Mercedes' Wolff Hopes rCyDisillusionedrCO Lewis Hamilton DoesnrCOt Quit F1
News wrote:
Mercedes' Wolff Hopes rCyDisillusionedrCO Lewis Hamilton DoesnrCOt Quit F1 >>https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a38537887/mercedes-wolff-disillusioned-hamilton-doesnt-quit-f1/
As a child how many times were you asked "show me on the doll where he touched you".
Must have been often to carry as much hurt as you.
On 12/17/2021 3:51 PM, Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
Mercedes' Wolff Hopes rCyDisillusionedrCO Lewis Hamilton DoesnrCOt Quit F1
As a child how many times were you asked "show me on the doll where
he touched you".
Must have been often to carry as much hurt as you.
When were you ever relevant?
As a child how many times were you asked "show me on the doll where he touched you".
Must have been often to carry as much hurt as you.
News wrote:
On 12/17/2021 3:51 PM, Bigbird wrote:https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a38537887/mercedes-wolff-disillusioned-hamilton-doesnt-quit-f1/
News wrote:
Mercedes' Wolff Hopes rCyDisillusionedrCO Lewis Hamilton DoesnrCOt Quit >>>> F1
As a child how many times were you asked "show me on the doll where
he touched you".
Must have been often to carry as much hurt as you.
When were you ever relevant?
Don't cry, dickless; the only thing I touched was a nerve.
On 12/17/2021 4:31 PM, Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
On 12/17/2021 3:51 PM, Bigbird wrote:
News wrote:
Mercedes' Wolff Hopes rCyDisillusionedrCO Lewis Hamilton DoesnrCOt Quit F1
As a child how many times were you asked "show me on the doll
where he touched you".
Must have been often to carry as much hurt as you.
When were you ever relevant?
Don't cry, dickless; the only thing I touched was a nerve.
Such a revealing claim. Are you also a kiddie diddler?
Such a revealing claim. Are you also a kiddie diddler?
As a child how many times were you asked "show me on the doll where he touched you".
Must have been often to carry as much hurt as you.
As a child how many times were you asked "show me on the doll where he touched you".
Must have been often to carry as much hurt as you.
Mercedes' Wolff Hopes rCyDisillusionedrCO Lewis Hamilton DoesnrCOt Quit F1Oh, bleep. This should make him mad followed by determined to prove it was a fluke. And Max should be determined to prove it wasn't. 2022 should be even more epic between them (assuming both teams get the new rules right).
https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a38537887/mercedes-wolff-disillusioned-hamilton-doesnt-quit-f1/
On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 8:01:36 AM UTC-8, News wrote:
Mercedes' Wolff Hopes rCyDisillusionedrCO Lewis Hamilton DoesnrCOt Quit F1 >>
https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a38537887/mercedes-wolff- disillusioned-hamilton-doesnt-quit-f1/
Oh, bleep. This should make him mad followed by determined to prove it
was a fluke. And Max should be determined to prove it wasn't. 2022
should be even more epic between them (assuming both teams get the new
rules right).
assuming both teams get
the new rules right.
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get
the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is in
fact what he did.
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get
the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is in
fact what he did.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get
the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them
accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is in
fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get
the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them accordingly.
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people who
pay his wages?
On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 6:02:53 AM UTC-8, Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get
the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them
accordingly.
The 2022 car design rules have been finalized several years ago and the teams even got an extra year to design and build the new cars. It's up to each team to maximize performance according to those rules. That said, expect to see lots of tweaks as the season progresses.
You're speaking at cross purposes.fuck off asshole
Bigbird is talking about the overall sporting rules and regulationsrCoin particular those pertaining to on-track activities, and you're talking
about the rules pertaining to the designing and constructing the car.
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is in
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them
accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people who
pay his wages?
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 6:02:53 AM UTC-8, Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get
the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them accordingly.
The 2022 car design rules have been finalized several years ago and
the teams even got an extra year to design and build the new cars.
It's up to each team to maximize performance according to those
rules. That said, expect to see lots of tweaks as the season
progresses.
XYXPDQ wrote:
On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 6:02:53 AM UTC-8, Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get
the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement
them accordingly.
The 2022 car design rules have been finalized several years ago and
the teams even got an extra year to design and build the new cars.
