Alonso's six tenths: original quote?
WebSlave
Alonso claiming to have brought six tenths more speed to McLaren has
become a myth taken as a fact. I'd like to know what did he actually
say? Anyone can refer me to an original source from that time?
-Webs-
WebSlave
Someone pointed me to this article (excerpt):
But the Spanish double world champion said he was frustrated at his
treatment by the McLaren team and the fact that the expertise and
experience he had brought to the outfit had not given him an edge.
"My belief is that last year McLaren were nowhere," he said.
"I remember how the car was going when I tested it in December and how
it went in Australia.
"Those sixth tenths of a second that I have brought when I got in the
car for the first time haven't been reflected at any time when we two
drivers have been competing against each other.
Full article here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2535116920070825
Alonso is obviously complaining that his input hasn't been rewarded
with a #1 status, but what is your view on _how_ he brought those six
tenths?
- By setting up the car?
- By suggesting changes to the car?
- By being that much faster driver (than)?
-Webs-
APLer
news:e11494e5-0b90-40c4...@11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com:
> WebSlave wrote:
>
>> Alonso claiming to have brought six tenths more speed to McLaren has
>> become a myth taken as a fact. I'd like to know what did he actually
>> say? Anyone can refer me to an original source from that time?
> Full article here:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2535116920070825
>
> Alonso is obviously complaining that his input hasn't been rewarded
> with a #1 status, but what is your view on _how_ he brought those six
> tenths?
>
> - By setting up the car?
> - By suggesting changes to the car?
> - By being that much faster driver (than)?
>
And when did he actually *do* it if at all? If it was fact at some
point, clearly the press was sleeping again or going through the
montions while wating for the bar to open.
IMHO it's just his reaction to the press asking him why a noob was so much
more sucessful than he was.
AC
"WebSlave" <websla...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:e11494e5-0b90-40c4...@11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
Very IIRC,
There was an article posted here recently where Alonso said that the 0.6
(whatever) came from procedural improvements he bought from Renault. Or
something like that. Exactly what and how, I have no idea. But it seemed
that Alonso was distancing himself from the idea that he has 0.6 secs over
other drivers.
AC
WebSlave
> Very IIRC,
>
> There was an article posted here recently where Alonso said that the 0.6
> (whatever) came from procedural improvements he bought from Renault.
HE bought from Renault and brought to McLaren? That sounds
extraordinary. I'd sure like to see that article. What "procedural
improvement" would affect lap times?
> But it seemed
> that Alonso was distancing himself from the idea that he has 0.6 secs
> over other drivers.
That's understandable, but the whole 0.6 secs statement has been used
(by fans and especially anti-fans) as a (arrogant) claim of Alonso's
abilities as a car developer. Which I think is a misunderstanding at
least, a deliberate misinterpretation at worst. That's why I'm asking
why he's said it or you think what he meant saying it.
-Webs-
Bob Dubery
> That's understandable, but the whole 0.6 secs statement has been used
> (by fans and especially anti-fans) as a (arrogant) claim of Alonso's
> abilities as a car developer. Which I think is a misunderstanding at
> least, a deliberate misinterpretation at worst. That's why I'm asking
> why he's said it or you think what he meant saying it.
The only conclusion to come to is that Alonso feels that something he
did bought about a performance increase in the McLaren car. He is
claiming the credit.
It may well have improved by that much anyway as new pieces became
available and the team learned more about the car. Alonso, with his
experience in F1 and in a championship winning team, should have
understood that.
Now it could be that Alonso got 0.6 seconds improvement over a
teammate just by being a lot quicker - but we know that that wasn't
the case.
It could be that he felt that he'd figured out the car and how to set
it up and he's peeved because all of his data was made available to
Hamilton who got the benefit of Alonso's insight and efforts. But then
why doesn't he say that?
Alonso claimed that he was responsible for an increase in performance,
not the team but he himself. The comment about how this is not
reflected in performance terms is a bit vague, but it would not be
unreasonable to conclude that he thinks he deserves some kind of
consideration for whatever it is that he claims to have bought or to
be the sole beneficiary of these improvements.
He said it. There's not many ways that you can plausibly interpret it.
He can carry the can for having said it and he has nobody else to
blame if it gets thrown back in his face at some point.
Anyway, Alonso isn't hired just because he has a sunny personality.
Maybe a spell at the charm school would help, but what he's hired for
is to win races and championships, not as a role model or to provide
enlightenment to the masses.
