - lots of political correctness, employment of particular
    language, the use of "no-platforming" (a term and principle I loathe) -
    that is really only a section (albeit significant) at one end.

    In the right wing, there is a different (but equivalent) way of
    silencing opposition, particularly by creating single view forums (take
    Fox News in the US or any one of the many right wing newspapers in the
    UK) or creating exclusive clubs where dissent is brutally dealt with.
    Hell, look at how the conservatives dealt with dissent over Brexit? It
    was not enough to win, all dissenting voices had to be
    extinguished...and that meant not only throwing long-standing Tories out
    of the party for their dissent in September last year, but forcing
    prospective candidates to effective swear allegiance to both the PM and
    his particular causes when it came to the election. (Momentum did the
    same where it could under Corbyn).

    So, can you still say you can't think of a situation where the right
    wing seeks to silence voices?

    (there are more examples on both sides).

    More troubling to me is the playbook that the right across the world
    (you can see it here, in the US, Norway, Spain, Brazil and countless
    other countries) which seems to involve being a perpetual victim. When
    out of power, they are victims of the nasty opposition (as it has been
    for both sides since time immemorial) but when *in* power, they continue
    to insist that they are victims of the opposition or a "fifth column"
    always seeking to undermine them. They also use a lot of hyperbole and
    take everything to an extreme; whether that's screaming headlines or
    claiming "invasions", the use of "no" and "every" when they mean "few"
    or "many" is wearing.

    It's not politics - it's non-stop electioneering.

    And it's incredibly divisive. It encourages the left to keep to the
    left, the right to keep to the right and for *neither* to actually
    debate and come to a sensible conclusion. How do you persuade if you
    never listen to the opposition?

    Madness!

    I don't advocate anything nasty at all, I hate nobody, I wish to see
    fair play to everyone regardless of colour or creed.

    I want to see black treated properly in the states and the police
    sorted out on this. I'd also be pleased to see measure which help
    keep people away from crime.

    I think most would agree with these sentiments. I *do* think that the
    US has a particular problem with law enforcement (and I think it's the
    cowboy gun culture) and how they deal with black people, which can lead
    to a very difficult life for many law-abiding black people.

    But do you not ever watch or research any current events or news
    items, or are you oblivious to what is around you every day?

    I am aware that the media in the UK is extremely biased on just about
    every topic. The news is no longer the news in the UK, it's the
    hourly opinion run of the metro elite left. I find it unwatchable as
    do millions of others.

    We know the entire tv media is:

    Are you sure you mean the *entire* tv media?? Every channel and every programme on every channel?

    Pro EU.

    Absolutely not. There is a mix. Often unbalanced, but there are
    definitely anti-EU voices.

    Pro immigration.

    Do you mean immigration or asylum seeking? And if the former, do you
    mean legal or illegal immigration?

    Legal immigration is widely supported, not least because all recent
    governments have been reliant on it. After 10 years of Conservative
    rule, we still don't have the doctors and nurses (or even plans in the
    system for them) to fully staff our hospitals and surgeries. Without immigration, we'd be sunk. I'd *like* to see more investment here and
    *not* rely on immigration, but we are where we are until we have a
    sensible discussion on immigration..

    Dinghy crosses are desperate asylum seekers escaping terrible things.

    I see a range of discussions on this.

    Very PC and increasingly woke.

    I largely agree, but not least because (the BBC in particular) has been
    left completely at risk of defunding and can't afford any more scandals.
    Not that it's working as both the left and right claim they're biased.

    Anti Trump and then some - psychotic on the subject.

    I tend to agree, but I genuinely struggle to see how anyone can support
    Trump. I can see how *some* can believe in *some* of his policies, but
    his approach, his almost non-existent connection with the truth and his
    general abrasiveness is unstatesmanly to say the least.

    He and his supporters claim this just proves he's different (and
    "draining the swamp"), but that claim hasn't held water pretty much from
    his election onwards.

    Man's CO2 is destroying the world through climate change.

    I'm not even sure what this is about. I actually think that the media
    has gone out of its way to enable a thorough debate on this despite the
    fact that the overwhelming evidence supported by virtually every
    scientist (and all of the most credible ones) are clear on this. The
    question is by how much and what the long-term impacts are.

    Pro liberal/left

    There is a wide range of views on this.

    Anti Israel.

    This one I think is way off the mark. There are many views, and I think
    a generally positive disposition towards Israel the state, but some
    issues (like the settlements) are more divisive.

    etc. etc.

    If you did, you would know and you wouldn't be making such
    ridiculous Trumpoid assertions..

    Says an obviously left wing, woke, observer who claims another
    similar media is worth watching.

    I don't share your views, can't you live with that or are you too

    There will always be a wide range of views.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 21:01:20 2020
    In article <rk2u47$28t$1@dont-email.me>,
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:

    Really? Politically, I can't remember an example of a government
    more hell-bent on silencing the opposition than Johnson proroguing
    parliament for bogus reasons

    That is your view, you're entitled to it.

    , shutting down not just the debate in parliament, but ensuring
    that all select committees couldn't sit. Or doesn't that count?

    So what remain did both before and after the referendum was fine?

    At that time we had a parliament that had gone rogue. The MPs got
    elected on a promise to deliver Brexit. Then as it dragged on through
    law courts and goodness knows what, these duplicitous MPs decided
    they could turn their backs on their promises and stop this going
    through and they went to war against the elected government and the
    people who elected them. Complete lying shits in all honesty.

    Lots of accounts of people wishing people dead and tea shirts being
    printed with faces of all the people who had died arguing for a
    second vote.

    I remember the night of the election last december a very posh girl
    "okay yah" telling the camera how she wanted to be a doctor but
    hopped Boris dies a horrible death.

    Yes, I remember that.

    I also remember what happened when the government lost the case to a
    very none neutral team of remainer judges. I remember spider woman
    couldn't hide her glee as she announced the decision. I also
    remember parliament doing nothing when it got back and people saying
    so what was all that about.

    The fact is, both sides are terrible for trying to create an
    environment in which their position is not only dominant, but the
    only one in town.

    While I would agree that the style employed by the left is quite
    distinct - lots of political correctness, employment of particular
    language, the use of "no-platforming" (a term and principle I
    loathe) - that is really only a section (albeit significant) at one
    end.

    In the right wing, there is a different (but equivalent) way of
    silencing opposition, particularly by creating single view forums
    (take Fox News in the US or any one of the many right wing
    newspapers in the UK) or creating exclusive clubs where dissent is
    brutally dealt with.

    Facebook and twitter do quickly remove people right of centre, plenty
    gone to Parler because twitter is out of hand.

    Hell, look at how the conservatives dealt with
    dissent over Brexit? It was not enough to win, all dissenting
    voices had to be extinguished...and that meant not only throwing long-standing Tories out of the party for their dissent in
    September last year, but forcing prospective candidates to
    effective swear allegiance to both the PM and his particular causes
    when it came to the election.

    Hmm, The tories were elected 3 times to deliver brexit and of course
    the referendum itself. They had a mandate and had to get it through
    or die. Rebels plus labour and the LDs did their damndest to stop
    this. They even repeatedly went to Brussels quite openly on sabotage
    missions. Negotiating against our elected government with a foreign
    power. I'm sure there's a word for that.

    (Momentum did the same where it
    could under Corbyn).

    So, can you still say you can't think of a situation where the
    right wing seeks to silence voices?

    Yes. Even if I accepted your prorogue argument, it is very much a one
    off certainly in this country under exceptional circumstances with
    parliament fighting the government and the electorate.

    Parliament with the aid of a partisan speaker even took over power
    from the elected government and passed laws against the government
    doing what it had been elected to do. Nothing short of evil.

    (there are more examples on both sides).

    More troubling to me is the playbook that the right across the world
    (you can see it here, in the US, Norway, Spain, Brazil and countless
    other countries) which seems to involve being a perpetual victim. When
    out of power, they are victims of the nasty opposition (as it has been
    for both sides since time immemorial) but when *in* power, they continue
    to insist that they are victims of the opposition or a "fifth column"
    always seeking to undermine them. They also use a lot of hyperbole and
    take everything to an extreme; whether that's screaming headlines or
    claiming "invasions", the use of "no" and "every" when they mean "few"
    or "many" is wearing.

    It's not politics - it's non-stop electioneering.

    And it's incredibly divisive. It encourages the left to keep to the
    left, the right to keep to the right and for *neither* to actually
    debate and come to a sensible conclusion. How do you persuade if you
    never listen to the opposition?

    I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but I have
    no knowledge or experience of what you speak.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sat Sep 19 12:16:39 2020
    On 19/09/2020 12:20 am, Bob Latham wrote:


    The BBC loves diversity, except diversity of opinion which it will
    not tolerate.


    Bob.



    So if the BBC knows that 2 + 2 = 4 and somebody else thinks the answer
    is 5, are you suggesting they they report that 2 + 2 = 4 or 5 ?

    Guess what - some things are real, not just open to opinion.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 17:51:24 2020
    On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 6:16:50 PM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

    Find a piston and connecting rod and shove it up
    your asshole until it comes out your pie hole.
    Then call it day.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Fri Sep 18 18:11:31 2020
    On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 6:51:26 PM UTC-6, texas gate wrote:
    On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 6:16:50 PM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

    Find a piston and connecting rod and shove it up
    your asshole until it comes out your pie hole.
    Then call it day.

    I mean then call it a day.
    You stupid cunt
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sat Sep 19 08:18:31 2020
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rk2u47$28t$1@dont-email.me>,
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:

    Really? Politically, I can't remember an example of a government
    more hell-bent on silencing the opposition than Johnson proroguing
    parliament for bogus reasons

    That is your view, you're entitled to it.

    Its's also the view - a legally binding view - of the Supreme Court, and
    the reasons why it was unacceptable were very eloquently set down in a
    very scholarly judgement which included information as to how
    to achieve the same outcome legally.

    That no primary legislation to constitutionally amend thensituation
    shows that it was never the intention to fix tge roadblock as stated,
    but simply an abuse of the prerogative.

    , shutting down not just the debate in parliament, but ensuring
    that all select committees couldn't sit. Or doesn't that count?

    So what remain did both before and after the referendum was fine?

    What are you specifically talking about?

    At that time we had a parliament that had gone rogue. The MPs got

    Parliament had not gone rogue. It was operating precisely as it is set
    up to operate. Election promises are not binding on MPs *or* government
    (as every government in history has shown).

    What could have been binding was the referendum. If it had been written
    as a binding (not advisory) referendum like the Scottish devolution
    referendum bill was, the parliament would have been legally bound to
    enact Brexit. If they then wanted to stop it, they woild have had to
    initiate and implmemt primary legislation to overturn the referendum
    bill. It would then be a brazen breach of trust with the peopel.

    Of course, if it were a binding referendum, tge debate would have been significantly different.

    elected on a promise to deliver Brexit. Then as it dragged on through
    law courts and goodness knows what, these duplicitous MPs decided
    they could turn their backs on their promises and stop this going
    through and they went to war against the elected government and the
    people who elected them. Complete lying shits in all honesty.

    The MP has free hand to do (or not) as they will. Thay is exactly how
    our parliament works despite many attempts to change it. The opposition generally supports change...but has less interest once in government.

    There are only two checks on this powet: the fear pf being bopted out at
    the next election and the (toothless) recall act.

    The former is of limited effect, particularly in a safe seat.

    The latter is a high bar for constituents tp trigger.

    Lots of accounts of people wishing people dead and tea shirts being
    printed with faces of all the people who had died arguing for a
    second vote.

    I remember the night of the election last december a very posh girl
    "okay yah" telling the camera how she wanted to be a doctor but
    hopped Boris dies a horrible death.

    Yes, I remember that.

    Do you remember any of the vitriol on the other side? The "Enemies of
    the People" headlines? The character assasinations?

    I also remember what happened when the government lost the case to a
    very none neutral team of remainer judges. I remember spider woman
    couldn't hide her glee as she announced the decision. I also
    remember parliament doing nothing when it got back and people saying
    so what was all that about.

    Forget personaloties. Did you read the judgement? Did you npte how
    every point was justified scrupulously with precedent (even if the lack ofnprecedent on one point required going back to the Bill of Rights)?
    That this panel even gave clear advice indicating how to resolve the
    situation showed it wasn't a partisan decision as the right wing press
    would have you believe.

    The fact is, both sides are terrible for trying to create an
    environment in which their position is not only dominant, but the
    only one in town.

    While I would agree that the style employed by the left is quite
    distinct - lots of political correctness, employment of particular
    language, the use of "no-platforming" (a term and principle I
    loathe) - that is really only a section (albeit significant) at one
    end.

    In the right wing, there is a different (but equivalent) way of
    silencing opposition, particularly by creating single view forums
    (take Fox News in the US or any one of the many right wing
    newspapers in the UK) or creating exclusive clubs where dissent is
    brutally dealt with.

    Facebook and twitter do quickly remove people right of centre, plenty
    gone to Parler because twitter is out of hand.

    I don't agree with a lot of the nonsense in terms of those platforms,
    but private companies can do as they wish.

