With all due respect to Andretti he is not in a position to know what
it's going to be like on that track with 24 F1 cars heading for the
first corner, or with another driver up your jacksie trying hard to
get past.
*********************************************
"George" <Pa...@thepump.com> wrote:
> The continuance of your laughably inappropriate pretentious
> superciliousness comes as no surprise whatsoever, nor would
> I suspect that anyone, myself included, possibly care less as to
> what your minor intellect so incompetently, pathetically, feebly,
> repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted yet failed to relate.
John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I'll stick my neck out and say that I don't think it will work. Everyone
> says they like the natural changes in level, so it will probably be a
> good drive, but I don't think it will work for racing. I think two
> hairpins is at least one too many. It will probably produce a boring race like Delhi.
But was the Delhi race boring (to all but build that is) simply because of
the circuit? I seem to remember that last year's Indian GP was quite good.
John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The point is that none of us has a clue as to whether the track will be
> any good for F1 racing - and I suspect nobody else has either. We will
> only know when the race happens.
> "News" <N...@Group.Name> wrote in message news:k7omeo$9vn$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 11/11/2012 12:00 PM, George wrote:
>>> "News" <N...@Groups.Post> wrote in message
>>> news:k7ol5m$192$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 11/11/2012 11:49 AM, George wrote:
>>>>> "Bobster" <megap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:c3bd720b-69ae-427b-894f-0f36de2847db@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Nov 11, 2:53 pm, News <N...@Group.Name> wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Really? I think the argument for annexation has some merit to it. COA
>>>>>>> will cause a huge traffic increase in the neighbourhood and
>>>>>>> potentially increase the load on various municipal services. Why
>>>>>>> shouldn't they pay into the kitty that pays for all the services?
>>>>>> They'll pay, surrounding residents and the nearby EMS unit which sees
>>>>>> all of its funding "stolen" are completely fooooooooooooked.
>>>>> Well I'm not sure quite what you point is here. There's an interesting
>>>>> exercise to be done here, which is to take the area to be annexed
>>>>> (which consists mostly of COA-owned property) and look it up in google
>>>>> maps and see how many likely residential properties you can see
>>>>> outside of COA-owned land.
>>>>> This is NOT screwing the residents. Indeed it's likely to swell the
>>>>> public coffers substantially.
>>>>> **********************************
>>>>> +1, as the kids say ;^)
>>>> -1 from the POV of annexed residents...
>>> Generally defined as those (if as in most small, outlying
>>> communities) who largely commute to, work in and are
>>> supplied by the metropolitan areas they live adjacent to
>>> and pay no taxes in.
>> Most of them are in agriculture, if that's what you mean...
> Such an inferrence (that annexation would negatively affect
> those engaged in agricultural pursuits) would seem to run
> counter to statements in this article:
> "Council members on Thursday annexed about 1,521 acres, 73 acres
> less than what they considered in October. Most of the annexed
> land is owned by Circuit of the Americas. The rest is state-owned
> land south of Pearce Lane.
> The city also entered into an agreement with a landowner between
> the circuit and state land that allows the landowner to use the land
> for agriculture in exchange for not being annexed, city planner
> Virginia Collier said. If the landowner develops on the property,
> the city can begin annexation proceedings, she said."
> http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/austin-annexes...
-1
"The annexation by the city takes the circuit out of southeastern Travis County�s Emergency Service District No. 11, costing the district a huge source of revenue for the area, while adding traffic jams and large crowds when races are held.
Ken Bailey, chief of the area�s Travis County Fire Rescue, said he hopes Austin will enter into a revenue-sharing agreement with his fire department, which has a station near the circuit on Elroy Road.
Bailey�s department is funded solely on property and sales taxes from the district.
�How are we going to get resources to the community when the roads are closed? The only way to do that is to stage people ahead of time,� Bailey said Thursday.
The department estimates that putting fire trucks and personnel in the neighborhoods near the circuit ahead of events could cost as much as $300,000 a year, Bailey said. �We have more risk and less tax dollars.�
> The continuance of your laughably inappropriate pretentious
> superciliousness comes as no surprise whatsoever, nor would
> I suspect that anyone, myself included, possibly care less as to
> what your minor intellect so incompetently, pathetically, feebly,
> repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted yet failed to relate.
>> The continuance of your laughably inappropriate pretentious
>> superciliousness comes as no surprise whatsoever, nor would
>> I suspect that anyone, myself included, possibly care less as to
>> what your minor intellect so incompetently, pathetically, feebly,
>> repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted yet failed to relate.
> Can we have the URL of your bullshit generator ?
LOL
(I see much fun ahead with this guy!)
-- Henry Birkin, Bt.
>> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:agacgiF3cceU1@mid.individual.net...
>> >>>>>>> Loving your fresh faced naivity.
