No no no, it was just a low level rogue employee, and just a test driver, and the race drivers, and well, their engineers, but no no no it's not THE TEAM!
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 09:12:03 -0400, Jonathan Peirce
<presid...@whitehouse.gov> wrote: >No no no, it was just a low level rogue employee, and just a test >driver, and the race drivers, and well, their engineers, but no no no >it's not THE TEAM!
On Sep 7, 3:28 pm, noone <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> In article <2007090709120316807-president@whitehousegov>, > Jonathan Peirce <presid...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
> > No no no, it was just a low level rogue employee, and just a test > > driver, and the race drivers, and well, their engineers, but no no no > > it's not THE TEAM!
> The McLiars will try to partition the team such that they can find an > acceptable limb to sever short of killing the whole beast.
> The McLaren fans' conduct during this sordid episode has shown human > nature at its worst.
At least we're not all self-righteous hypocrites.
I think everybody with an interest in this should pay attention to the wording of Max Moseley's comminque. Max is no fool, is a lawyer by profession, and has worded this communication very carefully.
The messsage is that there is an ALLEGATION that one or more McLaren drivers have some evidence that is material to the investigation, and that FIA are keen to find out whether or not there is substance to this allegation.
The FIA are NOT saying that this information suggests that McLaren have made use of improperly obtained Ferrari data. They are saying that it is ALLEGED that one or more McLaren drivers MAY be in possession of a document or documents relevant to the matter.
So it COULD be a communication to the effect that such and such a piece of data supplied by Coughlan enabled them to optimise their strategy.
Or it COULD be a document that would be embarrasing for Ferrari.
Or it COULD be just an allegation with no substance to it.
Whatever, the FIA are aware of this allegation (and that is the exact word that Moseley has used) and, quite rightly IMO, are taking steps to establish whether or not there is any substance to the allegation.
Jonathan Peirce <presid...@whitehouse.gov> writes: > No no no, it was just a low level rogue employee, and just a test > driver, and the race drivers, and well, their engineers, but no no no > it's not THE TEAM!
How come you know the truth of the allegation, but those closer to the sport, such as Mosley, do not know it? Document your contacts and sources - every one of them.
Have you ever thought about keeping your gob shut, and leaving the inane spewing until after the facts are available?
Phil -- Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all. -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
<thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >Jonathan Peirce <presid...@whitehouse.gov> writes: >> No no no, it was just a low level rogue employee, and just a test >> driver, and the race drivers, and well, their engineers, but no no no >> it's not THE TEAM!
>How come you know the truth of the allegation, but those >closer to the sport, such as Mosley, do not know it? >Document your contacts and sources - every one of them.
>Have you ever thought about keeping your gob shut, and >leaving the inane spewing until after the facts are >available?
a_Frank <f...@notthis.optushome.com.au> writes: > On 07 Sep 2007 17:12:47 +0300, Phil Carmody > <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >Jonathan Peirce <presid...@whitehouse.gov> writes: > >> No no no, it was just a low level rogue employee, and just a test > >> driver, and the race drivers, and well, their engineers, but no no no > >> it's not THE TEAM!
> >How come you know the truth of the allegation, but those > >closer to the sport, such as Mosley, do not know it? > >Document your contacts and sources - every one of them.
> >Have you ever thought about keeping your gob shut, and > >leaving the inane spewing until after the facts are > >available?
> Good luck shutting the whole news group up. :-)
They are shut up - for me. About 80% of posts are filtered by my killfile. (Not as bad as alt.lang.asm where sometime I'm told there are 100 new messages at the server, and when I load the group there are only 2 shown!). I could have sworn JP was also in the KF, but I did have KF truncation problems a while back, maybe he got rescued by such a snip.
It's a shame seeing the sensible posters here, of which there are many, spending such a large proportion of their time having futile arguments with idiots who are so clue-resistent that they'd remain clue-free even if dampened and then dunked in a tank of high density powdered clues.