    Hell, look at how the conservatives dealt with
    dissent over Brexit? It was not enough to win, all dissenting
    voices had to be extinguished...and that meant not only throwing
    long-standing Tories out of the party for their dissent in
    September last year, but forcing prospective candidates to
    effective swear allegiance to both the PM and his particular causes
    when it came to the election.

    Hmm, The tories were elected 3 times to deliver brexit and of course
    the referendum itself. They had a mandate and had to get it through
    or die. Rebels plus labour and the LDs did their damndest to stop
    this. They even repeatedly went to Brussels quite openly on sabotage missions. Negotiating against our elected government with a foreign
    power. I'm sure there's a word for that.

    First, that isn't (as I noted above) how our electoral system works.
    You hand an MP a mandate for (up to) five years during which they vote acvording to their conscience. They are entitlednto change their stance
    at any point, and we are entitled to vote them out.

    That is our system.

    Secondly, all this mud-slinging about traitors is simply divisive.
    There are always going to be more than one side to any issue, and the
    majority winning doesn't convert 100% to a specific cause.
    Conservatives winning an election doesn't make the whole cointry Tory
    Kor Labour when they win).

    The "losing" side has to be able to oppose, or...are you trying to
    silence the opposition? Hmmmm. I thought only left wingers did that..

    (Momentum did the same where it
    could under Corbyn).

    So, can you still say you can't think of a situation where the
    right wing seeks to silence voices?

    Yes. Even if I accepted your prorogue argument, it is very much a one
    off certainly in this country under exceptional circumstances with
    parliament fighting the government and the electorate.

    Parliament with the aid of a partisan speaker even took over power
    from the elected government and passed laws against the government
    doing what it had been elected to do. Nothing short of evil.

    That is a complete misunderstanding of the constitutional set up of
    parliament.

    (there are more examples on both sides).

    More troubling to me is the playbook that the right across the world
    (you can see it here, in the US, Norway, Spain, Brazil and countless
    other countries) which seems to involve being a perpetual victim. When
    out of power, they are victims of the nasty opposition (as it has been
    for both sides since time immemorial) but when *in* power, they continue
    to insist that they are victims of the opposition or a "fifth column"
    always seeking to undermine them. They also use a lot of hyperbole and
    take everything to an extreme; whether that's screaming headlines or
    claiming "invasions", the use of "no" and "every" when they mean "few"
    or "many" is wearing.

    It's not politics - it's non-stop electioneering.

    And it's incredibly divisive. It encourages the left to keep to the
    left, the right to keep to the right and for *neither* to actually
    debate and come to a sensible conclusion. How do you persuade if you
    never listen to the opposition?

    I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but I have
    no knowledge or experience of what you speak.

    And that is what makes it so effective and divisive.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Sir Tim@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sat Sep 19 08:37:51 2020
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rk2u47$28t$1@dont-email.me>,
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:

    Really? Politically, I can't remember an example of a government
    more hell-bent on silencing the opposition than Johnson proroguing
    parliament for bogus reasons

    That is your view, you're entitled to it.

    , shutting down not just the debate in parliament, but ensuring
    that all select committees couldn't sit. Or doesn't that count?

    So what remain did both before and after the referendum was fine?

    At that time we had a parliament that had gone rogue. The MPs got
    elected on a promise to deliver Brexit. Then as it dragged on through
    law courts and goodness knows what, these duplicitous MPs decided
    they could turn their backs on their promises and stop this going
    through and they went to war against the elected government and the
    people who elected them. Complete lying shits in all honesty.

    Lots of accounts of people wishing people dead and tea shirts being
    printed with faces of all the people who had died arguing for a
    second vote.

    I remember the night of the election last december a very posh girl
    "okay yah" telling the camera how she wanted to be a doctor but
    hopped Boris dies a horrible death.

    Yes, I remember that.

    I also remember what happened when the government lost the case to a
    very none neutral team of remainer judges. I remember spider woman
    couldn't hide her glee as she announced the decision. I also
    remember parliament doing nothing when it got back and people saying
    so what was all that about.

    The fact is, both sides are terrible for trying to create an
    environment in which their position is not only dominant, but the
    only one in town.

    While I would agree that the style employed by the left is quite
    distinct - lots of political correctness, employment of particular
    language, the use of "no-platforming" (a term and principle I
    loathe) - that is really only a section (albeit significant) at one
    end.

    In the right wing, there is a different (but equivalent) way of
    silencing opposition, particularly by creating single view forums
    (take Fox News in the US or any one of the many right wing
    newspapers in the UK) or creating exclusive clubs where dissent is
    brutally dealt with.

    Facebook and twitter do quickly remove people right of centre, plenty
    gone to Parler because twitter is out of hand.

    Hell, look at how the conservatives dealt with
    dissent over Brexit? It was not enough to win, all dissenting
    voices had to be extinguished...and that meant not only throwing
    long-standing Tories out of the party for their dissent in
    September last year, but forcing prospective candidates to
    effective swear allegiance to both the PM and his particular causes
    when it came to the election.

    Hmm, The tories were elected 3 times to deliver brexit and of course
    the referendum itself. They had a mandate and had to get it through
    or die. Rebels plus labour and the LDs did their damndest to stop
    this. They even repeatedly went to Brussels quite openly on sabotage missions. Negotiating against our elected government with a foreign
    power. I'm sure there's a word for that.

    (Momentum did the same where it
    could under Corbyn).

    So, can you still say you can't think of a situation where the
    right wing seeks to silence voices?

    Yes. Even if I accepted your prorogue argument, it is very much a one
    off certainly in this country under exceptional circumstances with
    parliament fighting the government and the electorate.

    Parliament with the aid of a partisan speaker even took over power
    from the elected government and passed laws against the government
    doing what it had been elected to do. Nothing short of evil.

    (there are more examples on both sides).

    More troubling to me is the playbook that the right across the world
    (you can see it here, in the US, Norway, Spain, Brazil and countless
    other countries) which seems to involve being a perpetual victim. When
    out of power, they are victims of the nasty opposition (as it has been
    for both sides since time immemorial) but when *in* power, they continue
    to insist that they are victims of the opposition or a "fifth column"
    always seeking to undermine them. They also use a lot of hyperbole and
    take everything to an extreme; whether that's screaming headlines or
    claiming "invasions", the use of "no" and "every" when they mean "few"
    or "many" is wearing.

    It's not politics - it's non-stop electioneering.

    And it's incredibly divisive. It encourages the left to keep to the
    left, the right to keep to the right and for *neither* to actually
    debate and come to a sensible conclusion. How do you persuade if you
    never listen to the opposition?

    I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but I have
    no knowledge or experience of what you speak.

    It is obvious that, despite MarkrCOs sensible and measured response, you are unwilling even to contemplate the fact that your views are questionable. In
    the face of this sort of bigotry continuation of the thread seems rather pointless.

    Speaking for myself, I have voted Conservative in every election since 1959
    - except the last one. Given the current political climate nothing would
    induce me to do so again.

    --
    Sir Tim
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Sir Tim@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sat Sep 19 08:43:36 2020
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rk2u47$28t$1@dont-email.me>,
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:

    Really? Politically, I can't remember an example of a government
    more hell-bent on silencing the opposition than Johnson proroguing
    parliament for bogus reasons

    That is your view, you're entitled to it.

    Its's also the view - a legally binding view - of the Supreme Court, and
    the reasons why it was unacceptable were very eloquently set down in a
    very scholarly judgement which included information as to how
    to achieve the same outcome legally.

    That no primary legislation to constitutionally amend thensituation
    shows that it was never the intention to fix tge roadblock as stated,
    but simply an abuse of the prerogative.

    , shutting down not just the debate in parliament, but ensuring
    that all select committees couldn't sit. Or doesn't that count?

    So what remain did both before and after the referendum was fine?

    What are you specifically talking about?

    At that time we had a parliament that had gone rogue. The MPs got

    Parliament had not gone rogue. It was operating precisely as it is set
    up to operate. Election promises are not binding on MPs *or* government
    (as every government in history has shown).

    What could have been binding was the referendum. If it had been written
    as a binding (not advisory) referendum like the Scottish devolution referendum bill was, the parliament would have been legally bound to
    enact Brexit. If they then wanted to stop it, they woild have had to initiate and implmemt primary legislation to overturn the referendum
    bill. It would then be a brazen breach of trust with the peopel.

    Of course, if it were a binding referendum, tge debate would have been significantly different.

    elected on a promise to deliver Brexit. Then as it dragged on through
    law courts and goodness knows what, these duplicitous MPs decided
    they could turn their backs on their promises and stop this going
    through and they went to war against the elected government and the
    people who elected them. Complete lying shits in all honesty.

    The MP has free hand to do (or not) as they will. Thay is exactly how
    our parliament works despite many attempts to change it. The opposition generally supports change...but has less interest once in government.

    There are only two checks on this powet: the fear pf being bopted out at
    the next election and the (toothless) recall act.

    The former is of limited effect, particularly in a safe seat.

    The latter is a high bar for constituents tp trigger.

    Lots of accounts of people wishing people dead and tea shirts being
    printed with faces of all the people who had died arguing for a
    second vote.

    I remember the night of the election last december a very posh girl
    "okay yah" telling the camera how she wanted to be a doctor but
    hopped Boris dies a horrible death.

    Yes, I remember that.

    Do you remember any of the vitriol on the other side? The "Enemies of
    the People" headlines? The character assasinations?

    I also remember what happened when the government lost the case to a
    very none neutral team of remainer judges. I remember spider woman
    couldn't hide her glee as she announced the decision. I also
    remember parliament doing nothing when it got back and people saying
    so what was all that about.

    Forget personaloties. Did you read the judgement? Did you npte how
    every point was justified scrupulously with precedent (even if the lack ofnprecedent on one point required going back to the Bill of Rights)?
    That this panel even gave clear advice indicating how to resolve the situation showed it wasn't a partisan decision as the right wing press
    would have you believe.

    The fact is, both sides are terrible for trying to create an
    environment in which their position is not only dominant, but the
    only one in town.

    While I would agree that the style employed by the left is quite
    distinct - lots of political correctness, employment of particular
    language, the use of "no-platforming" (a term and principle I
    loathe) - that is really only a section (albeit significant) at one
    end.

    In the right wing, there is a different (but equivalent) way of
    silencing opposition, particularly by creating single view forums
    (take Fox News in the US or any one of the many right wing
    newspapers in the UK) or creating exclusive clubs where dissent is
    brutally dealt with.

    Facebook and twitter do quickly remove people right of centre, plenty
    gone to Parler because twitter is out of hand.

    I don't agree with a lot of the nonsense in terms of those platforms,
    but private companies can do as they wish.

    Hell, look at how the conservatives dealt with
    dissent over Brexit? It was not enough to win, all dissenting
    voices had to be extinguished...and that meant not only throwing
    long-standing Tories out of the party for their dissent in
    September last year, but forcing prospective candidates to
    effective swear allegiance to both the PM and his particular causes
    when it came to the election.

    Hmm, The tories were elected 3 times to deliver brexit and of course
    the referendum itself. They had a mandate and had to get it through
    or die. Rebels plus labour and the LDs did their damndest to stop
    this. They even repeatedly went to Brussels quite openly on sabotage
    missions. Negotiating against our elected government with a foreign
    power. I'm sure there's a word for that.

    First, that isn't (as I noted above) how our electoral system works.
    You hand an MP a mandate for (up to) five years during which they vote acvording to their conscience. They are entitlednto change their stance
    at any point, and we are entitled to vote them out.

    That is our system.

    Secondly, all this mud-slinging about traitors is simply divisive.
    There are always going to be more than one side to any issue, and the majority winning doesn't convert 100% to a specific cause.
    Conservatives winning an election doesn't make the whole cointry Tory
    Kor Labour when they win).

    The "losing" side has to be able to oppose, or...are you trying to
    silence the opposition? Hmmmm. I thought only left wingers did that..

    (Momentum did the same where it
    could under Corbyn).

    So, can you still say you can't think of a situation where the
    right wing seeks to silence voices?

    Yes. Even if I accepted your prorogue argument, it is very much a one
    off certainly in this country under exceptional circumstances with
    parliament fighting the government and the electorate.

    Parliament with the aid of a partisan speaker even took over power
    from the elected government and passed laws against the government
    doing what it had been elected to do. Nothing short of evil.

    That is a complete misunderstanding of the constitutional set up of parliament.

    (there are more examples on both sides).

    More troubling to me is the playbook that the right across the world
    (you can see it here, in the US, Norway, Spain, Brazil and countless
    other countries) which seems to involve being a perpetual victim. When
    out of power, they are victims of the nasty opposition (as it has been
    for both sides since time immemorial) but when *in* power, they continue >>> to insist that they are victims of the opposition or a "fifth column"
    always seeking to undermine them. They also use a lot of hyperbole and
    take everything to an extreme; whether that's screaming headlines or
    claiming "invasions", the use of "no" and "every" when they mean "few"
    or "many" is wearing.

    It's not politics - it's non-stop electioneering.

    And it's incredibly divisive. It encourages the left to keep to the
    left, the right to keep to the right and for *neither* to actually
    debate and come to a sensible conclusion. How do you persuade if you
    never listen to the opposition?

    I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but I have
    no knowledge or experience of what you speak.

    And that is what makes it so effective and divisive.


