HAKKINEN: WHAT LEWIS HAS DONE IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS THE BEST CAR https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/10/14/hakkinen-what-lewis-has-done-is-not-simply-because-he-has-the-best-car/
On 10/14/2020 8:38 AM, Heron wrote:
HAKKINEN: WHAT LEWIS HAS DONE IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS THE BEST CAR
https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/10/14/hakkinen-what-lewis-has-done-is-not-simply-because-he-has-the-best-car/
Sure. Put him in the Haas.
On 10/14/2020 7:57 AM, News wrote:
On 10/14/2020 8:38 AM, Heron wrote:
HAKKINEN: WHAT LEWIS HAS DONE IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS THE BEST CAR
https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/10/14/hakkinen-what-lewis-has-done-is-not-simply-because-he-has-the-best-car/
Sure. Put him in the Haas.
Hamilton was 'put' into a formerly mostly losing Mercedes
in 2013. He won the WDC in 2014 and, save for some bad luck
in 2016, has won the WDC every year since and currently has
an all but insurmountable lead in the 2020 championship.
HAKKINEN: WHAT LEWIS HAS DONE IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS THE BEST CAR https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/10/14/hakkinen-what-lewis-has-done-is-not-simply-because-he-has-the-best-car/
On 2020-10-14 5:38 a.m., Heron wrote:
HAKKINEN: WHAT LEWIS HAS DONE IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS THE BEST CAR
https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/10/14/hakkinen-what-lewis-has-done-is-not-simply-because-he-has-the-best-car/
Not SIMPLY because he has the best car.
When you add that word back in, it means that Hakkinen does think he has
the best car.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:10:09 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 5:38 a.m., Heron wrote:
HAKKINEN: WHAT LEWIS HAS DONE IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS THE BEST CAR
https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/10/14/hakkinen-what-lewis-has-done-is-not-simply-because-he-has-the-best-car/
Not SIMPLY because he has the best car.
When you add that word back in, it means that Hakkinen does think he has
the best car.
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
On 2020-10-14 9:04 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:10:09 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 5:38 a.m., Heron wrote:
HAKKINEN: WHAT LEWIS HAS DONE IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS THE BEST CAR >>>> https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/10/14/hakkinen-what-lewis-has-done-is-not-simply-because-he-has-the-best-car/
Not SIMPLY because he has the best car.
When you add that word back in, it means that Hakkinen does think he has >>> the best car.
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:11:13 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 9:04 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:10:09 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 5:38 a.m., Heron wrote:
HAKKINEN: WHAT LEWIS HAS DONE IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS THE BEST CAR >>>>> https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/10/14/hakkinen-what-lewis-has-done-is-not-simply-because-he-has-the-best-car/
Not SIMPLY because he has the best car.
When you add that word back in, it means that Hakkinen does think he has >>>> the best car.
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
No he didn't - you just seem to be determined to outdo him in being a
prick.
On 10/14/2020 7:57 AM, News wrote:
On 10/14/2020 8:38 AM, Heron wrote:
HAKKINEN: WHAT LEWIS HAS DONE IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS THE BEST CAR
https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/10/14/hakkinen-what-lewis-has-done-is-not-simply-because-he-has-the-best-car/
Sure. Put him in the Haas.
Hamilton was 'put' into a formerly mostly losing Mercedes
in 2013. He won the WDC in 2014 and, save for some bad luck
in 2016, has won the WDC every year since and currently has
an all but insurmountable lead in the 2020 championship.
ROLOL
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
No he didn't - you just seem to be determined to outdo him in being a
prick.
Yes, he did.
That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
His first language is quite obviously English, and so he knows that when says something is "not SIMPLY because of [some factor]", it means the
factor itself is not in dispute.
So he dropped it out of the quote and that changed the meaning of the subject to a falsehood.
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
No he didn't - you just seem to be determined to outdo him in being a
prick.
Yes, he did.
That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
His first language is quite obviously English, and so he knows that when
says something is "not SIMPLY because of [some factor]", it means the
factor itself is not in dispute.
So he dropped it out of the quote and that changed the meaning of the
subject to a falsehood.
It changes the emphasis, but it doesn't make it a falsehood.
Let's break it down logically. There are two factors being discussed in
this pissing competition: contribution of the car and contribution of
the driver. (There are obviously other factors too like team, luck, and
so on).
One group in the world (I won't pick anyone out) is saying "Hamilton is
the GOAT and it's all about him".
One group in the world (I won't pick anyone out) is saying "Hamilton is
just in the best car, and it's nothing to do with him".
Most sensible people realise that the truth is a grey area somewhere in-between:
- the best driver put in the worst car won't win WDCs.
- the worst driver put in the best car won't win WDCs.
The car is the best - I don't think anyone disagrees. I would call
anyone who thinks he's worse than "very good" delusional. Where he is between "very good" and "the best" is the area for debate IMO.
Logically - to get back to the specific argument - Hamilton is *not* WDC because he's in the best car.
That can be demonstrated by simply
pointing out that he's beaten his various teammates most years - and
even Nico relied on some luck. Personally, I would add "simply" or
"solely" to be a little clearer, but it doesn't make it a falsehood.
I do wonder why you care *so* much about Hamilton.
On 2020-10-14 9:40 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
No he didn't - you just seem to be determined to outdo him in being a
prick.
Yes, he did.
That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
His first language is quite obviously English, and so he knows that when >>> says something is "not SIMPLY because of [some factor]", it means the
factor itself is not in dispute.
So he dropped it out of the quote and that changed the meaning of the
subject to a falsehood.
It changes the emphasis, but it doesn't make it a falsehood.
No. It makes it a falsehood. The use of the word "simply" means that the factor is real and just isn't the ONLY factor.
Let's break it down logically. There are two factors being discussed in
this pissing competition: contribution of the car and contribution of
the driver. (There are obviously other factors too like team, luck, and
so on).
One group in the world (I won't pick anyone out) is saying "Hamilton is
the GOAT and it's all about him".
One group in the world (I won't pick anyone out) is saying "Hamilton is
just in the best car, and it's nothing to do with him".
False dichotomy.
And for the record, I know that the driver is a part of any winning
package. But ask almost anyone who is truly knowledgeable about F1 and
they will agree that the car is a much larger factor than the driver
these days.
Most sensible people realise that the truth is a grey area somewhere
in-between:
- the best driver put in the worst car won't win WDCs.
- the worst driver put in the best car won't win WDCs.
The worst current F1 driver currently out there, stands a very good
chance of winning the WDC provided he is the only one in the best car.
The car is the best - I don't think anyone disagrees. I would call
anyone who thinks he's worse than "very good" delusional. Where he is
between "very good" and "the best" is the area for debate IMO.
Logically - to get back to the specific argument - Hamilton is *not* WDC
because he's in the best car.
You've moved the negation, so you're now saying something the subject
line (deliberately) does not
That can be demonstrated by simply
pointing out that he's beaten his various teammates most years - and
even Nico relied on some luck. Personally, I would add "simply" or
"solely" to be a little clearer, but it doesn't make it a falsehood.
I do wonder why you care *so* much about Hamilton.
I don't. I just don't like mindless hero worship.
I think Hamilton is one of the very best out there currently, but I
don't think that anyone who views that matter objectively can state with confidence that he must be the best of the current crop. Anyone
objective would have to admit that Verstappen, Leclerc at the very least would have every chance of winning as many races as Hamilton if they
were in the same car as Hamilton (and there were no team orders of course).
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 9:40 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
No he didn't - you just seem to be determined to outdo him in being a >>>>> prick.
Yes, he did.
That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
His first language is quite obviously English, and so he knows that when >>>> says something is "not SIMPLY because of [some factor]", it means the
factor itself is not in dispute.
So he dropped it out of the quote and that changed the meaning of the
subject to a falsehood.