It's up to each team to maximize performance according to those
rules. That said, expect to see lots of tweaks as the season
progresses.
Quite some tangent.
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is in
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them
accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people who
pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them >>>>>> accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people
who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I kept
telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly
have enough information to know.
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get
the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement
them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that
is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people
who pay his wages?
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the
people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I
kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
possibly have enough information to know.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get
the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement
them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that
is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
I didn't write "[went] rogue" so why would you put that in quotes?
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is >>>>>> in fact what he did.
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them >>>>>>> accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people
who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I kept
telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly
have enough information to know.
Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication & asking for proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.
That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12 was not
followed (which you have even acknowledged & is no-doubt why you have now changed tack) & it was the RD that made that call.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the
people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I
kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
possibly have enough information to know.
Yes, you are.
On 2021-12-19 3:34 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get
the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
I didn't write "[went] rogue" so why would you put that in quotes?
No. You wrote:
'No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.'
The convention is that when one is quoting someone, but one wants
torCofor instancerCochange the tense, you place the word you've changed inside square brackets to indicate that the quote is not literal for
that word; that the word is coming from the writer.
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the
people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me?
(& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
possibly have enough information to know.
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
The convention is that when one is quoting someone, but one wants torCofor instancerCochange the tense, you place the word you've changed insidelol
square brackets to indicate that the quote is not literal for that word; that the word is coming from the writer.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the
people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me?
(& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
possibly have enough information to know.
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
Yes, you are.
"But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is in
fact what he did."
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:34 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get
the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
I didn't write "[went] rogue" so why would you put that in quotes?
No. You wrote:
'No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.'
The convention is that when one is quoting someone, but one wants
torCofor instancerCochange the tense, you place the word you've changed
inside square brackets to indicate that the quote is not literal for
that word; that the word is coming from the writer.
It is not the convention when you change the first word mainly because
it is completely unnecessary.
i.e ...went "rogue". Do you see?
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
Yes, you are.
On 2021-12-19 3:51 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty
that that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with
the people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with
me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly have enough information to know.
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
Yes, you are.
"But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that
is in fact what he did."
But I'm not the one claiming he "went rogue"... ("that that is in
fact what he did").
I'm just claiming that you lack all the information to make the claim
in the first place.
Happy to help you understand this very basic stuff.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:51 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
that that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with
the people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with
me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
possibly have enough information to know.
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
Yes, you are.
"But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that
is in fact what he did."
But I'm not the one claiming he "went rogue"... ("that that is in
fact what he did").
I'm just claiming that you lack all the information to make the claim
in the first place.
No, you said "I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could
not
possibly have enough information to know." yet you are.
On 2021-12-19 4:11 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:51 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right"
and implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter
certainty that that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went]
rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
with the people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication
with me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could
not possibly have enough information to know.
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
Yes, you are.
"But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that
is in fact what he did."
But I'm not the one claiming he "went rogue"... ("that that is in
fact what he did").
I'm just claiming that you lack all the information to make the
claim in the first place.
No, you said "I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I
could not
possibly have enough information to know." yet you are.
What am I stating as a certainty: that you couldn't possibly have
enough information to know?
Weak sauce.
You know you don't. I know you don't.
If you had the goods, you'd have been crowing it.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 4:11 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:51 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right"
and implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
certainty that that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went]
rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
with the people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication
with me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could
not possibly have enough information to know.
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
Yes, you are.
"But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that
is in fact what he did."
But I'm not the one claiming he "went rogue"... ("that that is in
fact what he did").
I'm just claiming that you lack all the information to make the
claim in the first place.
No, you said "I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I
could not
possibly have enough information to know." yet you are.
What am I stating as a certainty: that you couldn't possibly have
enough information to know?
Weak sauce.
You know you don't. I know you don't.
If you had the goods, you'd have been crowing it.
Now that is weak sauce. What in your inane convoluted nonsense are "the goods"
Rather, you, I and anyone who gives a damn know you have absolutely no
reason or rationale to suggest the RD was being directly influenced by
"his bosses" in the FIA. You have no reason or evidence that anyone up
the command chain within the FIA was in communication with him during
that process. If you had you would be crowing about it.
...and you just don't know (and you KNOW you don't know) that that is
the case.