    Thanks Mark. Good to have the opinion of somebody who actually knows their facts.

    --
    Sir Tim
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sat Sep 19 13:01:02 2020
    In article <hsluloFmrcvU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:


    Thanks Mark. Good to have the opinion of somebody who actually knows their facts.

    That is exactly the problem we have in this country today. Only one
    opinion is now correct. So all of the political arguments of all the
    decades gone by and all along there was only one view that was true.

    Fascism and totalitarianism and arrogance and we have the left.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sat Sep 19 13:10:33 2020
    In article <hsluavFmp9qU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:


    It is obvious that, despite Markas sensible and measured response,
    you are unwilling even to contemplate the fact that your views are questionable. In the face of this sort of bigotry continuation of
    the thread seems rather pointless.

    Firstly, I wrote that before Mark's post which quotes mine so that is
    utter nonsense.

    The only people I have ever met who hold views like that are ALL
    anti-brexit remainers and that's what this is really about. Most
    brexit people will never forgive the despicable, disgusting behaviour
    from remain that went on for years and is even still going on.

    MPs turned out to be two faced lying shits, you countenance that.

    Speaking for myself, I have voted Conservative in every election
    since 1959 - except the last one. Given the current political
    climate nothing would induce me to do so again.

    I agree, they're not making good decisions anywhere.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From ~misfit~@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 13:14:22 2020
    On 19/09/2020 8:43 pm, Sir Tim wrote:
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rk2u47$28t$1@dont-email.me>,
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
    <snipped>
    More troubling to me is the playbook that the right across the world
    (you can see it here, in the US, Norway, Spain, Brazil and countless
    other countries) which seems to involve being a perpetual victim. When >>>> out of power, they are victims of the nasty opposition (as it has been >>>> for both sides since time immemorial) but when *in* power, they continue >>>> to insist that they are victims of the opposition or a "fifth column"
    always seeking to undermine them. They also use a lot of hyperbole and >>>> take everything to an extreme; whether that's screaming headlines or
    claiming "invasions", the use of "no" and "every" when they mean "few" >>>> or "many" is wearing.

    It's not politics - it's non-stop electioneering.

    And it's incredibly divisive. It encourages the left to keep to the
    left, the right to keep to the right and for *neither* to actually
    debate and come to a sensible conclusion. How do you persuade if you
    never listen to the opposition?

    I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but I have
    no knowledge or experience of what you speak.

    And that is what makes it so effective and divisive.

    Thanks Mark. Good to have the opinion of somebody who actually knows their facts.

    Indeed. Well-reasoned non-partisan educated expositions are a very rare thing on the internet these
    days. Thanks Mark, everything that you said makes perfect sense.
    --
    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From ~misfit~@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 13:21:55 2020
    On 19/09/2020 8:37 pm, Sir Tim wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    <snipped>
    I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but I have
    no knowledge or experience of what you speak.

    It is obvious that, despite MarkrCOs sensible and measured response, you are unwilling even to contemplate the fact that your views are questionable. In the face of this sort of bigotry continuation of the thread seems rather pointless.

    That's why I have killfiled him (after trying to be reasonable and engage in discourse). It seems
    that all he wants to do is expound his PoV and (sometimes politely, sometimes not so much) dismiss
    anything that doesn't agree with his beliefs.

    That's not a discussion that's a closed-minded pitch. This is a discussion group.
    --
    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From keithr0@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 18:21:53 2020
    On 9/19/2020 10:10 PM, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsluavFmp9qU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:


    It is obvious that, despite MarkrCys sensible and measured response,
    you are unwilling even to contemplate the fact that your views are
    questionable. In the face of this sort of bigotry continuation of
    the thread seems rather pointless.

    Firstly, I wrote that before Mark's post which quotes mine so that is
    utter nonsense.

    The only people I have ever met who hold views like that are ALL
    anti-brexit remainers and that's what this is really about. Most
    brexit people will never forgive the despicable, disgusting behaviour
    from remain that went on for years and is even still going on.

    MPs turned out to be two faced lying shits, you countenance that.

    Not forgetting that the main brexiteers admitted after the referendum
    that they had been lying through their teeth. Disgusting really.

    Speaking for myself, I have voted Conservative in every election
    since 1959 - except the last one. Given the current political
    climate nothing would induce me to do so again.

    I agree, they're not making good decisions anywhere.

    Bob.

    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 10:33:54 2020
    In article <rk6ade$frd$1@dont-email.me>,
    ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:

    Indeed. Well-reasoned non-partisan educated expositions are a very
    rare thing on the internet these days. Thanks Mark, everything
    that you said makes perfect sense.

    I didn't see any mention of the fact that the entire panel of judges
    were ramainers, did I miss that?

    Nor did I see much mention of a government surrounded by people
    trying every single dirty trick in the book without limit to stop it
    doing what it had been elected to do.

    Those tricks included, making legislation over the top of the
    government thanks to the antics of a very partisan speaker.

    I also notice that Dominic Cummings is still well hated here, I
    suppose that shouldn't surprise me. I would remind you though that he
    was naive, he did break the rules. The story I believe is, he took
    his wife and child out for the day and sat by the river for while. He
    then went home and stupidly told the press he was testing his eyes,
    yes very silly. However, he did not have contact with anyone outside
    of his household. Chances he spread CV19 = 0.

    Not many days later, largely the left, antifa, BLM had massive
    marches, vandalised and tore down statues and generally kicked off.
    "A mostly peaceful demonstration" with 27 (If I recall) police got
    injured and objects like bicycles being thrown at police. CV19
    spread risk = considerable. Arrests = ????.
    Did the media kick off about the CV19 risk, did they hell, it was
    fine.

    A few after that, while all the public toilets in London were closed,
    a lad takes a pee to the side of a monument, no damage. He was
    arrested and sent to prison.

    It is very clear how fair the law isn't.

    I don't have much faith in things claimed to be non-partisan, nothing
    ever is.


    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 10:43:05 2020
    In article <hsohp3F8t5dU1@mid.individual.net>,
    keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:

    Not forgetting that the main brexiteers admitted after the
    referendum that they had been lying through their teeth.
    Disgusting really.

    Have you got a straight face?

    Is this the bus again?

    I don't recall the above assertion could you please give a who and a
    specific about what? So I can check up.

    You obviously agreed with the endless forcasts from the media and the
    then government as to the disasters that would enfold should we even
    vote to leave - not actually leave but just vote to leave. If you've
    forgotten the absurd things that were claimed I know there is a video
    I'll see if I can find it, if I find the time.

    I remember one morning the media telling us there would be water
    shortages.

    If you're trying to say that Leave lied and Remain didn't, there's
    really no point in talking to you as you're deluded.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 10:45:46 2020
    In article <rk6arl$qde$1@dont-email.me>,
    ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 19/09/2020 8:37 pm, Sir Tim wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    <snipped>

    I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but I
    have no knowledge or experience of what you speak.

    It is obvious that, despite Markas sensible and measured
    response, you are unwilling even to contemplate the fact that
    your views are questionable. In the face of this sort of bigotry continuation of the thread seems rather pointless.

    That's why I have killfiled him (after trying to be reasonable and
    engage in discourse). It seems that all he wants to do is expound
    his PoV and (sometimes politely, sometimes not so much) dismiss
    anything that doesn't agree with his beliefs.

    That's not a discussion that's a closed-minded pitch. This is a
    discussion group.

    If that's how you feel I don't blame you.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Edmund@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 12:26:51 2020
    Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On 9/9/20 1:10 PM, Mark wrote:

    I keep out of these discussions as a
    rule. I won't stay silent on this,
    though.

    Ah you are a man who lives by his
    principles I see

    I do. Rules are not principles, and self-
    imposed rules can always be
    sidelined. As I have done on this occasion.

    Yes they can, although it's a bit of weaseling out, I donrCOt care itrCOs
    just a bit funny.

    I suspect that based on your response, I am
    wasting my time in writing
    this, but I'll give it one more go.

    I think you are right because you have made your mind up before your
    first reply.

    It is not possible to raise a racial
    epithet - particularly one that is
    particularly charged - in response to an
    open debate and then saying
    there is no racial meaning...which is
    what you've done.

    That is your opinion sir and I do not
    agree.

    On which bit do you not agree?

    On the whole bit you claimrCa


    BTW it was Louise...

    Incidentally, the "Louise" thing is just
    juvenile. Seriously, cut it out.


    Well this Louise thing isnrCOt quite the point here but if it makes you
    feel better I will call him Ham, that Louise is something I found both
    funny and appropriate for that drama queen.

    ...who introduced the rCL racialrCY thing, not
    me, that is exactly the reason I replied
    the way I did.

    How did he?

    He claimed to be disadvantaged because he is black, that is how.

    I seem to remember a number of occasions
    (and I'm sure there are more) from his very
    start in F1 when race was raised against
    him not vice versa.

    Besides your memory and imagination, can you show anything about that?

    About an rCLopen debaterCY, there is nothing
    open about to try shutting up
    people by labeling them as racists and
    consider the matter closed.

    Who is trying to close down an open debate?

    You and everyone else who tries to disqualify people as racists.

    I have suggested that you clarify your use
    of what I (strongly) believe to be
    racially-motivated language and consider
    apologising for it.

    At no point did I try to close down the
    debate.

    I will give you the benefit of doubt here.

    I *do* now consider that (given this
    response) you are confirming that you are
    racist.

    You already did that BEFORE you replied but feel free, no matter how
    absurd and wrong you are.

    That doesn't stop the debate. On the
    contrary, if I were you I'd think about
    that and continue the debate in order to
    clarify your position. Or, as I said in my
    last post, people will be entitled to draw
    their own conclusions. I know that I have.

    I know you have, that is what I said in the first part of this posting.

    Similarly, if people cannot call out such
    a situation without being accused of
    labelling "everything" as racist, then
    nothing is racist. That's simply
    untenable.

    Again that is your opinion,

    Yes. That's why I wrote it.

    we probably have VERY different opinions
    about what is racism and what is not but
    you will have a very hard time to find
    anything at all in my entire life where I
    treated someone different because of the
    color of a skin.

    Would you use the same words to (say) Kimi
    Raikkonen as the ones that have triggered
    this debate?

    If not, you have treated Lewis Hamilton
    differently because of the colour of his
    skin, have you not?

    If I do not call Kimi a negro I must be a racist is that what you are
    saying?


    The things Louise said are so utterly
    absurd I have no words for it.

    And yet you have put a *lot* of words out,
    but they are ad hominem (and, I would say
    racist) attacks rather than addressing what
    you view to be the absurdity of his
    argument.

    What do you object to in his words?

    Bloody hell, why donrCOt you read my post before start arguing, I made it perfectly clear.


    If you explain that, there can be a
    reasonable debate which might come
    to a reasonable outcome.

    Calling him (offensive) names creates great
    heat and no light.

    That is ALL you see ? Try reading again.

    He is so incredibly privileged his entire
    life but doesnrCOt have the faintest idea
    about it nor what is going on in the real
    world outside his multi million dollar
    bubble.

    He certainly hasn't been privileged his
    *entire* life, but certainly he has become
    very privileged.

    Really, serious? How many race karts did YOU own before you reached the
    age of 10?

    Much as I'm not a fan of people famous for
    one area using their platform unduly, he
    has a right to express his political
    opinion on this and other things. If he
    gets it wrong, address his opinion not his
    skin colour or his perceived race.

    I DID, but you are obviously unable to read it.

    He is calling people ignorant for saying
    very obvious things, claiming and whining
    how disadvantaged he is because of his
    skin color as if he is rescued from a
    cotton field,

    Again, the attachment to slave-related
    tropes.

    And again you donrCOt seem to understand WHY I reply this way to an extreme privileged person who falsely complains how disadvantaged he is because
    he is black.

    herCOs calling NORMAL people out for
    eating meat, how delusional can a person
    be?

    Lots of people campaign against meat
    eating, either entirely or in terms
    of volume.

    Yup unfortunately you donrCOt read before you start arguing.
    Keep reading what I wrote, it helps.
    ( well not you, you first made up you mind, but in general. )

    I don't see you campaigning against PETA.

    I also don't see the connection between
    this and blatant attacks against him
    personally.

    He alone has a carbon footprint of whole
    continent and is telling us to stop eating
    meat to save the world!? Still I may not
    respond to this kind of stupidity because
    that will make me a racist? Yeah right!

    No.

    It's really easy to quote his views and
    explain why you think they're batshit
    crazy. Pick them apart line by line,
    provide context and explain why you believe
    he's wrong.

    I did, try reading.

    None of it requires calling him what you
    called him.

    I know

    It is *that* which will make you a racist,
    not disagreeing with him.

    See the difference?

    Calling a negro a negro makes one a racist? How about calling a negro black? There is nothing wrong with the word negro, some people like to make
    something out of it
    that it isnrCOt.

    People riding the high horse and telling
    they donrCOt respond to bigots racists or
    whatever are actually saying they have
    absolutely NOTHING to say or debunk and
    therefore avoid speaking about the actual
    content by disqualifying others.

    Well, I'm not one of them. I have been very
    clear on the matter, and I *am* explaining
    my position.
    Yes you did, you are rCo as I said rCo over sensitive to a word that causes
    a red mist
    to you.