It changes the emphasis, but it doesn't make it a falsehood.
No. It makes it a falsehood. The use of the word "simply" means that the
factor is real and just isn't the ONLY factor.
Let's break it down logically. There are two factors being discussed in >>> this pissing competition: contribution of the car and contribution of
the driver. (There are obviously other factors too like team, luck, and >>> so on).
One group in the world (I won't pick anyone out) is saying "Hamilton is
the GOAT and it's all about him".
One group in the world (I won't pick anyone out) is saying "Hamilton is
just in the best car, and it's nothing to do with him".
False dichotomy.
How can it be a false dichotomy when I'm pointing out that it's not a dichotomy in the first place? It's not either/or, but a range of
factors coming together to produce a winning formula.
And for the record, I know that the driver is a part of any winning
package. But ask almost anyone who is truly knowledgeable about F1 and
they will agree that the car is a much larger factor than the driver
these days.
So, the best you can say is that he's much better than Bottas.
(I will make some points without implicitly insulting you by putting
nonsense like "Ask almost anyone who is truly knowledgeable about F1..." ahead of my opinions - I will simply state them and let them stand alone without a fallacious "argument from authority" as you are so keen on).
My point is that even if the car is the major factor, you still need
someone behind the wheel capable of consistently taking advantage.
The Mercedes has not always been (and won't always be) the best car in
every condition. While Hamilton is far, far from invincible, he has demonstrated his ability to make the best of the packages and conditions
he finds himself with.
I do not think he's the greatest - in fact I find the greatest (or,
worse, GOAT) a meaningless argument - but he's done enough across enough seasons, on enough tracks, in enough conditions, in different cars to be considered one of the greats.
Most sensible people realise that the truth is a grey area somewhere
in-between:
- the best driver put in the worst car won't win WDCs.
- the worst driver put in the best car won't win WDCs.
The worst current F1 driver currently out there, stands a very good
chance of winning the WDC provided he is the only one in the best car.
Now you're changing the argument...but I'll come back to it because I'll still disagree. I do not think the worst driver on the grid right now
put into the Mercedes would be beating Verstappen. At least not
reliably.
The change is to now say they're the only one in the car. That removes
the point that the driver really does matter. Hamilton has won WDCs
with very good drivers in the other car in his team. That counts for a
lot.
The car is the best - I don't think anyone disagrees. I would call
anyone who thinks he's worse than "very good" delusional. Where he is
between "very good" and "the best" is the area for debate IMO.
Logically - to get back to the specific argument - Hamilton is *not* WDC >>> because he's in the best car.
You've moved the negation, so you're now saying something the subject
line (deliberately) does not
Read the subject line then read what I wrote. The subject is saying
that he's winning, and that it's not because he has the best car.
That's what I have said.
Explain how you believe the negation has moved.
That can be demonstrated by simply
pointing out that he's beaten his various teammates most years - and
even Nico relied on some luck. Personally, I would add "simply" or
"solely" to be a little clearer, but it doesn't make it a falsehood.
I do wonder why you care *so* much about Hamilton.
I don't. I just don't like mindless hero worship.
No - you openly trigger any time anyone suggests Hamilton is anything
more than average.
I think Hamilton is one of the very best out there currently, but I
don't think that anyone who views that matter objectively can state with
confidence that he must be the best of the current crop. Anyone
objective would have to admit that Verstappen, Leclerc at the very least
would have every chance of winning as many races as Hamilton if they
were in the same car as Hamilton (and there were no team orders of course).
I think they have some chance, but there is no way of knowing. There is similarly no way to know that he's *not* the best, nor that it's all
about the car.
That's something that you seem intent on claiming. I don't know why.
Here are some facts:
- He has set (a lot of) pole-achieving times
- He has won (a lot of) races.Mostly with his teammate 2nd and only by a small fraction.
- He has won multiple WDCs
- In more than one team
- Against more than one opponent
- No-one else in the current crop can claim the same
Here is my opinion:
- I do not think anyone but Verstappen would be able to beat him
right now in the same car, and I am not sure he would be as
consistent.
- In the past, I think Vettel would have - I'm not sure now.
- I think Leclerc might be able to in the future, but I don't think
he is currently able to be that consistent.
On 2020-10-14 11:07 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 9:40 a.m., Mark wrote:
Let's break it down logically. There are two factors being discussed in >>>> this pissing competition: contribution of the car and contribution of
the driver. (There are obviously other factors too like team, luck, and >>>> so on).
One group in the world (I won't pick anyone out) is saying "Hamilton is >>>> the GOAT and it's all about him".
One group in the world (I won't pick anyone out) is saying "Hamilton is >>>> just in the best car, and it's nothing to do with him".
False dichotomy.
How can it be a false dichotomy when I'm pointing out that it's not a
dichotomy in the first place? It's not either/or, but a range of
factors coming together to produce a winning formula.
You've divided the world into only two groups.
And for the record, I know that the driver is a part of any winning
package. But ask almost anyone who is truly knowledgeable about F1 and
they will agree that the car is a much larger factor than the driver
these days.
So, the best you can say is that he's much better than Bottas.
What makes him "much better"? "Better" I'll grant.
(I will make some points without implicitly insulting you by putting
nonsense like "Ask almost anyone who is truly knowledgeable about F1..."
ahead of my opinions - I will simply state them and let them stand alone
without a fallacious "argument from authority" as you are so keen on).
My point is that even if the car is the major factor, you still need
someone behind the wheel capable of consistently taking advantage.
I've literally never said anything that even remotely disagrees with that.
The Mercedes has not always been (and won't always be) the best car in
every condition. While Hamilton is far, far from invincible, he has
demonstrated his ability to make the best of the packages and conditions
he finds himself with.
Example?
I do not think he's the greatest - in fact I find the greatest (or,
worse, GOAT) a meaningless argument - but he's done enough across enough
seasons, on enough tracks, in enough conditions, in different cars to be
considered one of the greats.
No argument.
Most sensible people realise that the truth is a grey area somewhere
in-between:
- the best driver put in the worst car won't win WDCs.
- the worst driver put in the best car won't win WDCs.
The worst current F1 driver currently out there, stands a very good
chance of winning the WDC provided he is the only one in the best car.
Now you're changing the argument...but I'll come back to it because I'll
still disagree. I do not think the worst driver on the grid right now
put into the Mercedes would be beating Verstappen. At least not
reliably.
That's a matter of opinion, but I didn't change the argument at all.
The change is to now say they're the only one in the car. That removes
the point that the driver really does matter. Hamilton has won WDCs
with very good drivers in the other car in his team. That counts for a
lot.
Nope. That's just removing an obvious limitation.
The worst driver is going to do worse than every other driver if they
are both in the same car. That's what "worst" means.
The car is the best - I don't think anyone disagrees. I would call
anyone who thinks he's worse than "very good" delusional. Where he is >>>> between "very good" and "the best" is the area for debate IMO.
Logically - to get back to the specific argument - Hamilton is *not* WDC >>>> because he's in the best car.
You've moved the negation, so you're now saying something the subject
line (deliberately) does not
Read the subject line then read what I wrote. The subject is saying
that he's winning, and that it's not because he has the best car.
That's what I have said.
The subject says he doesn't have the best car. That is the plain English meaning of the words.
Explain how you believe the negation has moved.
Do these sentences mean the same thing:
'Hamilton is *not* WDC because he's in the best car.'
'Hamilton is WDC *not* because he's in the best car.'
'Hamilton is WDC *not simply* because he's in the best car.'
...hmmm?
That can be demonstrated by simply
pointing out that he's beaten his various teammates most years - and
even Nico relied on some luck. Personally, I would add "simply" or
"solely" to be a little clearer, but it doesn't make it a falsehood.