On 2021-12-19 4:30 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 4:11 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:51 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get the new rules
right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules
right" and implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go
rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter
certainty that that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went]
rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant
communication with the people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication
with me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I
could not possibly have enough information to know.
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
Yes, you are.
that"But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
is in fact what he did."
But I'm not the one claiming he "went rogue"... ("that that
is in fact what he did").
I'm just claiming that you lack all the information to make
the claim in the first place.
No, you said "I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which
I could not
possibly have enough information to know." yet you are.
What am I stating as a certainty: that you couldn't possibly have
enough information to know?
Weak sauce.
You know you don't. I know you don't.
If you had the goods, you'd have been crowing it.
Now that is weak sauce. What in your inane convoluted nonsense are
"the goods"
Rather, you, I and anyone who gives a damn know you have absolutely
no reason or rationale to suggest the RD was being directly
influenced by "his bosses" in the FIA. You have no reason or
evidence that anyone up the command chain within the FIA was in communication with him during that process. If you had you would be
crowing about it.
I have every reason to believe that every employee is given guidance
by his employers/superiors as to how the expect him to carry out his
duties.
Do you really think that beyond, "Read the regulations and enforce
them" Masi has received no other words on how he supposed to do his
job?
Implicit in "go[ing] rogue" is the idea that he acted without any
regard to any part of the regulations AND the instructions he was
given by his bosses as to how he is supposed to behave...
...and you just don't know (and you KNOW you don't know) that that is
the case.
On 2021-12-19 3:22 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is >>>>>>> in fact what he did.
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement
them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people
who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I
kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly
have enough information to know.
Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication & asking
for proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.
No. I am explicitly NOT claiming that.
Your statement was "How do you know he wasn't in constant communicationThat the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12 was not
followed (which you have even acknowledged & is no-doubt why you have
now changed tack) & it was the RD that made that call.
"went rogue" means more than simply the rulebook.
If he had his marching orders given to him, then he wasn't really going rogue, was he?
But the thing is:
None of us know what instructions Masi received from his bosses and when
he received them.
Get it:
Those who are claiming he "went rogue" are implicitly claiming that they
DO know what happened.
Happy to help you understand this.
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is >>>>>>> in fact what he did.
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement
them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people
who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I
kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly
have enough information to know.
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
You are the one who states with certainty that he "[went] rogue]".
I'm just pointing out that you don't have all the information to make
that determination.
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:37 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:22 p.m., alister wrote:Your statement was "How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is >>>>>>>> in fact what he did.
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement >>>>>>>>> them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people >>>>>> who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I
kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly >>>> have enough information to know.
Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication & asking
for proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.
No. I am explicitly NOT claiming that.
That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12 was not
followed (which you have even acknowledged & is no-doubt why you have
now changed tack) & it was the RD that made that call.
"went rogue" means more than simply the rulebook.
If he had his marching orders given to him, then he wasn't really going
rogue, was he?
But the thing is:
None of us know what instructions Masi received from his bosses and when
he received them.
Get it:
Those who are claiming he "went rogue" are implicitly claiming that they
DO know what happened.
Happy to help you understand this.
with the people who pay his wages?
Reversing the burden of proof
on the other hand there is pleanty of evidence to indicate Masi may have indeed gone rouge
1: Failure to correctly apply 48.12
2: Only allowing some cars to unlap (in the context used in 48.12 Any does indeed mean all)
3: The FACT that the FIA are now looking into the incident.
Happy to help you understand this.
And we both know that they do not.
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:46:26 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is >>>>>>>> in fact what he did.
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement >>>>>>>>> them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people >>>>>> who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I
kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly >>>> have enough information to know.
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
You are the one who states with certainty that he "[went] rogue]".
I'm just pointing out that you don't have all the information to make
that determination.
Then ask for proof that the RD went rouge, do not ask "How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people who pay his wages?"
which is not only un-knowable, but also acknowledges that he did
manipulate the rules.
It is worth adding that if that was the case then the RD did indeed go
rouge as he should not be answering to external parties during he race!
Which way do you want it - in either case you loose.
Hoist by your own petard.
On 2021-12-20 9:46 a.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:37 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:22 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty
that that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with
the people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with
me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly have enough information to know.
Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication &
asking for proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting the
burden of proof.