    I'm struggling to see what your argument is
    because you have just insulted the person
    (ad hominem) rather than going to the point
    (ad rem).
    Try reading.
    It's possible to accidentally use the
    wrong language, but the right response is
    to back down and apologise. It's possible
    to (accidentally) use racist language
    without being a racist...but to insist on
    using it pretty much defines being a
    racist.

    ItrCOs equally possible you are a little
    oversensitive to the word negro, if so,
    there is no shame in admitting that you
    are.

    If I am speaking Spanish (which I do), I
    have no problem with the word as it simply
    means "black" and has no racial overtones
    that I am aware of, at least in the way in
    which I employ it. (Of course, I am not a
    native Spanish speaker, so if I am wrong I
    am happy to be corrected at which stage I
    would apologise).

    If I am speaking English, I will not use
    the word. It has significant racial
    overtones, and it's inappropriate.
    I didnrCOt change the meaning of that word.
    What people like to make out of it, is entirely up to each individual.
    It means nothing more then someone from an African origin.

    I have a simple "rule of thumb": I do not
    use a word to describe someone that I have
    good reason to believe they will find
    offensive *unless* I am trying to offend
    them...and even then, I would choose my
    word carefully and proportionately, and
    have to live with the consequences of
    insulting the person to that level.

    There are few situations where you can go
    wrong with that principle in my experience,
    and conversely going against that principle
    will get you into trouble.

    I have good reason to believe that black
    people will find that word offensive, so I
    will not use it. I don't think that makes
    me oversensitive.

    I think that makes me: _respectful_.
    Good for you and by all means keep doing so, however donrCOt force others
    to follow your own believes or insult them for not doing so.
    That is NOT respectful at all.
    If people choose to be offended for all kind of things, that is entirely
    up to them.

    Personally, I would suggest retracting
    your comments and apologising, or I think
    people are entitled to draw the obvious
    inference.

    It's entirely up to you, however.

    At least yourCOve got that part right!

    I think I have a lot more than that right.

    I donrCOt

    Edmund


    --
    rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
    the more it will hate those who speak itrCY

    George Orwell
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 22:58:05 2020
    On 20/09/2020 9:33 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rk6ade$frd$1@dont-email.me>,
    ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:

    Indeed. Well-reasoned non-partisan educated expositions are a very
    rare thing on the internet these days. Thanks Mark, everything
    that you said makes perfect sense.

    I didn't see any mention of the fact that the entire panel of judges
    were ramainers, did I miss that?

    Nor did I see much mention of a government surrounded by people
    trying every single dirty trick in the book without limit to stop it
    doing what it had been elected to do.

    Those tricks included, making legislation over the top of the
    government thanks to the antics of a very partisan speaker.

    I also notice that Dominic Cummings is still well hated here, I
    suppose that shouldn't surprise me. I would remind you though that he
    was naive, he did break the rules. The story I believe is, he took
    his wife and child out for the day and sat by the river for while. He
    then went home and stupidly told the press he was testing his eyes,
    yes very silly. However, he did not have contact with anyone outside
    of his household. Chances he spread CV19 = 0.

    Not many days later, largely the left, antifa, BLM had massive
    marches, vandalised and tore down statues and generally kicked off.
    "A mostly peaceful demonstration" with 27 (If I recall) police got
    injured and objects like bicycles being thrown at police. CV19
    spread risk = considerable. Arrests = ????.
    Did the media kick off about the CV19 risk, did they hell, it was
    fine.

    'The Left' presumably being anybody not Right as you.

    And what news was it that you were watching - Fox shock highlights or something ? Because most of the protests and marches did not have such occurences.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From ~misfit~@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 23:54:31 2020
    On 20/09/2020 10:58 pm, geoff wrote:
    On 20/09/2020 9:33 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <rk6ade$frd$1@dont-email.me>,
    -a-a-a ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:

    Indeed. Well-reasoned non-partisan educated expositions are a very
    rare thing on the internet these days. Thanks Mark, everything
    that you said makes perfect sense.

    I didn't see any mention of the fact that the entire panel of judges
    were ramainers, did I miss that?

    Nor did I see much mention of a government surrounded by people
    trying every single dirty trick in the book without limit to stop it
    doing what it had been elected to do.

    Those tricks included, making legislation over the top of the
    government thanks to the antics of a very partisan speaker.

    I also notice that Dominic Cummings is still well hated here, I
    suppose that shouldn't surprise me. I would remind you though that he
    was naive, he did break the rules. The story I believe is, he took
    his wife and child out for the day and sat by the river for while. He
    then went home and stupidly told the press he was testing his eyes,
    yes very silly. However, he did not have contact with anyone outside
    of his household. Chances he spread CV19 = 0.

    Not many days later, largely the left, antifa, BLM had massive
    marches, vandalised and tore down statues and generally kicked off.
    "A mostly peaceful demonstration" with 27 (If I recall) police got
    injured and objects like bicycles being thrown at police.-a CV19
    spread risk = considerable. Arrests = ????.
    Did the media kick off about the CV19 risk, did they hell, it was
    fine.

    'The Left' presumably being anybody not Right as you.

    And what news was it that you were watching - Fox shock highlights or something ? Because most of
    the protests and marches did not have such occurences.

    I'm just trying to comprehend why Latham would go into that whole rant quoting my previous post.
    And he's injecting things like 'antifa', "(if I recall)" and "I believe" (as if we didn't already
    know) again when nobody else is interested in his paranoid right wing fantasies.

    Please stop replying to him now. Please.
    --
    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.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 12:02:23 2020
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rk6ade$frd$1@dont-email.me>,
    ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:

    Indeed. Well-reasoned non-partisan educated expositions are a very
    rare thing on the internet these days. Thanks Mark, everything
    that you said makes perfect sense.

    I didn't see any mention of the fact that the entire panel of judges
    were ramainers, did I miss that?

    While that was *asserted*, there are a few issues with raising that...

    Firstly, by convention judges are required to remain silent on issues
    not relating to their judgements. They are supposed to be kept separate
    from politics (separation of judiciary and legislature), and it falls to
    people like the Justice Secretary and Attorney General to speak up on
    their behalf when necessary. They kept a respectful silence while the
    popular press made unfounded allegations...and the government (much to
    the annoyance of the judiciary) took days to raise the obvious
    objections that they should have immediately raised. This has allowed
    these allegations to be treated as fact in some circles, but that
    doesn't make it so.

    Secondly - and far more importantly - judgements are not based on
    plucking theories out of the air. They are based on very careful and
    scholarly argument, using existing law and precedent to build a reasoned argument as to why one particular view should prevail. These tend to
    get more robust as you go up the court hierarchy, and they equally get
    more scrutiny by other judges as well as barristers and lawyers across
    the board. Judges - particularly senior judges - cannot afford to be
    seen as having made mistakes in law (missing/ignoring evidence/precedent
    or flaws in reasoning) as it will quickly be identified and challenged.
    You will notice that the coverage focused on character assassination of
    the judges rather than the substance of the judgement.

    Two things to note:

    The judgement - however uncomfortable for the government - was sound.
    As the judgement noted, primary legislation could be presented which
    would mean that a future repeat of the same circumstances would survive challenge. That would require, of course, the government to persuade parliament that this extra power should be allowed, but with such a
    large majority that should be straightforward.

    You will notice that the government has *not* attempted to change the
    law.

    So, I don't know why people keep raising the judgement and the (alleged) partiality of the Supreme Court. Even if the allegations were true,
    there is nothing in the judgement to suggest that partiality affected
    the ruling.

    Nor did I see much mention of a government surrounded by people
    trying every single dirty trick in the book without limit to stop it
    doing what it had been elected to do.

    I have seen both sides using every legal (and in the case of the
    government, not so legal) instrument to promote their cause.

    Parliament is *not* elected to do any given thing. Ever.

    Prime Ministers are not elected (nor any member of the cabinet) - they
    are just those who command the confidence of the house.

    Governments are not elected either. They are formed by the Prime
    Minister, and don't even have to be elected (not least those in the
    Lords).

    Our system is one where we elect a representative (it's a
    *Representative* Democracy, not a democracy) to represent us for a time
    in parliament. We would like to think that they will always represent
    our views, but they are not required to. Indeed, it's recognised that
    they don't have to by the fact that built into parliament (and
    officially recognised and funded) are "whips" offices for both Her
    Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition. These are
    *explicitly* there to "whip" individual MPs to support (or reject) bills
    even when they would otherwise do the opposite (or abstain).

    You wouldn't know any of this from the coverage in the press. They talk
    as though the MPs have breached some sort of contract, and they
    absolutely haven't (on either side).

    Those tricks included, making legislation over the top of the
    government thanks to the antics of a very partisan speaker.

    The role of Speaker is a very difficult one. On this, I have mixed
    feelings. I do think he took an extreme position on the role compared
    to predecessors, but his argument (that the Speaker has a role to ensure
    both sides of a case are heard in face of a government attempting to
    shut down opposition) was reasoned. Overall, I am not surprised he's
    now suffering from a tattered reputation.

    He wasn't right...but he also was within his constitutional powers, as evidenced by the fact that the government couldn't stop him.

    I also notice that Dominic Cummings is still well hated here, I
    suppose that shouldn't surprise me. I would remind you though that he
    was naive, he did break the rules. The story I believe is, he took

    For me, he broke the rules potentially multiple times:

    1. He went back to Downing Street after going home where there was known
    Covid infection, and that was against the rules. If there is an
    infection at home, you don't go into work (and we know a number of
    people fell ill with Covid in the fortnight after that, but can't know
    how many if any were due to him).

    2. He travelled a very long way to stay with his parents. I can appreciate that you want to have your family's support with children if you fall
    ill, but I can't accept that someone like him couldn't arrange a more
    suitable support that didn't involve taking children and sick people
    hundreds of miles.

    3. The whole day trip to Barnard Castle is just plain bonkers.

    his wife and child out for the day and sat by the river for while. He
    then went home and stupidly told the press he was testing his eyes,
    yes very silly. However, he did not have contact with anyone outside
    of his household. Chances he spread CV19 = 0.

    Well, not on the first count, and we'll have to take his word for counts
    2 (of course you travelled from London to Durham without stopping at
    service stations...despite small children!) and 3...but given the cock
    and bull story about eye testing, why would anyone take his word for
    anything?

    Not many days later, largely the left, antifa, BLM had massive
    marches, vandalised and tore down statues and generally kicked off.
    "A mostly peaceful demonstration" with 27 (If I recall) police got
    injured and objects like bicycles being thrown at police. CV19
    spread risk = considerable. Arrests = ????.
    Did the media kick off about the CV19 risk, did they hell, it was
    fine.

    Actually, the media *did* kick off about that. I think all of these
    rallies are ridiculous at this time, even peaceful ones.

    A few after that, while all the public toilets in London were closed,
    a lad takes a pee to the side of a monument, no damage. He was
    arrested and sent to prison.

    It is very clear how fair the law isn't.

    The law is never 100% fair - there are humans involved.

    I don't have much faith in things claimed to be non-partisan, nothing
    ever is.

    No. And that's the point. The best way to deal with it is to try to understand the multiple views and make your own mind up.

    Right now, I can pick up (say) the Guardian and the Daily Express and
    take a red marker to highlight bias - especially assertion presented as
    fact) and end up with very red newspapers.

    The problem I have is that if you *only* read the Guardian, or you
    *only* read the Express...or you only sit in one particular Facebook
    bubble, you only ever see one set of views...

    This leads to two big issues of the day:

    - Confirmation bias: when you are confronted with ideas that chime with
    your "tribe", you accept it too easily as it's "obviously true"...even
    when it's false.

    - Belief perseverence: related to the above, but what happens when you
    are then faced with views counter to yours, and find yourself
    rejecting them automatically.

    None of us can be informed if we are open to only one side of the
    argument.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 12:42:34 2020
    Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

    I do. Rules are not principles, and self-
    imposed rules can always be
    sidelined. As I have done on this occasion.

    Yes they can, although it's a bit of weaseling out, I donrCOt care itrCOs just a bit funny.

    Happy to entertain. ;-)

    I suspect that based on your response, I am wasting my time in
    writing this, but I'll give it one more go.

    I think you are right because you have made your mind up before your
    first reply.

    Absolutely not. I specifically responded because I wanted an
    opportunity to make up my mind. I expected to understand both what you
    meant by the use of the term, and also what motivated it. At *that*
    point, I could take a view. I even pointed this out when I mentioned
    that without more, people would be entitled to assume...but the fact
    that it's an assumption was an invitation to you to rebut or refute that position by giving additional context.

    So far, however, I don't think you have.

    It is not possible to raise a racial epithet - particularly one
    that is particularly charged - in response to an open debate and
    then saying there is no racial meaning...which is what you've
    done.

    That is your opinion sir and I do not
    agree.

    On which bit do you not agree?

    On the whole bit you claimrCa

    To rebut my claim, you have to provide a counter argument. Rejecting it neither rebuts nor refutes it.

    If you want to do that, you have to explain *how* you can use a racial
    epithet without it being racially motivated. I really can't see how you
    can do that as I think it's a logical impossibility, but I am open to
    seeing an argument made.

    BTW it was Louise...

