On Apr 11, 2:17 pm, "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:
<snip>
> Do you read all of the spam that comes to your inbox? Or is it filtered out?
> If so does that mean you have forgone the right to ever mention the
> spammers?
> Have you ever screened phone calls? If you have does that mean that you
> never talk to or refer to that person again. Ever?
The two are not the same in my books.
Well... it depends on why I KF the person I suppose. If it were just
to filter out all the posts about what some religous text revealed
millenia ago then that's one thing. If I filter out somebody else
because of a personal spat then that's quite another.
So I think the context makes a difference.
I have seen people (you may know the type) who claim to have so-and-so
KFed and then can hardly shut up about the allegedly KFed party. That
strikes me as being at the very least a bit lame.
"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_Lawre...@msn.com> wrote:
>> I remember Clark pretty well, he was a master of drifting before cars became crippled >> planes... there was a picture (no live TV at that time), still live
> No live TV? Some GPs - Britain, Monaco, Italy - were on TV in the UK in the
> early 'sixties. Some other motorsport too. Obviously, not necessarily in
> other countries.
There was live TV coverage of motor racing in the nineteen *fifties*. I
remember watching a BBC outside broadcast of the British GP from Aintree.
Don't think this was recorded though, that was left to the film newsreels
(almost everybody went to the cinema at least once a week in those days).
> On Apr 11, 2:17 pm, "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:
> <snip>
>> Do you read all of the spam that comes to your inbox? Or is it
>> filtered out? If so does that mean you have forgone the right to
>> ever mention the spammers?
>> Have you ever screened phone calls? If you have does that mean that
>> you never talk to or refer to that person again. Ever?
> The two are not the same in my books.
> Well... it depends on why I KF the person I suppose. If it were just
> to filter out all the posts about what some religous text revealed
> millenia ago then that's one thing. If I filter out somebody else
> because of a personal spat then that's quite another.
> So I think the context makes a difference.
> I have seen people (you may know the type) who claim to have so-and-so
> KFed and then can hardly shut up about the allegedly KFed party. That
> strikes me as being at the very least a bit lame.
I agree completely.
I generally killfile people who I know are just going to get me riled up. Who needs that right? Of course I often see their posts quoted and in general leave it alone - *unless* they're talking about me - in which case I may or may not respond. ;-)
-- Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
> No live TV? Some GPs - Britain, Monaco, Italy - were on TV in the UK in > the
> early 'sixties. Some other motorsport too. Obviously, not necessarily in
> other countries.
well, at least you know there are other countries in the world... ;)
the first FIFA World Cup I've seen live was Mexico 70 and the first Olympics was Munich 72...
first F1 live was 70 but I remember Le Mans before that...
On Apr 10, 9:44 am, " Grant" <Gr...@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote:
> Just another racing driver that ran out of talent.
Well if you say that about Jim Clark you are saying most if not all
drivers are just another driver, there is basic truth in that. As for
running out of talent well Jim Clark had a lot of talent, statically
more than all the others.
> Platitudes from people here who where mostly children at the time with no
> actual memories of the events.
True but some of us did see Clark drive as children and although we
did not fully appreciate what we had seen we did have access to blokes
who did. I must admit I was reluctant to accept that the bloke was
better than Brabham and I'm still reluctant, they were simply
different.
At the end of the day however if you line up all the great drivers,
Clark is there and in the top few and that in my opinion is
irrefutable, the position he is placed might be but he *has* to be in
the few.
> He was only a racing driver he contributed nothing for the good of mankind
> he was simply an entertainer, who was lucky enough to be doing something he
> loved, when he died 43 years ago.
History says he did contribute, he motivated and inspired many which
is more than I have done.
> Get some fucking perspective.
Perspective? What perspective? yours? or mine? or none?
> On Apr 10, 9:44 am, " Grant"<Gr...@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote:
>> Just another racing driver that ran out of talent.
> Well if you say that about Jim Clark you are saying most if not all
> drivers are just another driver, there is basic truth in that. As for
> running out of talent well Jim Clark had a lot of talent, statistically
> more than all the others.
>> Platitudes from people here who where mostly children at the time with no
>> actual memories of the events.
I'm happy to say that I saw Clark race many times in many formulae. Sad to say, I was not a child. IMO he was far and away the best of his generation whatever he drove. I had to wait until Senna came along for anything comparable - and as for Senna's replacement, I'm still waiting.
> True but some of us did see Clark drive as children and although we
> did not fully appreciate what we had seen we did have access to blokes
> who did. I must admit I was reluctant to accept that the bloke was
> better than Brabham and I'm still reluctant, they were simply
> different.