>> >>>>> > ****************************
>> >>>>> > Probably not nearly so much as my admiration for such
>> >>>>> > patronizingly expressed, pretentious superciliousness. ;^)
>> >>>>> To identify it as pretentious one would have to comprehend why I
>> >>>>> said what I said. As you clearly don't then not only is my
>> coommet >>>>> apt but your response is itself nothing but pretentious.
>> >>> > Seems to me that if there exists a desire to be understood then
>> >>> > it is incumbent upon an author to write intelligibly such that
>> no >>> > doubt is left concerning the intention of his or her words
>> (some >>> > thing you've still not accomplished). Attempting to place
>> blame >>> > on the reader for one's own incoherence again raises the
>> facade >>> > of superciliousness, which you've also failed to deign
>> to address.
>> >>> Oh dear have we learnt a new word today and are so desperate to
>> use >>> it that we have no concerns for doing so appropriately.
>> >>> If you failed to understand that I thought you naive then that is
>> >>> your problem.
>> >>> If you wish to know why you only need to ask.
>> >>> Raising the notion of incoherence simply continues your theme of
>> >>> hypocrisy.
>> > > The continuance of your laughably inappropriate pretentious
>> > > superciliousness comes as no surprise whatsoever, nor would
>> > > I suspect that anyone, myself included, possibly care less as to
>> > > what your minor intellect so incompetently, pathetically, feebly,
>> > > repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted yet failed to relate.
>> > Did someone say pretentious?
>> > Your attempts to disguise your lack of intellect have
>> > failed...miserably.
>> How might any mere mortal such as myself possibly
>> contest or dispute such a convincingly supported,
>> devastatingly elucidated, earnestly reasoned, elegantly
>> presented, spurious and deluded rebuttal such as that?
> The truth has outed you George.
Whatever you say, bird brain. You will of course however
realize that I do consider the source.
> Goodnight Fuckwit!
Your mirror will no doubt appreciate your departing salutation.
>> The point is that none of us has a clue as to whether the track will be
>> any good for F1 racing - and I suspect nobody else has either. We will
>> only know when the race happens.
> I agree, John.
> (what *am* I saying? :-))
> -- > Henry Birkin, Bt.
And will every driver concur each and every (assuming
more than one) year in a single, unanimous conclusion?
Will the teams? How about the paying attendees, the
broadcasters, the remote viewers, the sponsors -
including Austin's city fathers, residents, commuters ...?
>> The continuance of your laughably inappropriate pretentious
>> superciliousness comes as no surprise whatsoever, nor would
>> I suspect that anyone, myself included, possibly care less as to
>> what your minor intellect so incompetently, pathetically, feebly,
>> repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted yet failed to relate.
> Can we have the URL of your bullshit generator ?
A large quantity of putrid horseshit eminates from here:
SUIVRWlILYJT5ZL6UFd8hg.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Noj <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> George wrote ...
>>> The continuance of your laughably inappropriate pretentious
>>> superciliousness comes as no surprise whatsoever, nor would
>>> I suspect that anyone, myself included, possibly care less as to
>>> what your minor intellect so incompetently, pathetically, feebly,
>>> repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted yet failed to relate.
>> Can we have the URL of your bullshit generator ?
> LOL
> (I see much fun ahead with this guy!)
> -- > Henry Birkin, Bt.
The pleasure of course undoubtedly continuing to be all mine.
"News" <N...@Group.Name> wrote in message news:k7p3kf$tcm$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> Generally defined as those (if as in most small, outlying
>>>> communities) who largely commute to, work in and are
>>>> supplied by the metropolitan areas they live adjacent to
>>>> and pay no taxes in.
>>> Most of them are in agriculture, if that's what you mean...
>> Such an inferrence (that annexation would negatively affect
>> those engaged in agricultural pursuits) would seem to run
>> counter to statements in this article:
>> "Council members on Thursday annexed about 1,521 acres, 73 acres
>> less than what they considered in October. Most of the annexed
>> land is owned by Circuit of the Americas. The rest is state-owned
>> land south of Pearce Lane.
>> The city also entered into an agreement with a landowner between
>> the circuit and state land that allows the landowner to use the land
>> for agriculture in exchange for not being annexed, city planner
>> Virginia Collier said. If the landowner develops on the property,
>> the city can begin annexation proceedings, she said."
>> http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/austin-annexes...
> -1
> "The annexation by the city takes the circuit out of southeastern Travis
> County's Emergency Service District No. 11, costing the district a huge
> source of revenue for the area,
The complaint now is that revenue is denied a small special interest
and instead put into the coffers of those represented by a massively
larger population, i.e., those who will be much greater affected by
the events existence?
> while adding traffic jams and large crowds
> when races are held.
> Ken Bailey, chief of the area's Travis County Fire Rescue, said he hopes
> Austin will enter into a revenue-sharing agreement with his fire
> department, which has a station near the circuit on Elroy Road.