Brad
It sounded like he was saying when he tested the previous years car he could
turn laps .6 faster than Montoya, Raikkonen, De la Rosa or Hamilton had, the
very first time he drove it. He maintained that gap over Hamilton during
testing but suddenly when it came time to race he felt like something was
wrong as the advantage dissapeared.
Didn't really sound like he meant he could bring .6 with him due to his
excellent development skills. Just that he was that much faster than anyone
else in equal equipment, the way I read it.
After that I'm not certain if he is saying that .6 should have seen the team
treating him more like Schumacher was at Ferrari, or that the team must have
been giving Lewis preferential treatment for him to have suddenly caught up.
--
Brad
Bob Dubery
> It sounded like he was saying when he tested the previous years car he could
> turn laps .6 faster than Montoya, Raikkonen, De la Rosa or Hamilton had, the
> very first time he drove it. He maintained that gap over Hamilton during
> testing but suddenly when it came time to race he felt like something was
> wrong as the advantage dissapeared.
Yes. That would explain his second statement about that 0.6 seconds
not being seen between the two drivers. However it rules out him being
fundamentally 0.6 seconds faster per lap than the other drivers
because if he IS that much faster than, say, Hamilton, you'd expect
him to maintain that gap as Hamilton just doesn't have it in him to do
those lap times. So he's still claiming to have bought about some
improvement that the others couldn't, and he's still miffed at not
getting the sole benefit of it.
AC
> AC wrote:
>
>> Very IIRC,
>>
>> There was an article posted here recently where Alonso said that the 0.6
>> (whatever) came from procedural improvements he bought from Renault.
>
> HE bought from Renault and brought to McLaren? That sounds
> extraordinary. I'd sure like to see that article. What "procedural
> improvement" would affect lap times?
I honestly dont know what Alonso meant, or if I have it accurate. But it
could be things like testing or set up procedures.
>
>> But it seemed
>> that Alonso was distancing himself from the idea that he has 0.6 secs
>> over other drivers.
>
> That's understandable, but the whole 0.6 secs statement has been used
> (by fans and especially anti-fans) as a (arrogant) claim of Alonso's
> abilities as a car developer. Which I think is a misunderstanding at
> least, a deliberate misinterpretation at worst. That's why I'm asking
> why he's said it or you think what he meant saying it.
Well, if it was something procedural then it might make sense. The initial
impression was that he was claiming 0.6 in raw speed and talent. That was
what was mocked. But then, I would wonder about the legality or at least
morality of him using Renault information to improve McLaren. It borders on
spy gate type stuff. (I should add that I personally don't object to
inter-team information spread by moving employees, but it seems that FIA do,
or did when it was McLaren)
Anyway, I don't know for sure, I'm just giving you what I can remember. And
as may here should know by now, I have a piss poor memory :)
AC
AC
"Brad" <opti...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:4bd7...@news.x-privat.org...
Would make some sense. I very much thought at the time he was claiming to be
0.6 faster than other drivers. He then found out that he was not. Perhaps he
now understands the sheer arrogance of the statement and is not trying to
smooth it out as it were.
I am beginning to wonder if the 0.6 thing was something he said out of
frustration or anger and perhaps now regrets. It has been used to mock him
quite a lot and I can imagine him wanting to put an end to it.
Perhaps he has seen Vettel look poor and slow during the practice sessions
only to get poles. Perhaps he can now see how things change during qually
and the race compared to testing. Perhaps he has seen how good Hamilton
really is and realized his statement was silly.
That's the sense I'm beginning to get. Maybe the guy is just growing up.
Fair enough really.
AC
Frank Adam
I can summerise it even better. He is full of shit.
--
Regards, Frank
larkim
> "WebSlave" <webslaven...@mail.com> wrote in message
Also this article:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/motoracing-alonso-outburst-opens-door-to-exit-from-mclaren-463219.html
Matt
Grant
>
> Alonso claiming to have brought six tenths more speed to McLaren has
> become a myth taken as a fact. I'd like to know what did he actually
> say? Anyone can refer me to an original source from that time?
>
>
pre-season set-up.
Grant
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:mvSBn.333857$1j3.3...@newsfe10.ams2...
>
>
> That's the sense I'm beginning to get. Maybe the guy is just growing up.
>
>
Alvaro
>
> It sounded like he was saying when he tested the previous years car he could
> turn laps .6 faster than Montoya, Raikkonen, De la Rosa or Hamilton had, the
> very first time he drove it. He maintained that gap over Hamilton during
> testing but suddenly when it came time to race he felt like something was
> wrong as the advantage dissapeared.