Phil -- Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all. -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
Bob Dubery wrote: > On Sep 7, 3:28 pm, noone <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > In article <2007090709120316807-president@whitehousegov>, > > Jonathan Peirce <presid...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
> > > No no no, it was just a low level rogue employee, and just a test > > > driver, and the race drivers, and well, their engineers, but no > > > no no it's not THE TEAM!
> > The McLiars will try to partition the team such that they can find > > an acceptable limb to sever short of killing the whole beast.
> > The McLaren fans' conduct during this sordid episode has shown human > > nature at its worst. > At least we're not all self-righteous hypocrites.
> I think everybody with an interest in this should pay attention to the > wording of Max Moseley's comminque. Max is no fool, is a lawyer by > profession, and has worded this communication very carefully.
> The messsage is that there is an ALLEGATION that one or more McLaren > drivers have some evidence that is material to the investigation, and > that FIA are keen to find out whether or not there is substance to > this allegation.
> The FIA are NOT saying that this information suggests that McLaren > have made use of improperly obtained Ferrari data. They are saying > that it is ALLEGED that one or more McLaren drivers MAY be in > possession of a document or documents relevant to the matter.
> So it COULD be a communication to the effect that such and such a > piece of data supplied by Coughlan enabled them to optimise their > strategy.
> Or it COULD be a document that would be embarrasing for Ferrari.
> Or it COULD be just an allegation with no substance to it.
> Whatever, the FIA are aware of this allegation (and that is the exact > word that Moseley has used) and, quite rightly IMO, are taking steps > to establish whether or not there is any substance to the allegation.
Directly related or not, and appearances are that it is, there is new evidence to be considered by the WMSC. An allegation is not evidence.
On Sep 7, 5:48 pm, "Bigbird" <bigbird.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob Dubery wrote: > > Whatever, the FIA are aware of this allegation (and that is the exact > > word that Moseley has used) and, quite rightly IMO, are taking steps > > to establish whether or not there is any substance to the allegation.
> Directly related or not, and appearances are that it is, there is new > evidence to be considered by the WMSC. An allegation is not evidence.
Nobody's said it is. The letter from Moseley is quite clear about this: "In the interests of the sport and the Championship, it is important that the FIA, as the regulator, established unequivocally and rapidly whether this allegation has any basis in fact."
There is a sizzle. Is there any steak? THAT is what next week's hearing is going to be about.
Bob Dubery wrote: > On Sep 7, 5:48 pm, "Bigbird" <bigbird.use...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > Whatever, the FIA are aware of this allegation (and that is the > > > exact word that Moseley has used) and, quite rightly IMO, are > > > taking steps to establish whether or not there is any substance > > > to the allegation.
> > Directly related or not, and appearances are that it is, there is > > new evidence to be considered by the WMSC. An allegation is not > > evidence.
> Nobody's said it is. The letter from Moseley is quite clear about > this: "In the interests of the sport and the Championship, it is > important that the FIA, as the regulator, established unequivocally > and rapidly whether this allegation has any basis in fact."
> There is a sizzle. Is there any steak? THAT is what next week's > hearing is going to be about.
Following the receipt of new evidence the World Motor Sport Council has been reconvened for a hearing in Paris on September 13th.
On Sep 7, 4:58 pm, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> They are shut up - for me. About 80% of posts are filtered > by my killfile. (Not as bad as alt.lang.asm where sometime > I'm told there are 100 new messages at the server, and when > I load the group there are only 2 shown!). I could have > sworn JP was also in the KF, but I did have KF truncation > problems a while back, maybe he got rescued by such a snip.
And is somebody now using a cancelbot? I post and read using google groups, and in some cases there is an indication that a reply has been made to a post of mine, but the actual reply can't be read.
Usually it's from 'noone', so I doubt it's anything that actually contains information.