> Bailey's department is funded solely on property and sales taxes from the
> district.
Whose residents are largely to wholly dependent on the
presence of the adjacent large city.
> "How are we going to get resources to the community when the roads are
> closed? The only way to do that is to stage people ahead of time," Bailey
> said Thursday.
If not Austin, from where might he expect those resources
to originate?
> The department estimates that putting fire trucks and personnel in the
> neighborhoods near the circuit ahead of events could cost as much as
> $300,000 a year, Bailey said. "We have more risk and less tax dollars."
Then again it's somewhat unclear as to which land the above
quotes are referring to: "The city of Austin had considered
annexing the property last year but backed off after deciding
it made more to sense to wait until the land was further
developed, a city spokesman said at the time".
The article and map clearly define that only the COTA land
is affected by the annexation, with the agricultural land to
the north being exempt unless improved: "If the landowner
develops on the property, the city can begin annexation
proceedings, she said."
As well as this statement at the bottom of the article:
"Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said the
city annexed private land near Circuit of the Americas. The city
entered into an agreement with the landowner that allows the
land to not be annexed but still used for contiguous annexation."
> >>> The continuance of your laughably inappropriate pretentious
> >>> superciliousness comes as no surprise whatsoever, nor would
> >>> I suspect that anyone, myself included, possibly care less as to
> >>> what your minor intellect so incompetently, pathetically, feebly,
> >>> repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted yet failed to relate.
> >> Can we have the URL of your bullshit generator ?
> > LOL
> > (I see much fun ahead with this guy!)
> > -- > > Henry Birkin, Bt.
> The pleasure of course undoubtedly continuing to be all mine.
Banging one off whilst reading a thesaurus. Suppose there's a first for everything.
> "News" <N...@Group.Name> wrote in message news:k7p3kf$tcm$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> Generally defined as those (if as in most small, outlying
>>>>> communities) who largely commute to, work in and are
>>>>> supplied by the metropolitan areas they live adjacent to
>>>>> and pay no taxes in.
>>>> Most of them are in agriculture, if that's what you mean...
>>> Such an inferrence (that annexation would negatively affect
>>> those engaged in agricultural pursuits) would seem to run
>>> counter to statements in this article:
>>> "Council members on Thursday annexed about 1,521 acres, 73 acres
>>> less than what they considered in October. Most of the annexed
>>> land is owned by Circuit of the Americas. The rest is state-owned
>>> land south of Pearce Lane.
>>> The city also entered into an agreement with a landowner between
>>> the circuit and state land that allows the landowner to use the land
>>> for agriculture in exchange for not being annexed, city planner
>>> Virginia Collier said. If the landowner develops on the property,
>>> the city can begin annexation proceedings, she said."
>>> http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/austin-annexes...
>> -1
>> "The annexation by the city takes the circuit out of southeastern Travis
>> County's Emergency Service District No. 11, costing the district a huge
>> source of revenue for the area,
> The complaint now is that revenue is denied a small special interest
> and instead put into the coffers of those represented by a massively
> larger population, i.e., those who will be much greater affected by
> the events existence?
>> while adding traffic jams and large crowds
>> when races are held.
>> Ken Bailey, chief of the area's Travis County Fire Rescue, said he hopes
>> Austin will enter into a revenue-sharing agreement with his fire
>> department, which has a station near the circuit on Elroy Road.
>> Bailey's department is funded solely on property and sales taxes from the
>> district.
> Whose residents are largely to wholly dependent on the
> presence of the adjacent large city.
>> "How are we going to get resources to the community when the roads are
>> closed? The only way to do that is to stage people ahead of time," Bailey
>> said Thursday.
> If not Austin, from where might he expect those resources
> to originate?
>> The department estimates that putting fire trucks and personnel in the
>> neighborhoods near the circuit ahead of events could cost as much as
>> $300,000 a year, Bailey said. "We have more risk and less tax dollars."
> Then again it's somewhat unclear as to which land the above
> quotes are referring to: "The city of Austin had considered
> annexing the property last year but backed off after deciding
> it made more to sense to wait until the land was further
> developed, a city spokesman said at the time".
> The article and map clearly define that only the COTA land
> is affected by the annexation, with the agricultural land to
> the north being exempt unless improved: "If the landowner
> develops on the property, the city can begin annexation
> proceedings, she said."
> As well as this statement at the bottom of the article:
> "Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said the
> city annexed private land near Circuit of the Americas. The city
> entered into an agreement with the landowner that allows the
> land to not be annexed but still used for contiguous annexation."
>> >>> The continuance of your laughably inappropriate pretentious
>> >>> superciliousness comes as no surprise whatsoever, nor would
>> >>> I suspect that anyone, myself included, possibly care less as to
>> >>> what your minor intellect so incompetently, pathetically, feebly,
>> >>> repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted yet failed to relate.