    Incidentally, the "Louise" thing is just
    juvenile. Seriously, cut it out.

    Well this Louise thing isnrCOt quite the point here but if it makes you
    feel better I will call him Ham, that Louise is something I found both
    funny and appropriate for that drama queen.

    Name calling adds nothing other than making you seem childish.

    ...who introduced the rCL racialrCY thing, not me, that is exactly the
    reason I replied the way I did.

    How did he?

    He claimed to be disadvantaged because he is black, that is how.

    I don't think he did. I think he has been clear that much of his
    campaign is about others who are *not* as privileged as he is, which is
    most black people given his wealth and position.

    I seem to remember a number of occasions (and I'm sure there are
    more) from his very start in F1 when race was raised against him not
    vice versa.

    Besides your memory and imagination, can you show anything about that?

    Testing 2008:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7225523.stm

    Spanish GP 2008:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/spanish-grand-prix-lewis-hamilton-393292

    Spanish GP 2009:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1180451/Lewis-Hamilton-taunted-racist-fans-SECOND-time-Spanish-Grand-Prix.html

    There are many reports. Not my imagination. I'm sure there are more.

    About an rCLopen debaterCY, there is nothing open about to try shutting
    up people by labeling them as racists and consider the matter
    closed.

    Who is trying to close down an open debate?

    You and everyone else who tries to disqualify people as racists.

    I'm not trying to close it down. How can I close it down by engaging
    and encouraging responses? That's the precise opposite.

    I am also not trying to disqualify anyone as racist. I am trying to get
    any racist language out of the discussion as there is no purpose to
    raising racist language other than to promote that view, which has no
    place here.

    I was trying to remove the racist language, not remove the debate. I
    won't apologise for that.

    Have a think about what kind of person *would* object to racist language
    being removed.

    I have suggested that you clarify your use of what I (strongly)
    believe to be racially-motivated language and consider apologising
    for it.

    At no point did I try to close down the debate.

    I will give you the benefit of doubt here.

    There is no doubt to give the benefit of. My meaning was very clear
    and, unless you can point to me trying to close down the debate (Hint:
    you can't because I didn't), that is certain.

    I *do* now consider that (given this response) you are confirming
    that you are racist.

    You already did that BEFORE you replied but feel free, no matter how
    absurd and wrong you are.

    All you have to do is explain why what you said was not racially
    motivated.

    That doesn't stop the debate. On the contrary, if I were you I'd
    think about that and continue the debate in order to clarify your
    position. Or, as I said in my last post, people will be entitled to
    draw their own conclusions. I know that I have.

    I know you have, that is what I said in the first part of this posting.

    Only after ample opportunity for you to explain. You can still engage
    with the actual question and demonstrate that it's not the case.

    Similarly, if people cannot call out such a situation without
    being accused of labelling "everything" as racist, then nothing is
    racist. That's simply untenable.

    Again that is your opinion,

    Yes. That's why I wrote it.

    we probably have VERY different opinions about what is racism and
    what is not but you will have a very hard time to find anything at
    all in my entire life where I treated someone different because of
    the color of a skin.

    Would you use the same words to (say) Kimi Raikkonen as the ones
    that have triggered this debate?

    If not, you have treated Lewis Hamilton differently because of the
    colour of his skin, have you not?

    If I do not call Kimi a negro I must be a racist is that what you are saying?

    I am saying that the only reason you can use those words is to pick out
    Lewis as a black person...which adds nothing to the debate...so it's
    difficult to demonstrate that its use is motivated by anything but
    racism. If his political views are (to use your word) "absurd", address
    the absurdity with a cogent argument. If you focus on race - and using racially charged language - it looks as though you have no response to
    the political argument he has, and simply want to racially abuse him
    instead.

    And your continued use of that word - despite the context given - shows
    you have absolutely no intention of being respectful.

    The things Louise said are so utterly absurd I have no words for
    it.

    And yet you have put a *lot* of words out, but they are ad hominem
    (and, I would say racist) attacks rather than addressing what you
    view to be the absurdity of his argument.

    What do you object to in his words?

    Bloody hell, why donrCOt you read my post before start arguing, I made it perfectly clear.

    No you didn't. Or I wouldn't be asking. Here's an idea: why don't you
    restate your position on Lewis Hamilton's views, but do it without
    mentioning his skin colour.

    If you explain that, there can be a reasonable debate which might
    come to a reasonable outcome.

    Calling him (offensive) names creates great heat and no light.

    That is ALL you see ? Try reading again.

    I didn't say that's all that I see. You just put that word into my
    mouth. I *do* see you calling him offensive names, though.

    He is so incredibly privileged his entire life but doesnrCOt have the
    faintest idea about it nor what is going on in the real
    world outside his multi million dollar bubble.

    He certainly hasn't been privileged his *entire* life, but certainly
    he has become very privileged.

    Really, serious? How many race karts did YOU own before you reached
    the age of 10?

    I didn't kart, so what does that prove? My understanding is that his
    Dad put in a lot of time and effort to pay for his karting, including re-mortgaging his house. I don't think he was the most underprivileged
    kid, but certainly not rich and privileged.

    Much as I'm not a fan of people famous for one area using their
    platform unduly, he has a right to express his political opinion on
    this and other things. If he gets it wrong, address his opinion not
    his skin colour or his perceived race.

    I DID, but you are obviously unable to read it.

    You vaguely addressed his position (without much detail), but you also
    threw in racial epithets. That completely undermines your position.

    He is calling people ignorant for saying very obvious things,
    claiming and whining how disadvantaged he is because of his skin
    color as if he is rescued from a cotton field,

    Again, the attachment to slave-related tropes.

    And again you donrCOt seem to understand WHY I reply this way to an
    extreme privileged person who falsely complains how disadvantaged he
    is because he is black.

    No, I don't. There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour.

    herCOs calling NORMAL people out for eating meat, how delusional can
    a person be?

    Lots of people campaign against meat
    eating, either entirely or in terms
    of volume.

    Yup unfortunately you donrCOt read before you start arguing. Keep
    reading what I wrote, it helps. ( well not you, you first made up you
    mind, but in general. )

    I have read it all.

    I don't see you campaigning against PETA.

    I also don't see the connection between this and blatant attacks
    against him personally.

    He alone has a carbon footprint of whole continent and is telling
    us to stop eating meat to save the world!? Still I may not respond
    to this kind of stupidity because that will make me a racist? Yeah
    right!

    No.

    It's really easy to quote his views and explain why you think
    they're batshit crazy. Pick them apart line by line, provide context
    and explain why you believe he's wrong.

    I did, try reading.

    I have.

    None of it requires calling him what you called him.

    I know

    So why do it?

    It is *that* which will make you a racist, not disagreeing with him.

    See the difference?

    Calling a negro a negro makes one a racist? How about calling a negro
    black? There is nothing wrong with the word negro, some people like
    to make something out of it that it isnrCOt.

    Let me spell it out again (I already have):

    Firstly, it is generally accepted that it's offensive in English to name
    people by a characteristic, even though it has happened in the past.
    For example, to call someone "a disabled" or "a deaf" is not acceptable, whereas "a deaf person" or "a person with disabilities" is acceptable as
    it clearly dignifies them as being a person first who happens to have a characteristic. Calling someone "a black" or "a n****" is offensive for
    the same reason.

    Secondly - and you know this - various "n" words have been used
    traditionally as abuse, and are generally considered as unacceptable in English. Using them can only cause offence*.

    * There is some fringe use of the terms by black people which is
    considered by some to be acceptable, but I know that many (of all
    colours) are uncomfortable with a word only being offensive when used
    by specific people.

    So, I rebut the fact that there is nothing wrong with that word. Used
    in a different context (e.g. as a colour in Spanish) is absolutely
    acceptable, freed as it is of the racist overtones it carries in
    English.

    Using it in English can (I would strongly argue) only be through
    ignorance or an intentional aim to offend.

    People riding the high horse and telling they donrCOt respond to
    bigots racists or whatever are actually saying they have absolutely
    NOTHING to say or debunk and therefore avoid speaking about the
    actual content by disqualifying others.

    Well, I'm not one of them. I have been very clear on the matter, and
    I *am* explaining my position.

    Yes you did, you are rCo as I said rCo over sensitive to a word that
    causes a red mist to you.

    It doesn't cause a red mist. I am very calm about it. As I explain
    below, it is an offensive term which should be generally avoided in
    English.

    I'm struggling to see what your argument is because you have just
    insulted the person (ad hominem) rather than going to the point (ad
    rem).

    Try reading.

    I have. This is tedious.

    It's possible to accidentally use the wrong language, but the
    right response is to back down and apologise. It's possible to
    (accidentally) use racist language without being a racist...but to
    insist on using it pretty much defines being a racist.

    ItrCOs equally possible you are a little oversensitive to the word
    negro, if so, there is no shame in admitting that you are.

    If I am speaking Spanish (which I do), I have no problem with the
    word as it simply means "black" and has no racial overtones that I
    am aware of, at least in the way in which I employ it. (Of course, I
    am not a native Spanish speaker, so if I am wrong I am happy to be corrected at which stage I would apologise).

    If I am speaking English, I will not use the word. It has
    significant racial overtones, and it's inappropriate.

    I didnrCOt change the meaning of that word. What people like to make
    out of it, is entirely up to each individual. It means nothing more
    then someone from an African origin.

    You do not live in a bubble. The word has become historically linked
    with oppression of black people, so society (by and large) accepts that
    it is no longer appropriate. By choosing to stick to archaic usages
    that are now linked with racism is not a neutral position.

    Do you not see that?

    I have a simple "rule of thumb": I do not use a word to describe
    someone that I have good reason to believe they will find offensive *unless* I am trying to offend them...and even then, I would choose
    my word carefully and proportionately, and have to live with the consequences of insulting the person to that level.

    There are few situations where you can go wrong with that principle
    in my experience, and conversely going against that principle will
    get you into trouble.

    I have good reason to believe that black people will find that word offensive, so I will not use it. I don't think that makes me
    oversensitive.

    I think that makes me: _respectful_.

    Good for you and by all means keep doing so, however donrCOt force
    others to follow your own believes or insult them for not doing so.
    That is NOT respectful at all.

    I am not forcing anyone to do anything - please read back and you'll see
    that - I am simply highlighting to you that your use of these words will
    be seen as racist and disrespectful and, as a result, you will be
    assumed to be racist.

    You are free to choose to continue to use those words. Others will be
    free to assume you are racist.

    If people choose to be offended for all kind of things, that is
    entirely up to them.

    Yes. And they are free to make inferences from your (or my) use of
    language.

    Personally, I would suggest retracting your comments and
    apologising, or I think people are entitled to draw the obvious
    inference.

    It's entirely up to you, however.

    At least yourCOve got that part right!

    I think I have a lot more than that right.


    I'm sure the court of public opinion is pretty clear on where you stand
    now.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 08:41:44 2020
    On Saturday, September 19, 2020 at 7:22:00 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:

    That's why I have killfiled
    --
    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.

    Fuck you loser and fuck your gay ass killfile.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 08:43:47 2020
    On Sunday, September 20, 2020 at 5:54:37 AM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:

    Please stop replying to him now. Please.

    --
    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.

    Here comes the moderator.
    What fucking buffoon.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 20 20:00:44 2020
    In article <rk7gcf$dnl$1@dont-email.me>,
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rk6ade$frd$1@dont-email.me>,
    ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:

    Indeed. Well-reasoned non-partisan educated expositions are a very
    rare thing on the internet these days. Thanks Mark, everything
    that you said makes perfect sense.

    I didn't see any mention of the fact that the entire panel of judges
    were ramainers, did I miss that?

    While that was *asserted*, there are a few issues with raising
    that...

    Firstly, by convention judges are required to remain silent on
    issues not relating to their judgements. They are supposed to be
    kept separate from politics (separation of judiciary and
    legislature), and it falls to people like the Justice Secretary and
    Attorney General to speak up on their behalf when necessary. They
    kept a respectful silence while the popular press made unfounded allegations...and the government (much to the annoyance of the
    judiciary) took days to raise the obvious objections that they
    should have immediately raised. This has allowed these allegations
    to be treated as fact in some circles, but that doesn't make it so.

    Secondly - and far more importantly - judgements are not based on
    plucking theories out of the air. They are based on very careful
    and scholarly argument, using existing law and precedent to build a
    reasoned argument as to why one particular view should prevail.
    These tend to get more robust as you go up the court hierarchy, and
    they equally get more scrutiny by other judges as well as
    barristers and lawyers across the board. Judges - particularly
    senior judges - cannot afford to be seen as having made mistakes in
    law (missing/ignoring evidence/precedent or flaws in reasoning) as
    it will quickly be identified and challenged. You will notice that
    the coverage focused on character assassination of the judges
    rather than the substance of the judgement.

    Two things to note:

    The judgement - however uncomfortable for the government - was
    sound. As the judgement noted, primary legislation could be
    presented which would mean that a future repeat of the same
    circumstances would survive challenge. That would require, of
    course, the government to persuade parliament that this extra power
    should be allowed, but with such a large majority that should be straightforward.

    You will notice that the government has *not* attempted to change
    the law.