I do wonder why you care *so* much about Hamilton.
I don't. I just don't like mindless hero worship.
No - you openly trigger any time anyone suggests Hamilton is anything
more than average.
Simply false.
I think Hamilton is one of the very best out there currently, but II think they have some chance, but there is no way of knowing. There is
don't think that anyone who views that matter objectively can state with >>> confidence that he must be the best of the current crop. Anyone
objective would have to admit that Verstappen, Leclerc at the very least >>> would have every chance of winning as many races as Hamilton if they
were in the same car as Hamilton (and there were no team orders of course). >>
similarly no way to know that he's *not* the best, nor that it's all
about the car.
You just said that Verstappen could be expect to beat the worst driver
in F1 if he were in his Red Bull and now you're basically disagreeing
with yourself.
That's something that you seem intent on claiming. I don't know why.
Here are some facts:
- He has set (a lot of) pole-achieving times
Mostly with his teammate 2nd and only by a small fraction.
- He has won (a lot of) races.Mostly with his teammate 2nd and only by a small fraction.
- He has won multiple WDCs
With his teammate mostly finishing close behind him and he's the team
number 1 driver.
- In more than one team
Which is relevant... ...how?
- Against more than one opponent
- No-one else in the current crop can claim the same
True. Being in the best car out there and being among the very best
drivers will win you a lot of races.
Here is my opinion:
- I do not think anyone but Verstappen would be able to beat him
right now in the same car, and I am not sure he would be as
consistent.
But you think Verstappen in the Red Bull could beat the worst driver out there in the Mercedes...
- In the past, I think Vettel would have - I'm not sure now.
- I think Leclerc might be able to in the future, but I don't think
he is currently able to be that consistent.
And you base that on...
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 11:07 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 9:40 a.m., Mark wrote:
Let's break it down logically. There are two factors being discussed in >>>>> this pissing competition: contribution of the car and contribution of >>>>> the driver. (There are obviously other factors too like team, luck, and >>>>> so on).
One group in the world (I won't pick anyone out) is saying "Hamilton is >>>>> the GOAT and it's all about him".
One group in the world (I won't pick anyone out) is saying "Hamilton is >>>>> just in the best car, and it's nothing to do with him".
False dichotomy.
How can it be a false dichotomy when I'm pointing out that it's not a
dichotomy in the first place? It's not either/or, but a range of
factors coming together to produce a winning formula.
You've divided the world into only two groups.
I didn't. Go back and read it. You can find the third group below.
Two extreme positions and a sensible range in-between.
Not a dichotomy.
And for the record, I know that the driver is a part of any winning
package. But ask almost anyone who is truly knowledgeable about F1 and >>>> they will agree that the car is a much larger factor than the driver
these days.
So, the best you can say is that he's much better than Bottas.
What makes him "much better"? "Better" I'll grant.
Because he has been pretty consistently better across tracks and
conditions. It's hardly marginal. And I rate Bottas. Not as much as others, but I rate him.
(I will make some points without implicitly insulting you by putting
nonsense like "Ask almost anyone who is truly knowledgeable about F1..." >>> ahead of my opinions - I will simply state them and let them stand alone >>> without a fallacious "argument from authority" as you are so keen on).
My point is that even if the car is the major factor, you still need
someone behind the wheel capable of consistently taking advantage.
I've literally never said anything that even remotely disagrees with that. >>
The Mercedes has not always been (and won't always be) the best car in
every condition. While Hamilton is far, far from invincible, he has
demonstrated his ability to make the best of the packages and conditions >>> he finds himself with.
Example?
You can choose a number of race situations - not least not giving up in Brazil in 2008 or a number of impressive runs in the wet or on bald
tyres (though let's not mention China 2007) - but I think his single lap performances are particularly impressive.
I do not think he's the greatest - in fact I find the greatest (or,
worse, GOAT) a meaningless argument - but he's done enough across enough >>> seasons, on enough tracks, in enough conditions, in different cars to be >>> considered one of the greats.
No argument.
Most sensible people realise that the truth is a grey area somewhere >>>>> in-between:
- the best driver put in the worst car won't win WDCs.
- the worst driver put in the best car won't win WDCs.
The worst current F1 driver currently out there, stands a very good
chance of winning the WDC provided he is the only one in the best car.
Now you're changing the argument...but I'll come back to it because I'll >>> still disagree. I do not think the worst driver on the grid right now
put into the Mercedes would be beating Verstappen. At least not
reliably.
That's a matter of opinion, but I didn't change the argument at all.
You introduced no competition from someone in equivalent equipment.
That was never mentioned before. That's a change.
The change is to now say they're the only one in the car. That removes
the point that the driver really does matter. Hamilton has won WDCs
with very good drivers in the other car in his team. That counts for a
lot.
Nope. That's just removing an obvious limitation.
The worst driver is going to do worse than every other driver if they
are both in the same car. That's what "worst" means.
I still think you're wrong even with that "limitation".
The car is the best - I don't think anyone disagrees. I would call
anyone who thinks he's worse than "very good" delusional. Where he is >>>>> between "very good" and "the best" is the area for debate IMO.
Logically - to get back to the specific argument - Hamilton is *not* WDC >>>>> because he's in the best car.
You've moved the negation, so you're now saying something the subject
line (deliberately) does not
Read the subject line then read what I wrote. The subject is saying
that he's winning, and that it's not because he has the best car.
That's what I have said.
The subject says he doesn't have the best car. That is the plain English
meaning of the words.
No - it really isn't. Honestly.
Explain how you believe the negation has moved.
Do these sentences mean the same thing:
'Hamilton is *not* WDC because he's in the best car.'
'Hamilton is WDC *not* because he's in the best car.'
'Hamilton is WDC *not simply* because he's in the best car.'
...hmmm?
They are all different, but that
That can be demonstrated by simply
pointing out that he's beaten his various teammates most years - and >>>>> even Nico relied on some luck. Personally, I would add "simply" or
"solely" to be a little clearer, but it doesn't make it a falsehood. >>>>>
I do wonder why you care *so* much about Hamilton.
I don't. I just don't like mindless hero worship.
No - you openly trigger any time anyone suggests Hamilton is anything
more than average.
Simply false.
Okay. That's how it comes across whether you intend it or not.
I think Hamilton is one of the very best out there currently, but I
don't think that anyone who views that matter objectively can state with >>>> confidence that he must be the best of the current crop. Anyone
objective would have to admit that Verstappen, Leclerc at the very least >>>> would have every chance of winning as many races as Hamilton if they
were in the same car as Hamilton (and there were no team orders of course).
I think they have some chance, but there is no way of knowing. There is >>> similarly no way to know that he's *not* the best, nor that it's all
about the car.
You just said that Verstappen could be expect to beat the worst driver
in F1 if he were in his Red Bull and now you're basically disagreeing
with yourself.
The first is an opinion. I am then pointing out that I can't *prove*
it. That isn't disagreeing with myself.
That's something that you seem intent on claiming. I don't know why.
Here are some facts:
- He has set (a lot of) pole-achieving times
Mostly with his teammate 2nd and only by a small fraction.
And?
- He has won (a lot of) races.Mostly with his teammate 2nd and only by a small fraction.
And?
- He has won multiple WDCs
With his teammate mostly finishing close behind him and he's the team
number 1 driver.
And?
- In more than one team
Which is relevant... ...how?
Oh, c'mon. I'll let you answer this one. What do most racing drivers - particularly champions - rate in terms of success? Is it achieving it
all with a single team?
Be honest...in which case you can then explain why you question its relevence.
- Against more than one opponent
- No-one else in the current crop can claim the same
True. Being in the best car out there and being among the very best
drivers will win you a lot of races.
And?
Here is my opinion:
- I do not think anyone but Verstappen would be able to beat him
right now in the same car, and I am not sure he would be as
consistent.