>> >> Can we have the URL of your bullshit generator ?
>> > LOL
>> > (I see much fun ahead with this guy!)
>> > -- >> > Henry Birkin, Bt.
>> The pleasure of course undoubtedly continuing to be all mine.
> Banging one off whilst reading a thesaurus. Suppose there's a first for
> everything.
Thanx for the update on your current activities and all, but
what is it that motivates one to inform others (although I most
sincerely doubt that it's a first time for someone of your ilk).
>> I'll stick my neck out and say that I don't think it will work. Everyone
>> says they like the natural changes in level, so it will probably be a
>> good drive, but I don't think it will work for racing. I think two
>> hairpins is at least one too many. It will probably produce a boring race like Delhi.
> But was the Delhi race boring (to all but build that is) simply because of
> the circuit? I seem to remember that last year's Indian GP was quite good.
It may have been one of those races where something seemed about to happen - but never quite did.
-- John Briggs
> With all due respect to Andretti he is not in a position to know what
> it's going to be like on that track with 24 F1 cars heading for the
> first corner, or with another driver up your jacksie trying hard to
> get past.
> *********************************************
> F'n better position to know than you or I.
Not necessarily - a track can be fantastic to drive on, but be imposible to overtake on in the race. *Nobody* can be certain until a race takes place. (I have a horrible feeling it might be one of those places where there are exciting support races...)
-- John Briggs
>> With all due respect to Andretti he is not in a position to know what
>> it's going to be like on that track with 24 F1 cars heading for the
>> first corner, or with another driver up your jacksie trying hard to
>> get past.
>> *********************************************
>> F'n better position to know than you or I.
> Not necessarily - a track can be fantastic to drive on, but be imposible
> to overtake on in the race. *Nobody* can be certain until a race takes
> place. (I have a horrible feeling it might be one of those places where
> there are exciting support races...)
And WAY too much paint on WAY too much paved surface off track. Another Tilkedrome skidpadring where Seb will take four-off over the limit.
>> With all due respect to Andretti he is not in a position to know what
>> it's going to be like on that track with 24 F1 cars heading for the
>> first corner, or with another driver up your jacksie trying hard to
>> get past.
>> *********************************************
>> F'n better position to know than you or I.
> Not necessarily - a track can be fantastic to drive on, but be imposible
> to overtake on in the race.
To name just one other variable, that's also dependent
upon the cars themselves. And in that regard, where
would F1 be today without KERS and DRS?
> *Nobody* can be certain until a race takes place. (I have a horrible
> feeling it might be one of those places where there are exciting support
> races...)
> -- > John Briggs
> > > The continuance of your laughably inappropriate pretentious
> > > superciliousness comes as no surprise whatsoever, nor would
> > > I suspect that anyone, myself included, possibly care less as to
> > > what your minor intellect so incompetently, pathetically, feebly,
> > > repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted yet failed to relate.
> > Can we have the URL of your bullshit generator ?
> A large quantity of putrid horseshit eminates from here:
> SUIVRWlILYJT5ZL6UFd8hg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mummy should have told you not to share your address on a public forum.
> > With all due respect to Andretti he is not in a position to know what
> > it's going to be like on that track with 24 F1 cars heading for the
> > first corner, or with another driver up your jacksie trying hard to
> > get past.
> > *********************************************
> > F'n better position to know than you or I.
> Not necessarily - a track can be fantastic to drive on, but be imposible > to overtake on in the race. *Nobody* can be certain until a race takes > place. (I have a horrible feeling it might be one of those places where > there are exciting support races...)
Actually, yes: necessarily Mario Andretti--Formula One champion, IndyCar champion, Indy 500 winner, 12 Hours of Sebring winner, Daytona 500 winner...
...that man is necessarily in a better position to evaluate the track than you, or Geoff, or I.
He may be wrong, but he is clearly WAY out of our league in experience.
-- Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
>> John wrote:
>>> So will the new GP track in Austin be any good, or just another
>>> parade ground?
>> Well, it look interesting. The pundits are all excited. You wont get
>> more than that until Friday.
> I can't remember the last time a circuit was panned before a wheel was
> turned. Shit, some still get excited about Singasnore. I agree, that it
> will be interesting to see what it's like but there is little value to
> the speculation.
Indeed. On top of that I have my Hungarian thing. Looks shite, has no business being there (well, you know), yet more often than not, an interesting race. On the other hand, Silverstone looks like it should be a classic every year, but often a boring race. Mean while, the majority of fans are only too happy to accept Monaco.
There is no way to predict this. And even if this first race is poor, there is not reason it might not produce a storming race next season.
I've got my fingers crossed for it, I want a great race in the US. It looks like they have done what they can to help that happen. What more can be asked?