I think it is about a gap betweek first time driving and Australia
race. I mean he suggests he developed the car to be 0.6 secs faster at
some point in the pre-season time (training sessions).
I thinks it's nothing about comparing himself with other drivers. And
if (big IF) LH didn't cooperate to develop the car while testing he
claims all the credit.
If (big one again) LH didn't cooperate and all the development was
given to him by RD ... well ... I guess I would be pissed off too.
Alvaro
Mark
If (and, as you say, it's a very big "if") this is all true, why would
you be pissed off? You are a 2*WDC with years of experience up against
a rookie in a single *team*. You expect the team to develop the two
cars independently?
If you're suggesting that Hamilton willfully withheld development (but,
as the rookie, I would seriously doubt it) you might have *some* point.
If he didn't, you should *expect* your development information and
setups to be shared with your teammate.
Wouldn't you?
John Briggs
It was an incoherent (not properly articulated, and certainly not
thought-through) grumble that he should have been given preferential
treatment. Spanish fans thought that this was reasonable whereas the
English fans (and the neutrals) didn't :-)
--
John Briggs
Alvaro
> If (and, as you say, it's a very big "if") this is all true, why would
> you be pissed off? You are a 2*WDC with years of experience up against
> a rookie in a single *team*. You expect the team to develop the two
> cars independently?
Of course they are not developing cars independently and they are
supposed to use the same parts.
But taking it away from F1 and talking generally if I make a great job
in my company (and that 0,6 sec would be a great job) I expect to be
rewarded. If cannot get that reward as bonus-payment (and salary was
fixed one year before) I expect to have it in any other way. For a F1
driver that way *could* be being treated as #1.
If I do the job and my co-worker is doing nothing but *copy* me I
could be annoyed. Moreover if he is faster than me (or equal or less,
I am not getting into that controversial) with the same set-up I have
developed ... I could feel like someone is taking advantage of my
job ... and it's not me. In adition F1-world is highly competitive so
some details could make difference between #1 and #2.
It was said that FA changed some set up at the very last moment at
last races and that new set up couldn't be adjusted in LH's car.
I don't know if that was true but every race I have heard that
*before* the start of the race, FA ended in front of LH (I don't have
any document here so I am just reminding it)
Just think about your own company and forget F1-world. Wouldn't you be
pissed off is someone else took credit of your job?
> If you're suggesting that Hamilton willfully withheld development (but,
> as the rookie, I would seriously doubt it) you might have *some* point.
> If he didn't, you should *expect* your development information and
> setups to be shared with your teammate.
>
> Wouldn't you?
Of course, but I could expect to be treated as #1 as well. I am not a
F1 driver so I don't know every detail in a race so, since some other
teams (and not only Ferrari) play that #1-#2 game, there should be any
difference.
In an extremely simple way: Do you think is it fair that a faster-as-
hell rookie that knows nothing about developing a car beats you by
using your job? If you answer yes (maybe you support LH), just think
it in a reverse situation. Would you *still* say yes?
Alvaro
Bigbird
> On 28 abr, 07:26, "Brad" <optio...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It sounded like he was saying when he tested the previous years car
> > he could turn laps .6 faster than Montoya, Raikkonen, De la Rosa or
> > Hamilton had, the very first time he drove it. He maintained that
> > gap over Hamilton during testing but suddenly when it came time to
> > race he felt like something was wrong as the advantage dissapeared.
>
> I think it is about a gap betweek first time driving and Australia
> race. I mean he suggests he developed the car to be 0.6 secs faster at
> some point in the pre-season time (training sessions).
>
> I thinks it's nothing about comparing himself with other drivers. And
> if (big IF) LH didn't cooperate to develop the car while testing he
> claims all the credit.
>
There was a lot of co-operation going on during testing in 2007 but
much of it reflected poorly on the participants.
> If (big one again) LH didn't cooperate and all the development was
> given to him by RD ... well ... I guess I would be pissed off too.
>
Seriously? What alternative do you expect, that they deliberately
underdevelop the sister car because their multi-million $ investment
helped in some way? When they invest that amount of money in a driver
it isn't just for Sunday afternoon performance.
--
Bigbird
#
You'll be laughing when I'm dead!
AC
"Alvaro" <alva...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b49fb963-0c34-42d4...@g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
From Larkin's link, it seems Alonso is comparing the 2006 car in some way.