But you think Verstappen in the Red Bull could beat the worst driver out
there in the Mercedes...
Yes.
- In the past, I think Vettel would have - I'm not sure now.
- I think Leclerc might be able to in the future, but I don't think >>> he is currently able to be that consistent.
And you base that on...
My rating based on watching them race. My *opinion*.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 10:23:22 AM UTC-6, XYXPDQ wrote:
ROLOL
get help or log off
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
In article <rm77v1$h05$2@dont-email.me>, notonyourlife@no.no.no.no
says...
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
The line to me, with context, reads 'Hamilton has the best car but that
is not what makes him so good'.
Adding simply back in and it reads 'Hamilton has the best car but that
is not all that makes him so good'.
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:11:13 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 9:04 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:10:09 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 5:38 a.m., Heron wrote:
HAKKINEN: WHAT LEWIS HAS DONE IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS THE BEST CAR >>>>>> https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/10/14/hakkinen-what-lewis-has-done-is-not-simply-because-he-has-the-best-car/
Not SIMPLY because he has the best car.
When you add that word back in, it means that Hakkinen does think he has >>>>> the best car.
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
No he didn't - you just seem to be determined to outdo him in being a
prick.
Yes, he did.
That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
His first language is quite obviously English, and so he knows that when >says something is "not SIMPLY because of [some factor]", it means the
factor itself is not in dispute.
So he dropped it out of the quote and that changed the meaning of the >subject to a falsehood.--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
On 2020-10-14 9:43 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
In article <rm77v1$h05$2@dont-email.me>, notonyourlife@no.no.no.no
says...
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
The line to me, with context, reads 'Hamilton has the best car but that
is not what makes him so good'.
Adding simply back in and it reads 'Hamilton has the best car but that
is not all that makes him so good'.
Then why did he deliberately CHOOSE to excise "simply" from the subject >line?
Mercedes did all that under the technical direction of Paddy Lowe...
Mercedes did all that under the technical direction of Paddy Lowe...
...who joined the team in mid-2013.
Think you'll find car and engine design started was well before PL joined. 6 months ain't long enough. More like 3 years.
On 2020-10-14 12:01 p.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 11:07 a.m., Mark wrote:
How can it be a false dichotomy when I'm pointing out that it's not a
dichotomy in the first place? It's not either/or, but a range of
factors coming together to produce a winning formula.
You've divided the world into only two groups.
I didn't. Go back and read it. You can find the third group below.
Two extreme positions and a sensible range in-between.
Not a dichotomy.
It's still a false position. Your first two groups are TINY.
And for the record, I know that the driver is a part of any winning
package. But ask almost anyone who is truly knowledgeable about F1 and >>>>> they will agree that the car is a much larger factor than the driver >>>>> these days.
So, the best you can say is that he's much better than Bottas.
What makes him "much better"? "Better" I'll grant.
Because he has been pretty consistently better across tracks and
conditions. It's hardly marginal. And I rate Bottas. Not as much as
others, but I rate him.
It absolutely IS marginal, mate:
There have been 11 GPs held so far this year.
Hamilton has taken 9 poles to Bottas 2, but the aggregate percentage difference between them is 0.3%
Qualifying removes a great deal of the obfuscation of running behind
another car versus being in clean air, so that's the very definition of "marginal".
The Mercedes has not always been (and won't always be) the best car in >>>> every condition. While Hamilton is far, far from invincible, he has
demonstrated his ability to make the best of the packages and conditions >>>> he finds himself with.
Example?
You can choose a number of race situations - not least not giving up in
Brazil in 2008 or a number of impressive runs in the wet or on bald
tyres (though let's not mention China 2007) - but I think his single lap
performances are particularly impressive.
Not giving up is what pretty much every race driver at that level does.
Now you're changing the argument...but I'll come back to it because I'll >>>> still disagree. I do not think the worst driver on the grid right now >>>> put into the Mercedes would be beating Verstappen. At least notMost sensible people realise that the truth is a grey area somewhere >>>>>> in-between:
- the best driver put in the worst car won't win WDCs.
- the worst driver put in the best car won't win WDCs.
The worst current F1 driver currently out there, stands a very good
chance of winning the WDC provided he is the only one in the best car. >>>>
reliably.
That's a matter of opinion, but I didn't change the argument at all.
You introduced no competition from someone in equivalent equipment.
That was never mentioned before. That's a change.
Then you're argument gets reduced to:
"The worst driver in F1 can't beat the best driver in F1 if they're both
in the best car"...
...which is just inane.
The change is to now say they're the only one in the car. That removes >>>> the point that the driver really does matter. Hamilton has won WDCs
with very good drivers in the other car in his team. That counts for a >>>> lot.
Nope. That's just removing an obvious limitation.
The worst driver is going to do worse than every other driver if they
are both in the same car. That's what "worst" means.
I still think you're wrong even with that "limitation".
The car is the best - I don't think anyone disagrees. I would call >>>>>> anyone who thinks he's worse than "very good" delusional. Where he is >>>>>> between "very good" and "the best" is the area for debate IMO.
Logically - to get back to the specific argument - Hamilton is *not* WDC >>>>>> because he's in the best car.
You've moved the negation, so you're now saying something the subject >>>>> line (deliberately) does not
Read the subject line then read what I wrote. The subject is saying
that he's winning, and that it's not because he has the best car.
That's what I have said.
The subject says he doesn't have the best car. That is the plain English >>> meaning of the words.
No - it really isn't. Honestly.
It really is. Honestly.
Explain how you believe the negation has moved.
Do these sentences mean the same thing:
'Hamilton is *not* WDC because he's in the best car.'
'Hamilton is WDC *not* because he's in the best car.'
'Hamilton is WDC *not simply* because he's in the best car.'
...hmmm?
They are all different, but that
But that... ...what?
That can be demonstrated by simply
pointing out thathe's beaten his various teammates most years - and >>>>>> even Nico relied on some luck. Personally, I would add "simply" or >>>>>> "solely" to be a little clearer, but it doesn't make it a falsehood. >>>>>>
I do wonder why you care *so* much about Hamilton.
I don't. I just don't like mindless hero worship.
No - you openly trigger any time anyone suggests Hamilton is anything
more than average.
Simply false.
Okay. That's how it comes across whether you intend it or not.
Quote the words that actually "come across" that way.
I think Hamilton is one of the very best out there currently, but I
don't think that anyone who views that matter objectively can state with >>>>> confidence that he must be the best of the current crop. Anyone
objective would have to admit that Verstappen, Leclerc at the very least >>>>> would have every chance of winning as many races as Hamilton if they >>>>> were in the same car as Hamilton (and there were no team orders of course).
I think they have some chance, but there is no way of knowing. There is >>>> similarly no way to know that he's *not* the best, nor that it's all
about the car.
You just said that Verstappen could be expect to beat the worst driver
in F1 if he were in his Red Bull and now you're basically disagreeing
with yourself.
The first is an opinion. I am then pointing out that I can't *prove*
it. That isn't disagreeing with myself.
It IS disagreeing with yourself sunshine.
That's something that you seem intent on claiming. I don't know why.
Here are some facts:
- He has set (a lot of) pole-achieving times
Mostly with his teammate 2nd and only by a small fraction.
And?
Then he's not that much better than his teammates...
...and no one is anointing them GOAT.
- He has won (a lot of) races.Mostly with his teammate 2nd and only by a small fraction.
And?
- He has won multiple WDCs
With his teammate mostly finishing close behind him and he's the team
number 1 driver.
And?
- In more than one team
Which is relevant... ...how?
Oh, c'mon. I'll let you answer this one. What do most racing drivers -
particularly champions - rate in terms of success? Is it achieving it
all with a single team?
I don't know. It's your point which you claim is relevant.