No. I am explicitly NOT claiming that.
That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12 was
not followed (which you have even acknowledged & is no-doubt
why you have now changed tack) & it was the RD that made that
call.
"went rogue" means more than simply the rulebook.
If he had his marching orders given to him, then he wasn't really
going rogue, was he?
But the thing is:
None of us know what instructions Masi received from his bosses
and when he received them.
Get it:
Those who are claiming he "went rogue" are implicitly claiming
that they DO know what happened.
Happy to help you understand this.Your statement was "How do you know he wasn't in constant
communication with the people who pay his wages?
Reversing the burden of proof
No. Because I'm not saying as a statement of what I claim was
happening.
on the other hand there is pleanty of evidence to indicate Masi may
have indeed gone rouge
1: Failure to correctly apply 48.12
And what did his bosses discuss with him about the application of
that regulation?
2: Only allowing some cars to unlap (in the context used in 48.12
Any does indeed mean all)
Same question.
3: The FACT that the FIA are now looking into the incident.
Of COURSE they're looking into it. It's face saving for them and for Mercedes.
Happy to help you understand this.
Why is it you can't understand that posing a hypothetical is not the
same as making a claim.
Those who have claimed that Masi went rogue are implicitly claiming
that they know all the internal details.
And we both know that they do not.
On 21/12/2021 3:53 am, alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:46:26 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty
that that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with
the people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with
me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly have enough information to know.
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
You are the one who states with certainty that he "[went] rogue]".
I'm just pointing out that you don't have all the information to
make that determination.
Then ask for proof that the RD went rouge, do not ask "How do you
know he wasn't in constant communication with the people who pay
his wages?"
which is not only un-knowable, but also acknowledges that he did
manipulate the rules.
It is worth adding that if that was the case then the RD did indeed
go rouge as he should not be answering to external parties during
he race!
Which way do you want it - in either case you loose.
Hoist by your own petard.
I'm sure he went rouge. Very embarrassing for him ;- )
On 2021-12-20 9:46 a.m., alister wrote:We don't know, but seeing as it is not something that is likely to have
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:37 -0500, Alan wrote:No. Because I'm not saying as a statement of what I claim was happening.
On 2021-12-19 3:22 p.m., alister wrote:Your statement was "How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that >>>>>>>>> is in fact what he did.
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement >>>>>>>>>> them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the
people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I >>>>>> kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
possibly have enough information to know.
Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication & asking
for proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.
No. I am explicitly NOT claiming that.
That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12 was not
followed (which you have even acknowledged & is no-doubt why you have
now changed tack) & it was the RD that made that call.
"went rogue" means more than simply the rulebook.
If he had his marching orders given to him, then he wasn't really
going rogue, was he?
But the thing is:
None of us know what instructions Masi received from his bosses and
when he received them.
Get it:
Those who are claiming he "went rogue" are implicitly claiming that
they DO know what happened.
Happy to help you understand this.
with the people who pay his wages?
Reversing the burden of proof
on the other hand there is pleanty of evidence to indicate Masi may
have indeed gone rouge
1: Failure to correctly apply 48.12
And what did his bosses discuss with him about the application of that regulation?
Same answer, you are making the claim - the burden of proof is on you.2: Only allowing some cars to unlap (in the context used in 48.12 Any
does indeed mean all)
Same question.
3: The FACT that the FIA are now looking into the incident.
Of COURSE they're looking into it. It's face saving for them and for Mercedes.
Happy to help you understand this.
Why is it you can't understand that posing a hypothetical is not the
same as making a claim.
Those who have claimed that Masi went rogue are implicitly claiming that
they know all the internal details.
And we both know that they do not.
geoff wrote:
On 21/12/2021 3:53 am, alister wrote::)
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:46:26 -0500, Alan wrote:I'm sure he went rouge. Very embarrassing for him ;- )
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
that that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with
the people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me?
(& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
possibly have enough information to know.
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
You are the one who states with certainty that he "[went] rogue]".
I'm just pointing out that you don't have all the information to
make that determination.
Then ask for proof that the RD went rouge, do not ask "How do you
know he wasn't in constant communication with the people who pay his
wages?"
which is not only un-knowable, but also acknowledges that he did
manipulate the rules.