> It's a shame seeing the sensible posters here, of which there > are many, spending such a large proportion of their time > having futile arguments with idiots who are so clue-resistent > that they'd remain clue-free even if dampened and then dunked > in a tank of high density powdered clues.
I take that point. But there are cases of deliberate distortions, and those should be pointed out as a matter of record.
>On Sep 7, 4:58 pm, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >wrote:
>> They are shut up - for me. About 80% of posts are filtered >> by my killfile. (Not as bad as alt.lang.asm where sometime >> I'm told there are 100 new messages at the server, and when >> I load the group there are only 2 shown!). I could have >> sworn JP was also in the KF, but I did have KF truncation >> problems a while back, maybe he got rescued by such a snip.
>And is somebody now using a cancelbot? I post and read using google >groups, and in some cases there is an indication that a reply has been >made to a post of mine, but the actual reply can't be read.
>Usually it's from 'noone', so I doubt it's anything that actually >contains information.
Brian being a paranoid and in fear of the black choppers and SUVs circling his house, always posts with x-noarchive set. And fair enough too, you just never know when you might make a sly comment about Dubya's shoes in the land of the free. So perhaps Google doesn't keep the posts long enough ? You should get a proper news reader.
>> It's a shame seeing the sensible posters here, of which there >> are many, spending such a large proportion of their time >> having futile arguments with idiots who are so clue-resistent >> that they'd remain clue-free even if dampened and then dunked >> in a tank of high density powdered clues. >I take that point. But there are cases of deliberate distortions, and >those should be pointed out as a matter of record.
I think most of us who do, do so to kill time too. It's either that or a game of Pac-Man and you know, once you get to level 12346, that game loses it's charm.
Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sep 7, 4:58 pm, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote:
> > They are shut up - for me. About 80% of posts are filtered > > by my killfile. (Not as bad as alt.lang.asm where sometime > > I'm told there are 100 new messages at the server, and when > > I load the group there are only 2 shown!). I could have > > sworn JP was also in the KF, but I did have KF truncation > > problems a while back, maybe he got rescued by such a snip.
> And is somebody now using a cancelbot? I post and read using google > groups, and in some cases there is an indication that a reply has been > made to a post of mine, but the actual reply can't be read.
Ockham's razor leads me to one simple conclusion - blame google groups.
Google groups sucks. If you don't believe me, search for "google groups sucks" (in quotes) on google groups (and no, it's not people's opinions of google groups sucking that are important to my point, but it's a phrase I know demonstrates how much google groups sucks).
I get 953 hits. Change the sort order, nothing more, to "Sort by date", and you'll get 1,010 hits. Where did the 57 new hits come from?
Now click on the 3nd page of results. You should be expecting hits 21-30 out of 1010, no? However, instead you'll get 21-22 of 22 hits. Whither have the other 988 hits gone?
In google groups maths, 953 equals 1010 equals 22. That sucks. Of course, the numbers may well have changed to other random values since posting this.
> Usually it's from 'noone', so I doubt it's anything that actually > contains information.
No issue there. My server honours cancels, and I can access them if I want to, so I don't believe there's anything nefarious going on, it's just another example of how much google groups sucks.
Phil -- Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all. -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
On Sep 8, 10:06 am, a_Frank <f...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 04:34:46 -0000, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Brian being a paranoid and in fear of the black choppers and SUVs > circling his house, always posts with x-noarchive set. And fair enough > too, you just never know when you might make a sly comment about > Dubya's shoes in the land of the free. > So perhaps Google doesn't keep the posts long enough ?
Normally posts flagged in this way are viewable for 5 days - or I'd never get to notice a thing he wrote. But recently I can see that he has made a post - sometimes just hours ago - but I can't read it.
My own belief is that he uses the x-noarchive so that nobody can use google groups to dig up some piece of crap he wrote a while back and throw it in his face. I would if I were him.
> You should get a proper news reader.
I should. It's a laziness issue more than anything.
|