When Hamilton won in 2008, he had Kovaleinin for a teammate and wouldn't have won the WDC if it weren't for the 3 retirements by Massa and a bit
of luck at the very end in Brazil.
Be honest...in which case you can then explain why you question its
relevence.
- Against more than one opponent
- No-one else in the current crop can claim the same
True. Being in the best car out there and being among the very best
drivers will win you a lot of races.
And?
And thus you cannot claim greatness based on that. That is what happens
when you're just among the best and you're in the best car.
If the driver is a big a factor as you think, why is it that Hamilton finished:
5th in the WDC in 2009
4th in 2010 (with Button right with him in 5th)
6th in 2011 (when Button was capable of 2nd)
4th in 2012 (with Button in 5th)
4th in 2013 (with Rosberg 6th)
If the driver is as responsible for the success as you want to claim,
how is it he didn't do better?
I think he's among the best out there...
...but honestly not demonstrably much better than those the other best drivers.
Here is my opinion:
- I do not think anyone but Verstappen would be able to beat him >>>> right now in the same car, and I am not sure he would be as
consistent.
But you think Verstappen in the Red Bull could beat the worst driver out >>> there in the Mercedes...
Yes.
How is that in the least logical?
You seem to want to have it both ways.
- In the past, I think Vettel would have - I'm not sure now.
- I think Leclerc might be able to in the future, but I don't think >>>> he is currently able to be that consistent.
And you base that on...
My rating based on watching them race. My *opinion*.
It is very, very clear that the Ferrari is not up to speed, and that
means Leclerc is not going to be as consistent this year. He's chosen to push hard, and that leads to inconsistency.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
His first language is quite obviously English, and so he knows that when >>says something is "not SIMPLY because of [some factor]", it means the >>factor itself is not in dispute.
Your English comprehension seems to be on a par with your knowledge of
F1 - you actually know a little but think you know a lot.
So he dropped it out of the quote and that changed the meaning of the >>subject to a falsehood.
My understanding too. And I'm a native who's prepared to fling Fowler
at an argument if need be.
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
My understanding too. And I'm a native who's prepared to fling
Fowler at an argument if need be.
I thought that you were not a fan of Fowler, Phil. ;-)
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a >>>direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory* >statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.
--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32His first language is quite obviously English, and so he knows that when >>>says something is "not SIMPLY because of [some factor]", it means the >>>factor itself is not in dispute.
Your English comprehension seems to be on a par with your knowledge of
F1 - you actually know a little but think you know a lot.
Your Dunning-Krugerism is even better still.
So he dropped it out of the quote and that changed the meaning of the >>>subject to a falsehood.
My understanding too. And I'm a native who's prepared to fling Fowler
at an argument if need be. Heck, I could fling Cicero at this, as it's
a classic /exeptio/ (the fact that there was perceved a need to draw >attention to the existence of something that wasn't in B acknowledges
that there are things in B).
Phil
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
My understanding too. And I'm a native who's prepared to fling Fowler
at an argument if need be.
I thought that you were not a fan of Fowler, Phil. ;-)
Unlike me, I'm mellowing beautifully :)
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 15:01:25 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+u...@asdf.org>
wrote:
[...]
Unlike me, I'm mellowing beautifully :)Aren't we all, lol
Unlike me, I'm mellowing beautifully :)
Phil
Sir Tim <ben...@brooklands.co.uk> writes:
Phil Carmody <pc+u...@asdf.org> wrote:
My understanding too. And I'm a native who's prepared to fling Fowler
at an argument if need be.
I thought that you were not a fan of Fowler, Phil. ;-)You remember correctly, I am genuinely impressed. As I typed that, I realised it was at risk of being misunderstood. However, I was not
thinking of DoMEU at the time, quite the contrary. I particularly hate
that one book, and the way it's always used as an appeal to authority, mostly as I disagree with many of his conclusions. However, a book of
his that I am happy to have on my bookshelf (OK, in the loo, I confess),
is /The King's English/, from 20 years earlier, and it's clear from the contrast between the two that Fowler had turned seriously cranky as he
got older.
Unlike me, I'm mellowing beautifully :)
Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/
Then why did he deliberately CHOOSE to excise "simply" from the
subject line?
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory* statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory*
statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.
"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that
makes no difference.
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory*
statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.
"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that
makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed.
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a >>>>>> direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory* >>>> statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.
"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that
makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed.
So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because
he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English?
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes >>>>> isn't the best car out there?
Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that. ===========================================
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences. >>>>> "A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory* >>>>> statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a >>>>>>> direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does >>>>>> not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent. >>>>>
"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that
makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed.
So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because
he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English?
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was
written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in
isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no
unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a
sentence.
Technically, the rest of your posts aren't looking that
meaningful either.
Probably time for you to stop digging.
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a >>>>>> direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory* >>>> statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.
"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that
makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed.
So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because
he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English?
On 2020-10-20 3:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences. >>>>> "A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory* >>>>> statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a >>>>>>> direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does >>>>>> not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent. >>>>>
"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that
makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed.
So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because
he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English?
Can you not read?
I literally just said it doesn't absolutely rule it out.
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking
photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are
just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the
connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find
online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the
various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> >>>>> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody: ==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out >>>>>> there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes >>>>>> isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
===========================================Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences. >>>>>> "A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory* >>>>>> statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a >>>>>>>> direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does >>>>>>> not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent. >>>>>>
"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor - >>>>> you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that
makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed.
So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because
he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English?
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was
written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in
isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no
unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a
sentence.
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was
his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that
[ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have
added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out
B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's
true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about
Heron was unfounded.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out
B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's
true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about
Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true.
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence.
On 2020-10-20 8:40 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking
photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are
just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the
connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find
online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the
various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> >>>>>> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody:
==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out >>>>>>> there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes >>>>>>> isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
===========================================Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences. >>>>>>> "A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory* >>>>>>> statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a >>>>>>>>> direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does >>>>>>>> not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent. >>>>>>>
"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor - >>>>>> you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that
makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed.
So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because
he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English?
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was
written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in
isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no
unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a
sentence.
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was
his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that
[ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have
added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out
B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's
true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about
Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true.
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 23:27:30 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-20 8:40 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking
photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are
just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the
connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find
online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the
various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody:
==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out >>>>>>>> there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes >>>>>>>> isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
===========================================Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences. >>>>>>>> "A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory* >>>>>>>> statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a >>>>>>>>>> direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does >>>>>>>>> not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent. >>>>>>>>
"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor - >>>>>>> you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that >>>>>>> makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed.
So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because >>>>> he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English?
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was
written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in
isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no
unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a
sentence.
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was
his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that
[ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have
added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out
B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's
true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about
Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true. >>
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence.
Nobody is denying he changed the wording or that his changed wording
changed the emphasis, if not the meaning. What is at issue here is
your specific claim that he said *Mercedes does not have the best
car.* He didn't say that.
Heron and you are mirror images of each other - he wants to make out
that the car has little or nothing to do with Hamilton's success; you
want to make out that the success is entirely due to the car. As I
have multiple times, Heron is a prick but as I also said, you just
seem to be determined to outdo him in being one.
In article <rmokci$3t6$1@dont-email.me>, notonyourlife@no.no.no.no
says...
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out
B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's
true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about
Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true. >>
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence.
ffs.
A is not due to B does not mean that B is not true.
'LH winning is not due to Mercedes having the best car' DOES NOT mean
that Mercedes don't have the best car.
Yes, Heron did change the wording of the sentence. Yes, that DID change
the meaning of the sentence. We all accept that. Your interpretation
however, that that change meant that Mercedes do not have the best car,
is simply not true.