It is worth adding that if that was the case then the RD did indeed
go rouge as he should not be answering to external parties during he
race!
Which way do you want it - in either case you loose.
Hoist by your own petard.
That petard of his has been busy doing a lot of heavy lifting lately.
On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 21:44:36 -0000 (UTC), Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
and >> > > > > > > > > > implement them accordingly.On 21/12/2021 3:53 am, alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:46:26 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right"
certainty >> > > > > > > > > that that is in fact what he did.But only an omniscient can speak with utter
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
rogue"? >> > > > > > >Really?
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went]
with >> > > > > > > the people who pay his wages?How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
with me? >> > > > > > (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
How do you know he was not in constant communication
not >> > > > > possibly have enough information to know.
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could
rogue]". >> > >
Yes, you are.
No. I'm not.
You are the one who states with certainty that he "[went]
to >> > > make that determination.I'm just pointing out that you don't have all the information
his >> > wages?"
Then ask for proof that the RD went rouge, do not ask "How do you
know he wasn't in constant communication with the people who pay
indeed >> > go rouge as he should not be answering to external
which is not only un-knowable, but also acknowledges that he did
manipulate the rules.
It is worth adding that if that was the case then the RD did
parties during he >> > race!
:)I'm sure he went rouge. Very embarrassing for him ;- )
Which way do you want it - in either case you loose.
Hoist by your own petard.
That petard of his has been busy doing a lot of heavy lifting
lately.
Yes, i had not seen you had beat me to that phase or I would found
another
On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:08:34 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-20 9:46 a.m., alister wrote:We don't know, but seeing as it is not something that is likely to have
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:37 -0500, Alan wrote:No. Because I'm not saying as a statement of what I claim was happening.
On 2021-12-19 3:22 p.m., alister wrote:Your statement was "How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that >>>>>>>>>> is in fact what he did.
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement >>>>>>>>>>> them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the
people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I >>>>>>> kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
possibly have enough information to know.
Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication & asking >>>>> for proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.
No. I am explicitly NOT claiming that.
That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12 was not
followed (which you have even acknowledged & is no-doubt why you have >>>>> now changed tack) & it was the RD that made that call.
"went rogue" means more than simply the rulebook.
If he had his marching orders given to him, then he wasn't really
going rogue, was he?
But the thing is:
None of us know what instructions Masi received from his bosses and
when he received them.
Get it:
Those who are claiming he "went rogue" are implicitly claiming that
they DO know what happened.
Happy to help you understand this.
with the people who pay his wages?
Reversing the burden of proof
on the other hand there is pleanty of evidence to indicate Masi may
have indeed gone rouge
1: Failure to correctly apply 48.12
And what did his bosses discuss with him about the application of that
regulation?
been foreseen be for the race & applying ocams rasor probably nothing. meanwhile YOU keep asking people to prove nothing was said, Logical
fallacy reversing the burden of proof. If as you keep claiming you think there was some interference from his bosses then it is for YOU to prove it
Same answer, you are making the claim - the burden of proof is on you.
2: Only allowing some cars to unlap (in the context used in 48.12 Any
does indeed mean all)
Same question.
That is the only correct statement you have made all week
3: The FACT that the FIA are now looking into the incident.
Of COURSE they're looking into it. It's face saving for them and for
Mercedes.
Ahh a hypothetical.
Happy to help you understand this.
Why is it you can't understand that posing a hypothetical is not the
same as making a claim.
So finally you admit you are making stuff up simply to keep the argument going, we would never have guessed
Those who have claimed that Masi went rogue are implicitly claiming that
they know all the internal details.
And we both know that they do not.
We both know that they (who is "they") do not.. ...what?
You'll have to try that sentence again with fewer pronouns.
You'll have to try that sentence again with fewer pronouns.
On 2021-12-20 5:09 p.m., alister wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:08:34 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-20 9:46 a.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:37 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:22 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right"
and implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter
certainty that that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went]
rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
with the people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication
with me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could
not possibly have enough information to know.
Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication
& asking for proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting
the burden of proof.
No. I am explicitly NOT claiming that.
That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12
was not followed (which you have even acknowledged & is
no-doubt why you have now changed tack) & it was the RD
that made that call.
"went rogue" means more than simply the rulebook.
If he had his marching orders given to him, then he wasn't
really going rogue, was he?