    That is very true. There are a number of things they're not done that
    were expected like dealing with the utterly corrupt Electoral
    Commission who's conduct was quite appalling and biased. There are
    plenty of others too.

    I suspect some of this priorities, I think they have their hands full
    don't you?

    So, I don't know why people keep raising the judgement and the
    (alleged) partiality of the Supreme Court. Even if the allegations
    were true, there is nothing in the judgement to suggest that
    partiality affected the ruling.

    I'm sure that is very comforting to Remain, I doubt you would find
    many Leavers who would agree with you. It is well known that the
    majority of the high offices and certainly the HOL is a Remain hot
    bed, it's undeniable.

    Yet you expect me to believe that they decided as they did without
    any thought of Brexit.

    So I suppose by the same token you should be happy to come to a trade
    agreement with the EU that gave the ECJ the last say in all
    disagreements. After all, they would judge without prejudice wouldn't
    they?


    Nor did I see much mention of a government surrounded by people
    trying every single dirty trick in the book without limit to stop
    it doing what it had been elected to do.

    I have seen both sides using every legal (and in the case of the
    government, not so legal) instrument to promote their cause.

    Parliament is *not* elected to do any given thing. Ever.

    You may be correct legally but I guarantee the electorate who voted
    for Brexit don't see it that way. Morally, those MPs were a bankrupt
    disgrace.

    Prime Ministers are not elected (nor any member of the cabinet) -
    they are just those who command the confidence of the house.

    Governments are not elected either. They are formed by the Prime
    Minister, and don't even have to be elected (not least those in the
    Lords).

    Our system is one where we elect a representative (it's a
    *Representative* Democracy, not a democracy) to represent us for a
    time in parliament. We would like to think that they will always
    represent our views, but they are not required to. Indeed, it's
    recognised that they don't have to by the fact that built into
    parliament (and officially recognised and funded) are "whips"
    offices for both Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's
    Opposition. These are *explicitly* there to "whip" individual MPs
    to support (or reject) bills even when they would otherwise do the
    opposite (or abstain).

    This is constitutional stuff of which you do know more more than I, I
    admit. However, a lying shit, is a lying shit and many of that
    generation of MPs were .....

    They will never be forgotten or forgiven no matter how much they are
    legally in the clear for their treachery.

    You wouldn't know any of this from the coverage in the press. They
    talk as though the MPs have breached some sort of contract, and
    they absolutely haven't (on either side).

    I wonder if with your constitutional knowledge if you would say the
    same had you been a Leaver.

    Those tricks included, making legislation over the top of the
    government thanks to the antics of a very partisan speaker.

    The role of Speaker is a very difficult one. On this, I have mixed
    feelings. I do think he took an extreme position on the role
    compared to predecessors, but his argument (that the Speaker has a
    role to ensure both sides of a case are heard in face of a
    government attempting to shut down opposition) was reasoned.
    Overall, I am not surprised he's now suffering from a tattered
    reputation.

    He could not control his bias. He assessed the facts and could resist
    abusing his office in a pre planned attempt to stop Brexit. Remember
    he was caught plotting.

    The Electoral commission and the speaker both allowed their office to
    be used for a political ends. The Supreme Court with grinning spider
    woman, was entirely proper? Hmmm.


    He wasn't right...but he also was within his constitutional powers,
    as evidenced by the fact that the government couldn't stop him.

    Undeniable, but everyone on both sides knew he shouldn't be doing
    what he did.

    I also notice that Dominic Cummings is still well hated here, I
    suppose that shouldn't surprise me. I would remind you though
    that he was naive, he did break the rules. The story I believe
    is, he took

    For me, he broke the rules potentially multiple times:

    1. He went back to Downing Street after going home where there was known Covid infection, and that was against the rules.

    He did. He did it because there was an attempt to take out Brexit by
    the notorious civil service behind the back of a seriously ill prime
    minister fighting for his life. The lowest of the low. A rather
    extreme circumstance of national consequence where he was forced by
    someone else who couldn't keep his personal politics away from the
    execution of his civil service duties.

    If there is an infection at home, you don't go into work (and we
    know a number of people fell ill with Covid in the fortnight after
    that, but can't know how many if any were due to him).

    Right so he should have let the anti-Brexit plot succeed. Okay I see
    your drift. You'll understand if I don't agree. Stopping a plot and
    treachery to kill Brexit not as important as covid rule. Got that.


    2. He travelled a very long way to stay with his parents. I can appreciate that you want to have your family's support with children if you fall
    ill, but I can't accept that someone like him couldn't arrange a more suitable support that didn't involve taking children and sick people
    hundreds of miles.

    Again, I do accept it, I would have done the same and gone to my
    family.

    3. The whole day trip to Barnard Castle is just plain bonkers.

    Agreed but harmless.

    his wife and child out for the day and sat by the river for
    while. He then went home and stupidly told the press he was
    testing his eyes, yes very silly. However, he did not have
    contact with anyone outside of his household. Chances he spread
    CV19 = 0.

    Well, not on the first count, and we'll have to take his word for counts
    2 (of course you travelled from London to Durham without stopping at
    service stations...despite small children!) and

    Credit card payment at the pumps, maybe take a pee carefully avoiding
    others.

    3...but given the cock
    and bull story about eye testing, why would anyone take his word for anything?

    Yup, silly story.



    Not many days later, largely the left, antifa, BLM had massive
    marches, vandalised and tore down statues and generally kicked off.
    "A mostly peaceful demonstration" with 27 (If I recall) police got
    injured and objects like bicycles being thrown at police. CV19
    spread risk = considerable. Arrests = ????.
    Did the media kick off about the CV19 risk, did they hell, it was
    fine.

    Actually, the media *did* kick off about that. I think all of these
    rallies are ridiculous at this time, even peaceful ones.

    A few after that, while all the public toilets in London were
    closed, a lad takes a pee to the side of a monument, no damage.
    He was arrested and sent to prison.

    It is very clear how fair the law isn't.

    The law is never 100% fair - there are humans involved.

    I don't have much faith in things claimed to be non-partisan,
    nothing ever is.

    No. And that's the point. The best way to deal with it is to try
    to understand the multiple views and make your own mind up.

    I did.


    Right now, I can pick up (say) the Guardian and the Daily Express
    and take a red marker to highlight bias - especially assertion
    presented as fact) and end up with very red newspapers.

    You can probably guess on both sides what is doubtful I agree.

    I don't buy any papers, haven't for decades.

    The problem I have is that if you *only* read the Guardian, or you
    *only* read the Express...or you only sit in one particular Facebook
    bubble, you only ever see one set of views...

    Just for clarity, not on FB either.

    This leads to two big issues of the day:

    - Confirmation bias: when you are confronted with ideas that chime
    with your "tribe", you accept it too easily as it's "obviously
    true"...even when it's false.

    Agreed and people buy papers to re-enforce their existing views,
    that's how papers sell.

    All people do this on both sides.

    - Belief perseverence: related to the above, but what happens when
    you are then faced with views counter to yours, and find yourself
    rejecting them automatically.

    Yes, I can agree to that, again we all do that.

    None of us can be informed if we are open to only one side of the
    argument.

    I don't dispute your legal or constitutions position. But I still say
    those MPs cynically promised to deliver Brexit and then when elected,
    they did there level best via very dirty tactics to wreck it. They
    may well have the law on their but if there is any universe justice,
    there is a deep dark hole in hell waiting.

    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Mark@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Sep 21 11:33:41 2020
    Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <rk7gcf$dnl$1@dont-email.me>,
    Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:

    Two things to note:

    The judgement - however uncomfortable for the government - was
    sound. As the judgement noted, primary legislation could be
    presented which would mean that a future repeat of the same
    circumstances would survive challenge. That would require, of
    course, the government to persuade parliament that this extra power
    should be allowed, but with such a large majority that should be
    straightforward.

    You will notice that the government has *not* attempted to change
    the law.

    That is very true. There are a number of things they're not done that
    were expected like dealing with the utterly corrupt Electoral
    Commission who's conduct was quite appalling and biased. There are
    plenty of others too.

    I suspect some of this priorities, I think they have their hands full
    don't you?

    No, and that's a fair point (though see below for the timeline).
    Nonetheless, I suspect that it suits the current narrative - always the
    victim - to let the accusation be made, not engage for long enough for
    the news agenda to move on (the government didn't respond to defend the judiciary for 4-5 days from memory) and allow it to enter the public
    conscience as a fact.

    Forget the particular issue for a moment. Any government which
    willingly allows the judiciary to be undermined is building problems for
    the future. Either:

    - The judiciary was wrong, in which case action needs to be taken to
    address the constitutional challenge.
    or:
    - The judiciary was right, in which case they either accept the
    judgement and constitutional position (that the PM didn't have the
    right to use the Royal Prerogative in that way) or introduce (as
    the SC suggested) new primary legislation to establish new rights
    to do so.

    None of this seems to have happened, and there *was* time to include
    this in the Queen's Speech in December, long before Covid was a "thing".

    No matter how I squint at this, it's unsatisfactory. But it's not the
    Supreme Court which concerns me. Constitutionally, their position now stands...but their authority has been undermined in the public
    consciousness. That undermines the very rule of law, and the government
    is the only one capable of resolving it one way or another...and isn't.

    So, I don't know why people keep raising the judgement and the
    (alleged) partiality of the Supreme Court. Even if the allegations
    were true, there is nothing in the judgement to suggest that
    partiality affected the ruling.

    I'm sure that is very comforting to Remain, I doubt you would find
    many Leavers who would agree with you. It is well known that the
    majority of the high offices and certainly the HOL is a Remain hot
    bed, it's undeniable.

    You don't seem to be getting my point. It doesn't *matter* whether or
    not they do or don't support Brexit. Their job is to understand the
    law, present the facts and give an opinion with reasoned argument to
    support that opinion. Their written judgement is an extraordinarily
    clear and well-reasoned document. If there had been real flaws in law
    (either the acts or precedents presented, or a flaw in the logic
    applied) there are plenty of Leave supporting barristers and judges out
    there who would have supplied the ammunition to undermine the judgement.
    They haven't.

    Instead, the tactic has been to attack the judges. Undermine their
    credibility and, by association, the judgement. That's not how law
    works or should work. A bad judgement that supports your view is not
    better than a good judgement that doesn't. If we end up with the
    judiciary making judgements based on partisan politics rather than
    reason, we are truly lost. I see no evidence that this is the case.

    Attack the judgement all you like, and if it falls that is a good thing.
    Good legal precedents benefit us all. A robust challenging environment
    is how we achieve that...but don't make it a personal attack on judges
    and their (alleged) political views. Other than undermining law and
    order, it achieves nothing but suspicion and division. It will also
    undermine credibility when judgements go the other way.

    Yet you expect me to believe that they decided as they did without
    any thought of Brexit.

    No. I expect you to believe that the judgement was based on the law,
    precedent and a very clear legal argument, none of which was to do with
    Brexit.

    So I suppose by the same token you should be happy to come to a trade agreement with the EU that gave the ECJ the last say in all
    disagreements. After all, they would judge without prejudice wouldn't
    they?

    No. It's deeply uncomfortable to have the ECJ have the final say. It
    has been acceptable when we were amongst equals within the EU, but the
    ECJ is now a foreign court and, while it has been reasonable to be
    pragmatic during the withdrawal period, there needs to be a negotiated
    solution for the long-term which doesn't have the ECJ (or the UK courts)
    having a "final say". That is going to be difficult, though. Every international agreement has to have some form of arbitration, and this
    is a complicated situation now. We are seeking to retain a lot of the
    rights that EU countries enjoy without being an EU country or holding
    the responsibilities. We can't unilaterally pick and choose what we do
    and don't live up to in trade agreements, and there isn't a higher court
    to arbitrate right now, particularly on services.

    Nor did I see much mention of a government surrounded by people
    trying every single dirty trick in the book without limit to stop
    it doing what it had been elected to do.

    I have seen both sides using every legal (and in the case of the
    government, not so legal) instrument to promote their cause.

    Parliament is *not* elected to do any given thing. Ever.

    You may be correct legally but I guarantee the electorate who voted
    for Brexit don't see it that way.

    I agree. And I blame the MPs (of all stripes and all positions) for
    failing to communicate our system. They often make statements which misrepresent how parliament works, particularly when attacking their
    opposite numbers.

    Morally, those MPs were a bankrupt disgrace.

    I think that the whole electorate were badly let down by both sides.
    Leave were (shall we say) somewhat disingenuous while Remain were
    completely useless. Project Fear - using a negative - is a very poor
    strategy, and neither side actually debated what Leave actually meant.
    I would say that was largely because neither side actually thought
    people would vote that way, so why bother? That's insulting to the
    electorate, but has also meant that there has been a war after the fact
    to define what "leave" does mean.

    For example, I can point you at numerous occasions where all the major
    Leave groups insisted that all this talk of walking away without a deal
    was simply Project Fear - we'd have the greatest deal ever. Similarly,
    almost all - particularly the official Leave group - insisted that it
    would be madness to leave the Single Market, but after the fact it was "anything like that would be 'Brexit In Name Only'". As for shifting
    the referendum from being advisory to being binding, that's dodgy...but
    I do get the argument that the words on the campaign trail didn't
    necessarily match the words in the legislation.