> At the end of the day however if you line up all the great drivers,
> Clark is there and in the top few and that in my opinion is
> irrefutable, the position he is placed might be but he *has* to be in
> the few.
>> He was only a racing driver he contributed nothing for the good of mankind
>> he was simply an entertainer, who was lucky enough to be doing something he
>> loved, when he died 43 years ago.
> History says he did contribute, he motivated and inspired many which
> is more than I have done.
Don't we nowadays mourn "entertainers" anyway? Clark certainly entertained me - whether in a Cortina-Lotus, a Galaxie, a Lotus 30, the Felday 4wd, F2, F1, whatever.
>> Get some fucking perspective.
Historical perspective? See above.
-- Chris
'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.'
build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> True but some of us did see Clark drive as children and although we
> did not fully appreciate what we had seen we did have access to blokes
> who did. I must admit I was reluctant to accept that the bloke was
> better than Brabham and I'm still reluctant, they were simply
> different.
*Some* of us saw Clark drive as *adults* ;-)
(and, take it from me, Clark was a *lot* better than Brabham).
>> True but some of us did see Clark drive as children and although we
>> did not fully appreciate what we had seen we did have access to blokes
>> who did. I must admit I was reluctant to accept that the bloke was
>> better than Brabham and I'm still reluctant, they were simply
>> different.
> *Some* of us saw Clark drive as *adults* ;-)
> (and, take it from me, Clark was a *lot* better than Brabham).
Seconded!
-- Chris
'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.'
On Apr 12, 10:58 pm, Sir Tim <bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > True but some of us did see Clark drive as children and although we
> > did not fully appreciate what we had seen we did have access to blokes
> > who did. I must admit I was reluctant to accept that the bloke was
> > better than Brabham and I'm still reluctant, they were simply
> > different.
> *Some* of us saw Clark drive as *adults* ;-)
> (and, take it from me, Clark was a *lot* better than Brabham).
> --
> Henry Birkin, Bt.
<smile> well I'm not qualified to disagree but I would challenge the
use of the word *lot*. Jack didn't win three titles by luck alone.
A few years back I looked at one of those "Top 50" lists and Clark was
not in the top ten. I didn't bother reading beyond that. So, don't get
me wrong I rate him very, very highly. However I don't give numbers to
my top/greatest drivers, I just have a group, most I've seen drive
others I rely on the words of old fellas, blokes who worked in the
sport, sadly most have gone and I miss their wise advise and opinion.
Another point in favour of Clark if looking at stats (which I'm not a
fan of) is that if the Lotus was not so fragile he would have
undoubtedly done even better. I mention that because the "Virtual Stat
Man" put up some stuff on The Flying Lap. You might like to watch it.
On Apr 12, 7:14 am, build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> True but some of us did see Clark drive as children and although we
> did not fully appreciate what we had seen we did have access to blokes
> who did. I must admit I was reluctant to accept that the bloke was
> better than Brabham and I'm still reluctant, they were simply
> different.
I think you're letting patriotism blind you there. As you say, the
debate around Clark is exactly where he ranks in the best of the best.
I've never read a similar debate around Brabham (other than from one-
eyed Ockers) because he's not in that esteemed company to start with.
Very good, sure. Very smart too. But you could say the same about
another triple champ, and nobody seems to think that Nelson Piquet was
an all-time great driver.
Clark, in his time, was the benchmark driver, the guy that everybody
else was measured against just as Senna and Schumacher were the
benchmark in their time. Brabham was never the benchmark.
> On Apr 12, 7:14 am, build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > True but some of us did see Clark drive as children and although we
> > did not fully appreciate what we had seen we did have access to blokes
> > who did. I must admit I was reluctant to accept that the bloke was
> > better than Brabham and I'm still reluctant, they were simply
> > different.
> I think you're letting patriotism blind you there. As you say, the
> debate around Clark is exactly where he ranks in the best of the best.
> I've never read a similar debate around Brabham (other than from one-
> eyed Ockers) because he's not in that esteemed company to start with.
> Very good, sure. Very smart too. But you could say the same about
> another triple champ, and nobody seems to think that Nelson Piquet was
> an all-time great driver.
> Clark, in his time, was the benchmark driver, the guy that everybody
> else was measured against just as Senna and Schumacher were the
> benchmark in their time. Brabham was never the benchmark.
> Executive summary: Clark was better than Brabham.
I don't disagree with most of your summary and some I can't disagree
with some, I am an Ocker. However as for Piquet, as I said earlier no
one wins three titles by accident. In my view Piquet is one of the
under rated drivers. Look closely at the Mansell - Piquet battle, they
were both greats. Perhaps your best not to start me rambling about
Mansell ... LOL.