But the thing is:
None of us know what instructions Masi received from his
bosses and when he received them.
Get it:
Those who are claiming he "went rogue" are implicitly
claiming that they DO know what happened.
Happy to help you understand this.Your statement was "How do you know he wasn't in constant
communication with the people who pay his wages?
Reversing the burden of proof
No. Because I'm not saying as a statement of what I claim was
happening.
on the other hand there is pleanty of evidence to indicate Masi
may have indeed gone rouge
1: Failure to correctly apply 48.12
And what did his bosses discuss with him about the application ofWe don't know, but seeing as it is not something that is likely to
that regulation?
have been foreseen be for the race & applying ocams rasor probably
nothing. meanwhile YOU keep asking people to prove nothing was
said, Logical fallacy reversing the burden of proof. If as you keep claiming you think there was some interference from his bosses then
it is for YOU to prove it
I didn't make a claim.
I questioned how someone else can make a claim without knowing what
was going on behind the scenes.
If you want to claim Masi went rogue, you have to know what he was
instructed before and/or during the race. You have to KNOW that he
was given no instructions.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-20 5:09 p.m., alister wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:08:34 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-20 9:46 a.m., alister wrote:We don't know, but seeing as it is not something that is likely to
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:37 -0500, Alan wrote:No. Because I'm not saying as a statement of what I claim was
On 2021-12-19 3:22 p.m., alister wrote:Your statement was "How do you know he wasn't in constant
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right"
and implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
certainty that that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went]
rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
with the people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication
with me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could
not possibly have enough information to know.
Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication
& asking for proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting
the burden of proof.
No. I am explicitly NOT claiming that.
That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12
was not followed (which you have even acknowledged & is
no-doubt why you have now changed tack) & it was the RD
that made that call.
"went rogue" means more than simply the rulebook.
If he had his marching orders given to him, then he wasn't
really going rogue, was he?
But the thing is:
None of us know what instructions Masi received from his
bosses and when he received them.
Get it:
Those who are claiming he "went rogue" are implicitly
claiming that they DO know what happened.
Happy to help you understand this.
communication with the people who pay his wages?
Reversing the burden of proof
happening.
on the other hand there is pleanty of evidence to indicate Masi
may have indeed gone rouge
1: Failure to correctly apply 48.12
And what did his bosses discuss with him about the application of
that regulation?
have been foreseen be for the race & applying ocams rasor probably
nothing. meanwhile YOU keep asking people to prove nothing was
said, Logical fallacy reversing the burden of proof. If as you keep
claiming you think there was some interference from his bosses then
it is for YOU to prove it
I didn't make a claim.
I questioned how someone else can make a claim without knowing what
was going on behind the scenes.
If you want to claim Masi went rogue, you have to know what he was
instructed before and/or during the race. You have to KNOW that he
was given no instructions.
...and there again is the fallacy.
If you believed that you would never make any assertions ever.
Judgements are made on what is known and what is likely.
There is no reason to think there was direct interference and you are
unable to provide a motive or any other reason to reconsider.
In the moment Masi was entirely responsible for the decision not to
apply the regulations as dictated.
On 2021-12-21 6:05 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-20 5:09 p.m., alister wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:08:34 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-20 9:46 a.m., alister wrote:We don't know, but seeing as it is not something that is likely to
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:37 -0500, Alan wrote:No. Because I'm not saying as a statement of what I claim was
On 2021-12-19 3:22 p.m., alister wrote:Your statement was "How do you know he wasn't in constant
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:Really?
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:But only an omniscient can speak with utter
assuming both teams get the new rules right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right"
and implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
certainty that that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
And how can you know for certain that he "[went]
rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
with the people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication
with me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could
not possibly have enough information to know.
Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication
& asking for proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting
the burden of proof.
No. I am explicitly NOT claiming that.
That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12
was not followed (which you have even acknowledged & is
no-doubt why you have now changed tack) & it was the RD
that made that call.
"went rogue" means more than simply the rulebook.
If he had his marching orders given to him, then he wasn't
really going rogue, was he?
But the thing is:
None of us know what instructions Masi received from his
bosses and when he received them.
Get it:
Those who are claiming he "went rogue" are implicitly
claiming that they DO know what happened.