A is not due to B does not mean that B is not true.
'LH winning is not due to Mercedes having the best car' DOES NOT mean
that Mercedes don't have the best car.
Yes, Heron did change the wording of the sentence. Yes, that DID change
the meaning of the sentence. We all accept that. Your interpretation however, that that change meant that Mercedes do not have the best car,
is simply not true.
That was not my interpretation.
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the
Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
On 2020-10-21 12:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 23:27:30 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-20 8:40 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking
photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are
just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the
connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find
online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the
various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody:
==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out >>>>>>>>> there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes >>>>>>>>> isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
===========================================Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences. >>>>>>>>> "A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory*That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a >>>>>>>>>>> direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does >>>>>>>>>> not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent. >>>>>>>>>
statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.
"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor - >>>>>>>> you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that >>>>>>>> makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed.
So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because >>>>>> he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English?
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was
written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in
isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no
unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a
sentence.
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was >>>> his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that >>>> [ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have
added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out
B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's
true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about
Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true.
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence.
Nobody is denying he changed the wording or that his changed wording
changed the emphasis, if not the meaning. What is at issue here is
your specific claim that he said *Mercedes does not have the best
car.* He didn't say that.
That was his intent.
--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
Heron and you are mirror images of each other - he wants to make out
that the car has little or nothing to do with Hamilton's success; you
want to make out that the success is entirely due to the car. As I
have multiple times, Heron is a prick but as I also said, you just
seem to be determined to outdo him in being one.
Nope. I have never said or so much as implied that the car is entirely
the reason for his success...
...but it is interesting how you chose to phrase what you claim of me in >absolute terms ("entirely") and use more temperate language for Heron >("little or nothing")
:-)
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:35:57 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 23:27:30 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-20 8:40 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking >>>>> photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are
just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the
connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find
online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the
various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> >>>>> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody:
==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out >>>>>>>>>> there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
===========================================Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because >>>>>>> he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English?The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences. >>>>>>>>>> "A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory*That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a >>>>>>>>>>>> direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does >>>>>>>>>>> not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent. >>>>>>>>>>
statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B.
"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor - >>>>>>>>> you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that >>>>>>>>> makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed. >>>>>>>
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was >>>>>> written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in
isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no
unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a
sentence.
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was >>>>> his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that >>>>> [ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have >>>>> added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out >>>>> B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's >>>>> true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about
Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true.
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence.
Nobody is denying he changed the wording or that his changed wording
changed the emphasis, if not the meaning. What is at issue here is
your specific claim that he said *Mercedes does not have the best
car.* He didn't say that.
That was his intent.
It has nothing to do with what you think his *intent* was, it was
about you making a specific claim about what he *said*.
On 2020-10-21 2:01 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:35:57 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 23:27:30 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-20 8:40 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking >>>>>> photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are >>>>>> just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the
connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find >>>>>> online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the >>>>>> various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> >>>>>> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody:
==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out >>>>>>>>>>> there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
===========================================Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was >>>>>>> written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in >>>>>>> isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no >>>>>>> unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as aSo, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because >>>>>>>> he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English? >>>>>>>"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory*
statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B. >>>>>>>>>>
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that >>>>>>>>>> makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed. >>>>>>>>
sentence.
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was >>>>>> his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that >>>>>> [ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have >>>>>> added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out >>>>>> B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's >>>>>> true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about
Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true.
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence.
Nobody is denying he changed the wording or that his changed wording
changed the emphasis, if not the meaning. What is at issue here is
your specific claim that he said *Mercedes does not have the best
car.* He didn't say that.
That was his intent.
It has nothing to do with what you think his *intent* was, it was
about you making a specific claim about what he *said*.
It IS what he said.
He took a statement that had an explicit meaning in English...
...and DELIBERATELY CHANGED IT.
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:14:34 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 2:01 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:35:57 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 23:27:30 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-20 8:40 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking >>>>>>> photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are >>>>>>> just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the >>>>>>> connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find >>>>>>> online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the >>>>>>> various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody:
==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out >>>>>>>>>>>> there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
===========================================Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was >>>>>>>> written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in >>>>>>>> isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no >>>>>>>> unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a >>>>>>>> sentence.So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because >>>>>>>>> he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English? >>>>>>>>"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory*
statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B. >>>>>>>>>>>
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that >>>>>>>>>>> makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed. >>>>>>>>>
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was >>>>>>> his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that >>>>>>> [ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have >>>>>>> added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out >>>>>>> B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's >>>>>>> true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about >>>>>>> Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true.
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence.
Nobody is denying he changed the wording or that his changed wording >>>>> changed the emphasis, if not the meaning. What is at issue here is
your specific claim that he said *Mercedes does not have the best
car.* He didn't say that.
That was his intent.
It has nothing to do with what you think his *intent* was, it was
about you making a specific claim about what he *said*.
It IS what he said.
He took a statement that had an explicit meaning in English...
...and DELIBERATELY CHANGED IT.
Nobody is disputing that he changed it - what we are arguing is what
he actually said, not what you interpret as the intent of what he
said.
You are sounding more and more like a certain US president who works
on the basis that no matter how blatantly untrue something is, if he
keeps saying it, enough people will believe it is true. The difference
is that he has a hardened cadre of followers who simply believe every
word he says; I doubt if you have many followers like that around
here.
On 2020-10-23 1:16 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:14:34 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 2:01 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:35:57 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 23:27:30 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-20 8:40 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking >>>>>>>> photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are >>>>>>>> just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the >>>>>>>> connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find >>>>>>>> online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the >>>>>>>> various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody:
==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
===========================================Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was >>>>>>>>> written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in >>>>>>>>> isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no >>>>>>>>> unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a >>>>>>>>> sentence.So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because >>>>>>>>>> he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English? >>>>>>>>>"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory*
statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B. >>>>>>>>>>>>
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that >>>>>>>>>>>> makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed. >>>>>>>>>>
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was >>>>>>>> his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that >>>>>>>> [ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have >>>>>>>> added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out >>>>>>>> B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's >>>>>>>> true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about >>>>>>>> Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true.
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence.
Nobody is denying he changed the wording or that his changed wording >>>>>> changed the emphasis, if not the meaning. What is at issue here is >>>>>> your specific claim that he said *Mercedes does not have the best
car.* He didn't say that.
That was his intent.
It has nothing to do with what you think his *intent* was, it was
about you making a specific claim about what he *said*.
It IS what he said.
He took a statement that had an explicit meaning in English...
...and DELIBERATELY CHANGED IT.
Nobody is disputing that he changed it - what we are arguing is what
he actually said, not what you interpret as the intent of what he
said.
I'm sorry, but deliberately replacing an unambiguous statement with an >ambiguous one that is more in line with your stated position on
something is obvious lying.
You are sounding more and more like a certain US president who works
on the basis that no matter how blatantly untrue something is, if he
keeps saying it, enough people will believe it is true. The difference
is that he has a hardened cadre of followers who simply believe every
word he says; I doubt if you have many followers like that around
here.
The one blatantly saying something untrue is Heron. This was yet another >attempt to spin Hamilton's success as having less to do with the car
than it actually does.
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 08:43:18 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-23 1:16 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:14:34 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 2:01 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:35:57 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 23:27:30 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-20 8:40 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking >>>>>>>>> photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are >>>>>>>>> just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the >>>>>>>>> connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find >>>>>>>>> online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the >>>>>>>>> various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody:
==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
===========================================Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that.
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was >>>>>>>>>> written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in >>>>>>>>>> isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no >>>>>>>>>> unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a >>>>>>>>>> sentence.So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory*
statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that >>>>>>>>>>>>> makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed. >>>>>>>>>>>
he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English? >>>>>>>>>>
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was
his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that
[ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have >>>>>>>>> added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out >>>>>>>>> B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's >>>>>>>>> true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about >>>>>>>>> Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true.