    Overall, it put MPs into an incredibly difficult position, and I don't
    think words like "disgrace" can be universally levelled.

    While I accept the decision, I said from long before the referendum that
    having a simple majority for such a complex question is madness. No
    other nation does - most go for at least 60% if not 66% to enact
    significant constitutional change. To end up with such a close result
    is a problem: it answers the question, but it makes enacting it
    difficult.

    Prime Ministers are not elected (nor any member of the cabinet) -
    they are just those who command the confidence of the house.

    Governments are not elected either. They are formed by the Prime
    Minister, and don't even have to be elected (not least those in the
    Lords).

    Our system is one where we elect a representative (it's a
    *Representative* Democracy, not a democracy) to represent us for a
    time in parliament. We would like to think that they will always
    represent our views, but they are not required to. Indeed, it's
    recognised that they don't have to by the fact that built into
    parliament (and officially recognised and funded) are "whips"
    offices for both Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's
    Opposition. These are *explicitly* there to "whip" individual MPs
    to support (or reject) bills even when they would otherwise do the
    opposite (or abstain).

    This is constitutional stuff of which you do know more more than I, I
    admit. However, a lying shit, is a lying shit and many of that
    generation of MPs were .....

    What do you mean?

    Pretty much *every* MP of *every* generation misleads the public - some
    more than others.

    They will never be forgotten or forgiven no matter how much they are
    legally in the clear for their treachery.

    Yeah, yeah. I remember that when the "Poll Tax" came in. Memories
    fade.

    You wouldn't know any of this from the coverage in the press. They
    talk as though the MPs have breached some sort of contract, and
    they absolutely haven't (on either side).

    I wonder if with your constitutional knowledge if you would say the
    same had you been a Leaver.

    Yes. Absolutely.

    Bear in mind - and you wouldn't know, of course - I was not an
    ideological Remain supporter, I simply thought that the imperfect deal
    we had as a member of the EU was (on balance) preferable to the likely
    (but not certain) situation we would find ourselves outside of the EU*.

    So, I am not desperately trying to find arguments to frame everything as
    "EU good" or "Brexit good".

    My judgement on the constitional position attempts to look at this from
    as neutral a position as possible by focusing on the facts of law and
    not on the preferred outcome.

    What has dismayed me more than anything is not the outcomes from various
    legal moves by the current government, but how they have found
    themselves in these positions. They have some very keen legal minds
    available to them, yet they seem intent on doing things despite the
    likelihood of legal challenge. I suspect they do it to amplify the
    dissonance that exists between how the law works and how they have
    allowed the public to believe that it works. The consequence is that
    the trust in the courts and law in general is undermined as people
    believe that something wrong is happening...even though it's entirely in keeping with the law and our constitution.

    That undermines our entire system of laws and government, and that will
    have a lasting impact on public trust and future government.

    Those tricks included, making legislation over the top of the
    government thanks to the antics of a very partisan speaker.

    The role of Speaker is a very difficult one. On this, I have mixed
    feelings. I do think he took an extreme position on the role
    compared to predecessors, but his argument (that the Speaker has a
    role to ensure both sides of a case are heard in face of a
    government attempting to shut down opposition) was reasoned.
    Overall, I am not surprised he's now suffering from a tattered
    reputation.

    He could not control his bias. He assessed the facts and could resist
    abusing his office in a pre planned attempt to stop Brexit. Remember
    he was caught plotting.

    The Electoral commission and the speaker both allowed their office to
    be used for a political ends.

    I think that both were in a position where they were essentially
    required to either be the puppet of government or seen as opposed. I
    don't think either could win...but I'd agree that the manner in which it
    was done (the speaker more than the Electoral Comission*) was very poor
    and definitely smacked of partisanship.

    * Do bear in mind that one of the biggest defeats for Remain essentially
    hinged on support from the Electoral Commission.

    The Supreme Court with grinning spider
    woman, was entirely proper? Hmmm.

    I think that the treatment of Lady Hale and the Supreme Court has been
    entirely unjustified and unjust. I don't know (or care) her political
    views, but I have read (literally) the entire judgement, and I think
    that it is a good contribution to the understanding of the constitution.
    I think that they took an incredibly difficult question that was not
    entirely expressed in statute or precedent and construct a reasoned
    argument that legally decided the constitutional status of the PM's use
    of Royal Prerogative. Bear in mind, he was warned ahead of the action
    that it was unclear whether it was legal.

    Also bear in mind that this has arisen as a direct consequence of
    parliament's deliberate and repeated insistence that we shouldn't have a written constitution. We are then going to have situations where we
    have to trawl through statutes and precedents to try to understand the constitutional position for a given issue. The solution is to then
    enact additional legislation in parliament to amend the constitutional
    position *not* to blame the judges for their inability to find a
    constitutional justification where none exists!

    Yes, I think that the Supreme Court did an entirely proper job, and
    their reward for long hours and scholarly work was for it to be
    dismissed with a cavalier headline that disregarded the law and
    constitution.

    He wasn't right...but he also was within his constitutional powers,
    as evidenced by the fact that the government couldn't stop him.

    Undeniable, but everyone on both sides knew he shouldn't be doing
    what he did.

    No - not everyone.

    His argument - that his role was to ensure that parliament was heard -
    is not entirely without merit.

    Personally, I disagreed with most (but not all) of what he did as I
    think he overstepped what was required to uphold that principle...and
    that's where partisanship took over.

    I also notice that Dominic Cummings is still well hated here, I
    suppose that shouldn't surprise me. I would remind you though
    that he was naive, he did break the rules. The story I believe
    is, he took

    For me, he broke the rules potentially multiple times:

    1. He went back to Downing Street after going home where there was known
    Covid infection, and that was against the rules.

    He did. He did it because there was an attempt to take out Brexit by
    the notorious civil service behind the back of a seriously ill prime
    minister fighting for his life. The lowest of the low. A rather
    extreme circumstance of national consequence where he was forced by
    someone else who couldn't keep his personal politics away from the
    execution of his civil service duties.

    Sorry - I don't buy that he needed to go to Downing Street to sort that
    out. There was plenty of other ways he could have been in touch.

    Face it, Cummings is *not* naive. I think he'd be offended by being
    called that. I think both friends and enemies of his would find the
    suggestion laughable. He just believes rules are for other people.

    If there is an infection at home, you don't go into work (and we
    know a number of people fell ill with Covid in the fortnight after
    that, but can't know how many if any were due to him).

    Right so he should have let the anti-Brexit plot succeed. Okay I see
    your drift. You'll understand if I don't agree. Stopping a plot and
    treachery to kill Brexit not as important as covid rule. Got that.

    No. He should have followed the rules and given his advice (remember,
    he's a political adviser *not* a member of government) over the phone or videoconference. An extra afternoon in-person was neither here nor
    there.

    2. He travelled a very long way to stay with his parents. I can appreciate >> that you want to have your family's support with children if you fall
    ill, but I can't accept that someone like him couldn't arrange a more
    suitable support that didn't involve taking children and sick people
    hundreds of miles.

    Again, I do accept it, I would have done the same and gone to my
    family.

    All I can say is that this is a good part of the reason no-one is
    following the rules and now we see the spike in new infections.

    3. The whole day trip to Barnard Castle is just plain bonkers.

    Agreed but harmless.

    No - see above. It undermines the message. If Dominic Cummings can
    break the rules, why can't everyone else? I'm in Leeds, and we are
    going to go into a local lockdown this week most likely. And I know
    it's because people are ignoring the messages.

    Well, not on the first count, and we'll have to take his word for counts
    2 (of course you travelled from London to Durham without stopping at
    service stations...despite small children!) and

    Credit card payment at the pumps, maybe take a pee carefully avoiding
    others.

    You are using a lot of imagination and assumption to whitewash this
    situation. Isn't it just as likely that they stopped off for a bite to
    eat? I can't prove that any more than you can prove your version.

    3...but given the cock
    and bull story about eye testing, why would anyone take his word for
    anything?

    Yup, silly story.

    And totally unnecessary. Just front it out and let it be tomorrow's chip-wrapper.

    I don't have much faith in things claimed to be non-partisan,
    nothing ever is.

    No. And that's the point. The best way to deal with it is to try
    to understand the multiple views and make your own mind up.

    I did.

    Yes, but you've interpretted *everything* as being partisan. Sometimes
    it's not.

    Right now, I can pick up (say) the Guardian and the Daily Express
    and take a red marker to highlight bias - especially assertion
    presented as fact) and end up with very red newspapers.

    You can probably guess on both sides what is doubtful I agree.

    I don't buy any papers, haven't for decades.

    I don't, but my Dad is an avid Express reader and I work in a University
    where the Guardian is popular. I see both, and I agree you can see the
    bias in both..

    The problem I have is that if you *only* read the Guardian, or you
    *only* read the Express...or you only sit in one particular Facebook
    bubble, you only ever see one set of views...

    Just for clarity, not on FB either.

    This leads to two big issues of the day:

    - Confirmation bias: when you are confronted with ideas that chime
    with your "tribe", you accept it too easily as it's "obviously
    true"...even when it's false.

    Agreed and people buy papers to re-enforce their existing views,
    that's how papers sell.

    All people do this on both sides.

    Not everyone. Some do. Some don't even realise (my Dad doesn't). Some
    read multiple sources to try to balance biases.

    - Belief perseverence: related to the above, but what happens when
    you are then faced with views counter to yours, and find yourself
    rejecting them automatically.

    Yes, I can agree to that, again we all do that.

    None of us can be informed if we are open to only one side of the
    argument.

    I don't dispute your legal or constitutions position. But I still say
    those MPs cynically promised to deliver Brexit and then when elected,
    they did there level best via very dirty tactics to wreck it. They
    may well have the law on their but if there is any universe justice,

    I have no doubt that the ratio of electoral promises kept to those
    broken is heavily on one side.

    For that matter, I am certain that Cameron never intended to have a
    referendum. My theory is that having used a loophole on policies first
    time around (we only promised that if *we* were in government, but this
    is a coalition) and believing utterly that it was going to be another
    coalition (as most did), he threw the referendum in to placate the
    Brexit wing expecting to be able to wring his hands after the election
    and explain how "I'd like to hold a referendum...but what can I do?"...

    ...and then he won a (slim) majority.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From keithr0@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Sep 21 22:03:03 2020
    On 9/20/2020 7:43 PM, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsohp3F8t5dU1@mid.individual.net>,
    keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:

    Not forgetting that the main brexiteers admitted after the
    referendum that they had been lying through their teeth.
    Disgusting really.

    Have you got a straight face?

    Certainly it isn't twisted like yours. How about the 350 million pounds
    a week being paid to the EU or the 80 million Turks poised to invade
    Britain when Turkey joins the EU (BTW the population of turkey is significantly less than that). Of course Boris has form as a liar having
    been sacked several times for it.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Bob Latham@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Sep 21 16:41:57 2020
    In article <hsrj3pFsbn0U1@mid.individual.net>,
    keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
    On 9/20/2020 7:43 PM, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsohp3F8t5dU1@mid.individual.net>,
    keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:

    Not forgetting that the main brexiteers admitted after the
    referendum that they had been lying through their teeth.
    Disgusting really.

    Have you got a straight face?

    Certainly it isn't twisted like yours. How about the 350 million pounds
    a week being paid to the EU or the 80 million Turks poised to invade
    Britain when Turkey joins the EU (BTW the population of turkey is significantly less than that). Of course Boris has form as a liar having been sacked several times for it.


    Oh god we're back to the bus again.

    Just to be clear it was an underestimate of the gross figure.


    Bob.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From keithr0@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 23 17:11:37 2020
    On 9/22/2020 1:41 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsrj3pFsbn0U1@mid.individual.net>,
    keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
    On 9/20/2020 7:43 PM, Bob Latham wrote:
    In article <hsohp3F8t5dU1@mid.individual.net>,
    keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:

    Not forgetting that the main brexiteers admitted after the
    referendum that they had been lying through their teeth.
    Disgusting really.

    Have you got a straight face?

    Certainly it isn't twisted like yours. How about the 350 million pounds
    a week being paid to the EU or the 80 million Turks poised to invade
    Britain when Turkey joins the EU (BTW the population of turkey is
    significantly less than that). Of course Boris has form as a liar having
    been sacked several times for it.


    Oh god we're back to the bus again.

    Just to be clear it was an underestimate of the gross figure.

    Just to clear, it was a straight up lie, just like the euro-bananas.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Wed Sep 23 00:20:44 2020
    On Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 1:11:39 AM UTC-6, keithr0 wrote:

    Just to clear, it was a straight up lie, just like the euro-bananas.

    logoff fool
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Edmund@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Sep 27 18:37:21 2020
    On 9/20/20 2:42 PM, Mark wrote:
    Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

    I suspect that based on your response, I am wasting my time in
    writing this, but I'll give it one more go.

    I think you are right because you have made your mind up before your
    first reply.

    Absolutely not.

    Yes you did.


    It is not possible to raise a racial epithet - particularly one
    that is particularly charged - in response to an open debate and
    then saying there is no racial meaning...which is what you've
    done.

    That is your opinion sir and I do not
    agree.

    On which bit do you not agree?