Happy to help you understand this.
communication with the people who pay his wages?
Reversing the burden of proof
happening.
on the other hand there is pleanty of evidence to indicate Masi
may have indeed gone rouge
1: Failure to correctly apply 48.12
And what did his bosses discuss with him about the application of
that regulation?
have been foreseen be for the race & applying ocams rasor probably
nothing. meanwhile YOU keep asking people to prove nothing was
said, Logical fallacy reversing the burden of proof. If as you keep
claiming you think there was some interference from his bosses then
it is for YOU to prove it
I didn't make a claim.
I questioned how someone else can make a claim without knowing what
was going on behind the scenes.
If you want to claim Masi went rogue, you have to know what he was
instructed before and/or during the race. You have to KNOW that he
was given no instructions.
...and there again is the fallacy.
If you believed that you would never make any assertions ever.No. I would just make them more temperately than you do.
Judgements are made on what is known and what is likely.But not on what is completely UNKNOWN; not without acknowledging it.
There is no reason to think there was direct interference and you are unable to provide a motive or any other reason to reconsider.Could the FIA have a motive for wanting the winning of the WDC to come
down two drivers racing for victory rather than behind a safety car?
Yes or no.
Do you think (in what you call your "judgement") that they would prefer that?
Yes or no.
In the moment Masi was entirely responsible for the decision not toYes. It was his decision.
apply the regulations as dictated.
But whether it was a rogue decision depends on what his bosses told him
they wanted from him.
On 2021-12-21 6:05 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-20 5:09 p.m., alister wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:08:34 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-20 9:46 a.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:37 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 3:22 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
XYXPDQ wrote:
assuming both teams get the new rules
right.
The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules
right" and implement them accordingly.
No-one could predict that the RD would go
rogue.
But only an omniscient can speak with utter
certainty that that is in fact what he did.
Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
Really?
And how can you know for certain that he "[went]
rogue"?
How do you know he wasn't in constant
communication with the people who pay his wages?
How do you know he was not in constant communication
with me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
No, actually.
I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I
could not possibly have enough information to know.
Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant
communication & asking for proof he wasn't. Logical
Fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.
No. I am explicitly NOT claiming that.
That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that
48.12 was not followed (which you have even
acknowledged & is no-doubt why you have now changed
tack) & it was the RD that made that call.
"went rogue" means more than simply the rulebook.
If he had his marching orders given to him, then he wasn't
really going rogue, was he?
But the thing is:
None of us know what instructions Masi received from his
bosses and when he received them.
Get it:
Those who are claiming he "went rogue" are implicitly
claiming that they DO know what happened.
Happy to help you understand this.Your statement was "How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people who pay his wages?
Reversing the burden of proof
No. Because I'm not saying as a statement of what I claim was happening.
on the other hand there is pleanty of evidence to indicate
Masi may have indeed gone rouge
1: Failure to correctly apply 48.12
And what did his bosses discuss with him about theWe don't know, but seeing as it is not something that is likely
application of that regulation?
to have been foreseen be for the race & applying ocams rasor
probably nothing. meanwhile YOU keep asking people to prove
nothing was said, Logical fallacy reversing the burden of
proof. If as you keep claiming you think there was some
interference from his bosses then it is for YOU to prove it
I didn't make a claim.
I questioned how someone else can make a claim without knowing
what was going on behind the scenes.
If you want to claim Masi went rogue, you have to know what he was instructed before and/or during the race. You have to KNOW that he
was given no instructions.
...and there again is the fallacy.
If you believed that you would never make any assertions ever.
No. I would just make them more temperately than you do.
Judgements are made on what is known and what is likely.
But not on what is completely UNKNOWN; not without acknowledging it.
There is no reason to think there was direct interference and you
are unable to provide a motive or any other reason to reconsider.
Could the FIA have a motive for wanting the winning of the WDC to
come down two drivers racing for victory rather than behind a safety
car?
Yes or no.
Do you think (in what you call your "judgement") that they would
prefer that?
Yes or no.
In the moment Masi was entirely responsible for the decision not to
apply the regulations as dictated.
Yes. It was his decision.
But whether it was a rogue decision depends on what his bosses told
him they wanted from him.
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 117:31:35 |
| Calls: | 132 |
| Files: | 706 |
| Messages: | 84,222 |