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence.
Nobody is denying he changed the wording or that his changed wording >>>>>>> changed the emphasis, if not the meaning. What is at issue here is >>>>>>> your specific claim that he said *Mercedes does not have the best >>>>>>> car.* He didn't say that.
That was his intent.
It has nothing to do with what you think his *intent* was, it was
about you making a specific claim about what he *said*.
It IS what he said.
He took a statement that had an explicit meaning in English...
...and DELIBERATELY CHANGED IT.
Nobody is disputing that he changed it - what we are arguing is what
he actually said, not what you interpret as the intent of what he
said.
I'm sorry, but deliberately replacing an unambiguous statement with an
ambiguous one that is more in line with your stated position on
something is obvious lying.
You are sounding more and more like a certain US president who works
on the basis that no matter how blatantly untrue something is, if he
keeps saying it, enough people will believe it is true. The difference
is that he has a hardened cadre of followers who simply believe every
word he says; I doubt if you have many followers like that around
here.
The one blatantly saying something untrue is Heron. This was yet another
attempt to spin Hamilton's success as having less to do with the car
than it actually does.
Probably - which, as I observed earlier, just makes him your mirror
image.
What he did *not* say - as you claimed and have refused to retract -
is that Mercedes do not have the best car.
On 2020-10-23 9:44 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 08:43:18 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-23 1:16 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:14:34 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 2:01 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:35:57 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 23:27:30 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-20 8:40 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:Nobody is denying he changed the wording or that his changed wording >>>>>>>> changed the emphasis, if not the meaning. What is at issue here is >>>>>>>> your specific claim that he said *Mercedes does not have the best >>>>>>>> car.* He didn't say that.
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking
photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are >>>>>>>>>> just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the >>>>>>>>>> connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find >>>>>>>>>> online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the >>>>>>>>>> various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:[SNIPPED stuff]
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody:
==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that. >>>>>>>>>> ===========================================
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was >>>>>>>>>>> written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in >>>>>>>>>>> isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no >>>>>>>>>>> unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a >>>>>>>>>>> sentence.So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory*
statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that
makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed. >>>>>>>>>>>>
he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English? >>>>>>>>>>>
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was
his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that
[ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have
added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out
B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's
true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about >>>>>>>>>> Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true.
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence. >>>>>>>>
That was his intent.
It has nothing to do with what you think his *intent* was, it was
about you making a specific claim about what he *said*.
It IS what he said.
He took a statement that had an explicit meaning in English...
...and DELIBERATELY CHANGED IT.
Nobody is disputing that he changed it - what we are arguing is what
he actually said, not what you interpret as the intent of what he
said.
I'm sorry, but deliberately replacing an unambiguous statement with an
ambiguous one that is more in line with your stated position on
something is obvious lying.
You are sounding more and more like a certain US president who works
on the basis that no matter how blatantly untrue something is, if he
keeps saying it, enough people will believe it is true. The difference >>>> is that he has a hardened cadre of followers who simply believe every
word he says; I doubt if you have many followers like that around
here.
The one blatantly saying something untrue is Heron. This was yet another >>> attempt to spin Hamilton's success as having less to do with the car
than it actually does.
Probably - which, as I observed earlier, just makes him your mirror
image.
Nope.
Because the truth is that a HUGE part of Hamilton's success IS THE CAR.
It's not all of it... ...but anyone who actually understands F1 would
admit that the car is a much bigger part of any win than the driver
nearly every race.
Let us assume that Hamilton is the best driver in F1 at the moment, and >that... ....George Russell is the worst.
Have them swap cars and who do you think is going to win?
What he did *not* say - as you claimed and have refused to retract -
is that Mercedes do not have the best car.
That was his intent.
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 18:44:05 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-23 9:44 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 08:43:18 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-23 1:16 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:14:34 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 2:01 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:35:57 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 23:27:30 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-20 8:40 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:Nobody is denying he changed the wording or that his changed wording >>>>>>>>> changed the emphasis, if not the meaning. What is at issue here is >>>>>>>>> your specific claim that he said *Mercedes does not have the best >>>>>>>>> car.* He didn't say that.
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking
photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are >>>>>>>>>>> just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the >>>>>>>>>>> connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find >>>>>>>>>>> online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the >>>>>>>>>>> various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [SNIPPED stuff]
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody:
==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that. >>>>>>>>>>> ===========================================
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was >>>>>>>>>>>> written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in >>>>>>>>>>>> isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no >>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a >>>>>>>>>>>> sentence.So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory*
statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that
makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English? >>>>>>>>>>>>
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was
his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that
[ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have
added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out
B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's
true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about >>>>>>>>>>> Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true.
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence. >>>>>>>>>
That was his intent.
It has nothing to do with what you think his *intent* was, it was >>>>>>> about you making a specific claim about what he *said*.
It IS what he said.
He took a statement that had an explicit meaning in English...
...and DELIBERATELY CHANGED IT.
Nobody is disputing that he changed it - what we are arguing is what >>>>> he actually said, not what you interpret as the intent of what he
said.
I'm sorry, but deliberately replacing an unambiguous statement with an >>>> ambiguous one that is more in line with your stated position on
something is obvious lying.
You are sounding more and more like a certain US president who works >>>>> on the basis that no matter how blatantly untrue something is, if he >>>>> keeps saying it, enough people will believe it is true. The difference >>>>> is that he has a hardened cadre of followers who simply believe every >>>>> word he says; I doubt if you have many followers like that around
here.
The one blatantly saying something untrue is Heron. This was yet another >>>> attempt to spin Hamilton's success as having less to do with the car
than it actually does.
Probably - which, as I observed earlier, just makes him your mirror
image.
Nope.
Because the truth is that a HUGE part of Hamilton's success IS THE CAR.
It's not all of it... ...but anyone who actually understands F1 would
admit that the car is a much bigger part of any win than the driver
nearly every race.
Everyone with half a brain knows it is a combination of driver *and*
car. What the actual weighting is cannot be measured, it is a matter
of opinion. A lot of people who know a lot more than you do about F1
regard the contribution of the driver to be much more important than
you do. I prefer to take the opinion of the experts.
Let us assume that Hamilton is the best driver in F1 at the moment, and
that... ....George Russell is the worst.
Have them swap cars and who do you think is going to win?
What he did *not* say - as you claimed and have refused to retract -
is that Mercedes do not have the best car.
That was his intent.
Have you now added mindreading to your driving skills?
Anyway, I'll take it as a begrudging admission that he did not say
that Mercedes do not have the best car.
On 2020-10-24 2:21 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 18:44:05 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-23 9:44 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 08:43:18 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-23 1:16 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:14:34 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 2:01 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:35:57 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 23:27:30 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-20 8:40 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:Nobody is denying he changed the wording or that his changed wording >>>>>>>>>> changed the emphasis, if not the meaning. What is at issue here is >>>>>>>>>> your specific claim that he said *Mercedes does not have the best >>>>>>>>>> car.* He didn't say that.
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking
photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are >>>>>>>>>>>> just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the >>>>>>>>>>>> connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find
online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the
various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [SNIPPED stuff]
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody: >>>>>>>>>>>> ==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that. >>>>>>>>>>>> ===========================================
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory*
statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that
makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true.
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed.
So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because
he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in >>>>>>>>>>>>> isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no >>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a >>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence.
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was
his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that
[ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have
added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out
B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's
true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about >>>>>>>>>>>> Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true.
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence. >>>>>>>>>>
That was his intent.
It has nothing to do with what you think his *intent* was, it was >>>>>>>> about you making a specific claim about what he *said*.
It IS what he said.