    On the whole bit you claimrCa

    To rebut my claim, you have to provide a counter argument. Rejecting it neither rebuts nor refutes it.

    If you want to do that, you have to explain *how* you can use a racial epithet without it being racially motivated. I really can't see how you
    can do that as I think it's a logical impossibility, but I am open to
    seeing an argument made.

    BTW it was Louise...

    Incidentally, the "Louise" thing is just
    juvenile. Seriously, cut it out.

    Well this Louise thing isnrCOt quite the point here but if it makes you
    feel better I will call him Ham, that Louise is something I found both
    funny and appropriate for that drama queen.

    Name calling adds nothing other than making you seem childish.

    ...who introduced the rCL racialrCY thing, not me, that is exactly the >>>> reason I replied the way I did.

    How did he?

    He claimed to be disadvantaged because he is black, that is how.

    I don't think he did.


    Feel free but he did.

    I think he has been clear that much of his
    campaign is about others who are *not* as privileged as he is, which is
    most black people given his wealth and position.

    I seem to remember a number of occasions (and I'm sure there are
    more) from his very start in F1 when race was raised against him not
    vice versa.

    Besides your memory and imagination, can you show anything about that?

    Testing 2008:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7225523.stm

    Spanish GP 2008:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/spanish-grand-prix-lewis-hamilton-393292

    Spanish GP 2009:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1180451/Lewis-Hamilton-taunted-racist-fans-SECOND-time-Spanish-Grand-Prix.html

    There are many reports. Not my imagination. I'm sure there are more.

    About an rCLopen debaterCY, there is nothing open about to try shutting >>>> up people by labeling them as racists and consider the matter
    closed.

    Who is trying to close down an open debate?

    You and everyone else who tries to disqualify people as racists.

    I'm not trying to close it down. How can I close it down by engaging
    and encouraging responses? That's the precise opposite.

    I am also not trying to disqualify anyone as racist. I am trying to get
    any racist language out of the discussion as there is no purpose to
    raising racist language other than to promote that view, which has no
    place here.

    I was trying to remove the racist language, not remove the debate. I
    won't apologise for that.

    Have a think about what kind of person *would* object to racist language being removed.

    I have suggested that you clarify your use of what I (strongly)
    believe to be racially-motivated language and consider apologising
    for it.

    At no point did I try to close down the debate.

    I will give you the benefit of doubt here.

    There is no doubt to give the benefit of. My meaning was very clear
    and, unless you can point to me trying to close down the debate (Hint:
    you can't because I didn't), that is certain.

    I *do* now consider that (given this response) you are confirming
    that you are racist.

    You already did that BEFORE you replied but feel free, no matter how
    absurd and wrong you are.

    All you have to do is explain why what you said was not racially
    motivated.

    How many more times you would like me tot do before you understand it?


    That doesn't stop the debate. On the contrary, if I were you I'd
    think about that and continue the debate in order to clarify your
    position. Or, as I said in my last post, people will be entitled to
    draw their own conclusions. I know that I have.

    I know you have, that is what I said in the first part of this posting.

    Only after ample opportunity for you to explain. You can still engage
    with the actual question and demonstrate that it's not the case.

    Similarly, if people cannot call out such a situation without
    being accused of labelling "everything" as racist, then nothing is
    racist. That's simply untenable.

    Again that is your opinion,

    Yes. That's why I wrote it.

    we probably have VERY different opinions about what is racism and
    what is not but you will have a very hard time to find anything at
    all in my entire life where I treated someone different because of
    the color of a skin.

    Would you use the same words to (say) Kimi Raikkonen as the ones
    that have triggered this debate?

    If not, you have treated Lewis Hamilton differently because of the
    colour of his skin, have you not?

    If I do not call Kimi a negro I must be a racist is that what you are
    saying?

    I am saying that the only reason you can use those words is to pick out
    Lewis as a black personrCa

    Yup you did and you are plain wrong.

    which adds nothing to the debate...so it's
    difficult to demonstrate that its use is motivated by anything but
    racism. If his political views are (to use your word) "absurd", address
    the absurdity with a cogent argument.

    I did make it very very clear but the red mist seem to blur you vision.


    If you focus on race - and using
    racially charged language - it looks as though you have no response to
    the political argument he has, and simply want to racially abuse him
    instead.

    And your continued use of that word - despite the context given - shows
    you have absolutely no intention of being respectful.

    The things Louise said are so utterly absurd I have no words for
    it.

    And yet you have put a *lot* of words out, but they are ad hominem
    (and, I would say racist) attacks rather than addressing what you
    view to be the absurdity of his argument.

    What do you object to in his words?

    Bloody hell, why donrCOt you read my post before start arguing, I made it
    perfectly clear.

    No you didn't.

    Try reading.

    Or I wouldn't be asking. Here's an idea: why don't you
    restate your position on Lewis Hamilton's views, but do it without
    mentioning his skin colour.

    That is not up to you, I choose my own words and replay about that self proclaimed disadvantaged
    - because herCOs BLACK!!!! - man as I like.

    If you explain that, there can be a reasonable debate which might
    come to a reasonable outcome.

    Calling him (offensive) names creates great heat and no light.

    That is ALL you see ? Try reading again.

    I didn't say that's all that I see. You just put that word into my
    mouth. I *do* see you calling him offensive names, though.

    Well it is all you talk about and you are totally blind for everything
    else I say.

    He is so incredibly privileged his entire life but doesnrCOt have the
    faintest idea about it nor what is going on in the real
    world outside his multi million dollar bubble.

    He certainly hasn't been privileged his *entire* life, but certainly
    he has become very privileged.

    Really, serious? How many race karts did YOU own before you reached
    the age of 10?

    I didn't kart, so what does that prove?

    So you donrCOt understand that part either or are you just denying such obvious things?

    My understanding is that his
    Dad put in a lot of time and effort to pay for his karting, including re-mortgaging his house. I don't think he was the most underprivileged
    kid, but certainly not rich and privileged.

    Well I am sure his DAD !!! held 5 jobs, worked 50 hours a day for 1500
    dayrCOs a year and somehow found time to drive his kid to the races and prepared his kartsrCa
    But we where talking about his son didnrCOt we?


    Much as I'm not a fan of people famous for one area using their
    platform unduly, he has a right to express his political opinion on
    this and other things. If he gets it wrong, address his opinion not
    his skin colour or his perceived race.

    I DID, but you are obviously unable to read it.

    You vaguely addressed his position (without much detail), but you also
    threw in racial epithets. That completely undermines your position.

    I made it perfectly clear and I am unwilling to dumb it down any further
    for you.
    Maybe you should watch some of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq2E7LBClnY&t=85s

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMeOlpAdvqA&t=158s

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9RGvUMNCnM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPiVzpdB0yY&t=137s


    He is calling people ignorant for saying very obvious things,
    claiming and whining how disadvantaged he is because of his skin
    color as if he is rescued from a cotton field,

    Again, the attachment to slave-related tropes.

    And again you donrCOt seem to understand WHY I reply this way to an
    extreme privileged person who falsely complains how disadvantaged he
    is because he is black.

    No, I don't.

    I see.

    herCOs calling NORMAL people out for eating meat, how delusional can
    a person be?

    Lots of people campaign against meat
    eating, either entirely or in terms
    of volume.

    Yup unfortunately you donrCOt read before you start arguing. Keep
    reading what I wrote, it helps. ( well not you, you first made up you
    mind, but in general. )

    I have read it all.

    I don't see you campaigning against PETA.

    I also don't see the connection between this and blatant attacks
    against him personally.

    He alone has a carbon footprint of whole continent and is telling
    us to stop eating meat to save the world!? Still I may not respond
    to this kind of stupidity because that will make me a racist? Yeah
    right!

    No.

    It's really easy to quote his views and explain why you think
    they're batshit crazy. Pick them apart line by line, provide context
    and explain why you believe he's wrong.

    I did, try reading.

    I have.

    None of it requires calling him what you called him.

    I know

    So why do it?

    I already told you...several times by now.

    It is *that* which will make you a racist, not disagreeing with him.

    See the difference?

    Calling a negro a negro makes one a racist? How about calling a negro
    black? There is nothing wrong with the word negro, some people like
    to make something out of it that it isnrCOt.

    Let me spell it out again (I already have):

    Firstly, it is generally accepted that it's offensive in English to name people by a characteristic, even though it has happened in the past.
    For example, to call someone "a disabled" or "a deaf" is not acceptable, whereas "a deaf person" or "a person with disabilities" is acceptable as
    it clearly dignifies them as being a person first who happens to have a characteristic. Calling someone "a black" or "a n****" is offensive for
    the same reason.

    Hmm I am glad you mentioned these things, let me add that as we speak it is considered offensive rCo by some people like yourself - to call women rCL womenrCY .
    We now must refer to them as people who menstruate, which bring us to
    the next
    group who choose to be offended, the transgendersrCa..
    I donrCOt care about that kind of insanity.

    Secondly - and you know this - various "n" words have been used
    traditionally as abuse, and are generally considered as unacceptable in English. Using them can only cause offence*.

    * There is some fringe use of the terms by black people which is
    considered by some to be acceptable, but I know that many (of all
    colours) are uncomfortable with a word only being offensive when used
    by specific people.

    So, I rebut the fact that there is nothing wrong with that word. Used
    in a different context (e.g. as a colour in Spanish) is absolutely acceptable, freed as it is of the racist overtones it carries in
    English.

    Give it some time with people like you woke whiterCOs who think black
    people are stupid
    disadvantaged pathetic and needs to be protected in everything by
    whites. :-)

    Using it in English can (I would strongly argue) only be through
    ignorance or an intentional aim to offend.
    My post is not about that one word, although it is the only word you are
    able to read.
    BTW
    In an other land they also try to redefine the meaning of the word
    negro so they can pretend
    to be be offended by it.


    People riding the high horse and telling they donrCOt respond to
    bigots racists or whatever are actually saying they have absolutely
    NOTHING to say or debunk and therefore avoid speaking about the
    actual content by disqualifying others.

    Well, I'm not one of them. I have been very clear on the matter, and
    I *am* explaining my position.

    Yes you did, you are rCo as I said rCo over sensitive to a word that
    causes a red mist to you.

    It doesn't cause a red mist. I am very calm about it. As I explain
    below, it is an offensive term which should be generally avoided in
    English.

    Yet it is the only word you are able to read in my entire post.


    I'm struggling to see what your argument is because you have just
    insulted the person (ad hominem) rather than going to the point (ad
    rem).

    Try reading.

    I have. This is tedious.

    It's possible to accidentally use the wrong language, but the
    right response is to back down and apologise. It's possible to
    (accidentally) use racist language without being a racist...but to
    insist on using it pretty much defines being a racist.

    ItrCOs equally possible you are a little oversensitive to the word
    negro, if so, there is no shame in admitting that you are.

    If I am speaking Spanish (which I do), I have no problem with the
    word as it simply means "black" and has no racial overtones that I
    am aware of, at least in the way in which I employ it. (Of course, I
    am not a native Spanish speaker, so if I am wrong I am happy to be
    corrected at which stage I would apologise).

    If I am speaking English, I will not use the word. It has
    significant racial overtones, and it's inappropriate.

    I didnrCOt change the meaning of that word. What people like to make
    out of it, is entirely up to each individual. It means nothing more
    then someone from an African origin.

    You do not live in a bubble. The word has become historically linked
    with oppression of black people, so society (by and large) accepts that
    it is no longer appropriate. By choosing to stick to archaic usages
    that are now linked with racism is not a neutral position.

    Do you not see that?

    I do not agree with what some rCo woke rCo people like to make out of it.

    I have a simple "rule of thumb": I do not use a word to describe
    someone that I have good reason to believe they will find offensive
    *unless* I am trying to offend them...and even then, I would choose
    my word carefully and proportionately, and have to live with the
    consequences of insulting the person to that level.

    There are few situations where you can go wrong with that principle
    in my experience, and conversely going against that principle will
    get you into trouble.

    I have good reason to believe that black people will find that word
    offensive, so I will not use it. I don't think that makes me
    oversensitive.

    I think that makes me: _respectful_.

    Good for you and by all means keep doing so, however donrCOt force
    others to follow your own believes or insult them for not doing so.
    That is NOT respectful at all.

    I am not forcing anyone to do anything - please read back and you'll see
    that - I am simply highlighting to you that your use of these words will
    be seen as racist and disrespectful and, as a result, you will be
    assumed to be racist.

    You are free to choose to continue to use those words. Others will be
    free to assume you are racist.

    You may and although I prefer to be admired for the things I do and who
    I am, I donrCOt care much about the opinion of some pc woke left lunatics.

    If people choose to be offended for all kind of things, that is
    entirely up to them.

    Yes. And they are free to make inferences from your (or my) use of
    language.

    Personally, I would suggest retracting your comments and
    apologising, or I think people are entitled to draw the obvious
    inference.

    It's entirely up to you, however.

    At least yourCOve got that part right!

    I think I have a lot more than that right.


    I'm sure the court of public opinion is pretty clear on where you stand
    now.

    No doubt about that, we all know how biased the rioting BLM ANTIFA and political correct alike s are.



    --
    rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
    the more it will hate those who speak itrCY

    George Orwell
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)