He took a statement that had an explicit meaning in English... >>>>>>>
...and DELIBERATELY CHANGED IT.
Nobody is disputing that he changed it - what we are arguing is what >>>>>> he actually said, not what you interpret as the intent of what he
said.
I'm sorry, but deliberately replacing an unambiguous statement with an >>>>> ambiguous one that is more in line with your stated position on
something is obvious lying.
You are sounding more and more like a certain US president who works >>>>>> on the basis that no matter how blatantly untrue something is, if he >>>>>> keeps saying it, enough people will believe it is true. The difference >>>>>> is that he has a hardened cadre of followers who simply believe every >>>>>> word he says; I doubt if you have many followers like that around
here.
The one blatantly saying something untrue is Heron. This was yet another >>>>> attempt to spin Hamilton's success as having less to do with the car >>>>> than it actually does.
Probably - which, as I observed earlier, just makes him your mirror
image.
Nope.
Because the truth is that a HUGE part of Hamilton's success IS THE CAR.
It's not all of it... ...but anyone who actually understands F1 would
admit that the car is a much bigger part of any win than the driver
nearly every race.
Everyone with half a brain knows it is a combination of driver *and*
car. What the actual weighting is cannot be measured, it is a matter
of opinion. A lot of people who know a lot more than you do about F1
regard the contribution of the driver to be much more important than
you do. I prefer to take the opinion of the experts.
Let us assume that Hamilton is the best driver in F1 at the moment, and
that... ....George Russell is the worst.
Have them swap cars and who do you think is going to win?
What he did *not* say - as you claimed and have refused to retract -
is that Mercedes do not have the best car.
That was his intent.
Have you now added mindreading to your driving skills?
Anyway, I'll take it as a begrudging admission that he did not say
that Mercedes do not have the best car.
His intent was not to obfuscate the fact that the source was explicitly >saying that Mercedes has the best car.
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 20:46:30 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-24 2:21 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 18:44:05 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-23 9:44 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 08:43:18 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-23 1:16 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:14:34 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 2:01 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:35:57 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 23:27:30 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-20 8:40 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:Nobody is denying he changed the wording or that his changed wording
The diagram image below shows the equipment in use. I've tried taking
photos of the rear but they aren't particularly clear as there are
just too many cables in the way and I haven't figured out all the >>>>>>>>>>>>> connections between the various bits of kit. I have managed to find
online manuals for all the equipment and will include images of the
various pieces below.
Working from the top down:
Here are the outputs available on the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:40:31 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:53:35 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 7:08 a.m., Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:59:08 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 9:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [SNIPPED stuff]
Key point added back that was snipped by Phil Carmody: >>>>>>>>>>>>> ==========================================
Martin Harran:
Has anyone here ever said that the Mercedes isn't the best car out
there? Has anyone in the whole wide world ever said that the Mercedes
isn't the best car out there?
Alan Baker:
Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> ===========================================
That is an irrelevancy. We are discussing the changing of what was"A is not due to B" does not rule out B being a contributory factor -That is WHY he dropped the word "simply" from what was otherwise a
direct quote.
The word 'simply' is irrelevant. Saying that A is not due to B does
not mean B does not exist, it just means that they are independent.
The word 'simply' is very important for understanding the sentences.
"A is not due to B" and "A is not simply due to B" are *contradictory*
statements. The latter implies that A is partly due to B. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you are essentially trying to add importance to a difference that
makes no difference.
It doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It doesn't explicitly rule it IN, though.
"A is not SIMPLY due to B" explicitly states that B contributed.
So, when I say Boris Johnston isn't Prime Minister of the UK because
he is English, I am claiming that Boris Johnston isn't English? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
written from one thing to another, not any individual sentence in
isolation. Technically, without context, your sentence carries no
unambiguous meaning, and so it has failed in its sole job as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence.
It's the exact same principle. The point I was challenging Alan on was
his claim that "Heron, just now, in his subject line tried to say that
[ Mercedes isn't the best car out there]"
It's in the bit that you snipped out for some reason and which I have
added back in above.
Alan has now accepted that 'It ["A is not due to B" does not rule out
B being a contributory factor] doesn't absolutely rule it out, that's
true' which is a de facto admission that his original claim about >>>>>>>>>>>>> Heron was unfounded.
No. It is NOT.
Because the statement "A is not SIMPLE due to B" IS explicit that B is true.
Heron removed that, so he changed the meaning of the sentence. >>>>>>>>>>>
changed the emphasis, if not the meaning. What is at issue here is >>>>>>>>>>> your specific claim that he said *Mercedes does not have the best >>>>>>>>>>> car.* He didn't say that.
That was his intent.
It has nothing to do with what you think his *intent* was, it was >>>>>>>>> about you making a specific claim about what he *said*.
It IS what he said.
He took a statement that had an explicit meaning in English... >>>>>>>>
...and DELIBERATELY CHANGED IT.
Nobody is disputing that he changed it - what we are arguing is what >>>>>>> he actually said, not what you interpret as the intent of what he >>>>>>> said.
I'm sorry, but deliberately replacing an unambiguous statement with an >>>>>> ambiguous one that is more in line with your stated position on
something is obvious lying.
You are sounding more and more like a certain US president who works >>>>>>> on the basis that no matter how blatantly untrue something is, if he >>>>>>> keeps saying it, enough people will believe it is true. The difference >>>>>>> is that he has a hardened cadre of followers who simply believe every >>>>>>> word he says; I doubt if you have many followers like that around >>>>>>> here.
The one blatantly saying something untrue is Heron. This was yet another >>>>>> attempt to spin Hamilton's success as having less to do with the car >>>>>> than it actually does.
Probably - which, as I observed earlier, just makes him your mirror
image.
Nope.
Because the truth is that a HUGE part of Hamilton's success IS THE CAR. >>>>
It's not all of it... ...but anyone who actually understands F1 would
admit that the car is a much bigger part of any win than the driver
nearly every race.
Everyone with half a brain knows it is a combination of driver *and*
car. What the actual weighting is cannot be measured, it is a matter
of opinion. A lot of people who know a lot more than you do about F1
regard the contribution of the driver to be much more important than
you do. I prefer to take the opinion of the experts.
Let us assume that Hamilton is the best driver in F1 at the moment, and >>>> that... ....George Russell is the worst.
Have them swap cars and who do you think is going to win?
What he did *not* say - as you claimed and have refused to retract - >>>>> is that Mercedes do not have the best car.
That was his intent.
Have you now added mindreading to your driving skills?
Anyway, I'll take it as a begrudging admission that he did not say
that Mercedes do not have the best car.
His intent was not to obfuscate the fact that the source was explicitly
saying that Mercedes has the best car.
Keep digging ... it's not that far to Australia.
Why do you think he left out the word that makes it clear the original
quote was explicitly stating that...
...Hamilton has the best car?
On 26/10/2020 1:34 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
Why do you think he left out the word that makes it clear the original
quote was explicitly stating that...
...Hamilton has the best car?
With no wish to keep this tiresome thread going, surely it should have
been 'better car', because 'best' refers to more than two in the
comparison and implies somehow that Bottas' car is not equal.
Why do you think he left out the word that makes it clear the
original quote was explicitly stating that...
...Hamilton has the best car?
Alan Baker wrote:
Why do you think he left out the word that makes it clear the
original quote was explicitly stating that...
...Hamilton has the best car?
To bait some poor fool, obviously.
...and to make him look even more the fool he didn't leave it out of
the post.
"HAKKINEN: WHAT LEWIS HAS DONE IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS THE BEST
CAR"
As trolls go I'd have given it 1/10 initially but the poor fool has
elevated that to around a 7/10.
:)
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 250:55:41 |
| Calls: | 132 |
| Files: | 706 |
| Messages: | 83,802 |