Maybe he means that he got 0.6 out of that car over the other drivers.
Perhaps he did that by using Renault testing procedures, or something like
that?
AC
AC
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:VwYBn.135$Ac1...@newsfe20.ams2...
Sorry, "larkim"
AC
AC
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:lzXBn.140417$zV.5...@newsfe27.ams2...
I'm English, Britpack, Hamilton supporting scum, and I thought Alonso should
have been given a clear No1 status. I thought he was signed as such. I would
never have given equal status to a 2xWDC and a rookie. A year later, gloves
off for Lewis.
Only hindsight shows that thinking to be questionable. No one, and I mean no
one thought Lewis would threaten Alonso. When every one got the surprise,
there was no contractual terms to fall back on.
It was either arrogance, stupidity or both that caused the entire situation.
Whether I blame Alonso or his advisors, I don't know.
AC
Bob Dubery
> I'm English, Britpack, Hamilton supporting scum, and I thought Alonso should
> have been given a clear No1 status. I thought he was signed as such. I would
> never have given equal status to a 2xWDC and a rookie. A year later, gloves
> off for Lewis.
Alonso signed for McLaren very early on in 2006. At the time he was
NOT a 2 time WDC and I doubt anybody had any idea who is teammate
would be. McLaren had an option to resign Raikkonen and it's likely
that's who everybody was thinking of. So I doubt that he was given any
guarantees of number 1 status. He might have fought for that if he
KNEW that he was going to get a rookie teammate (he didn't, I don't
imagine anybody did) but Kimi and Montoya were still in the picture
when he signed. So McLaren had a 3 into 2 scenario. Little did anybody
imagine that the same situation would then manifest itself at Ferrari.
APLer
news:e582f08b-ea0a-45db...@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 28, 2:11�am, WebSlave <webslaven...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> It could be that he felt that he'd figured out the car and how to set
> it up and he's peeved because all of his data was made available to
> Hamilton who got the benefit of Alonso's insight and efforts. But then
> why doesn't he say that?
>
Because he was PO'd and not thinking clearly due to the way the press
asked the question perhaps? Also his english isn't perfect as we know.
> Alonso claimed that he was responsible for an increase in performance,
> not the team but he himself. The comment about how this is not
> reflected in performance terms is a bit vague, but it would not be
> unreasonable to conclude that he thinks he deserves some kind of
> consideration for whatever it is that he claims to have bought or to
> be the sole beneficiary of these improvements.
>
Well the trend on other teams sure seems to be to have one rookie that
can do fast laps and one vet. who knows how to set up the car and train
out the kinks in the rookie's driving. Alonzo - as compared to Hamilton
certainly *would* be a driver that would know the vet role better than
Hamilton. You just have to look at Hamilton's bad history of pit stop
decisions to see that. It would have worked too if Alonzo didn't have
such an ego. Mclaren could have had a 1-2 finish in the WDC and won the
WDC easily IMHO.
> Anyway, Alonso isn't hired just because he has a sunny personality.
> Maybe a spell at the charm school would help, but what he's hired for
> is to win races and championships, not as a role model or to provide
> enlightenment to the masses.
>
If only the stuff could be kept from the press, It would be manageable
too. Shame really.
Well we'll see if he self distructs at Ferrari I guess. I can see signs
of the tension starting to build there.
Mark
> On 28 abr, 15:18, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> If (and, as you say, it's a very big "if") this is all true, why would
>> you be pissed off? �You are a 2*WDC with years of experience up against
>> a rookie in a single *team*. �You expect the team to develop the two
>> cars independently?
>
> Of course they are not developing cars independently and they are
> supposed to use the same parts.
>
> But taking it away from F1 and talking generally if I make a great job
> in my company (and that 0,6 sec would be a great job) I expect to be
> rewarded. If cannot get that reward as bonus-payment (and salary was
> fixed one year before) I expect to have it in any other way. For a F1
> driver that way *could* be being treated as #1.
In general, teams have bonus payments. It depends on the contract, but
salary and points/win/whatever bonus tend to be separate. I would
expect a driver to benefit for their work.
> If I do the job and my co-worker is doing nothing but *copy* me I
> could be annoyed. Moreover if he is faster than me (or equal or less,
> I am not getting into that controversial) with the same set-up I have
> developed ... I could feel like someone is taking advantage of my
> job ... and it's not me. In adition F1-world is highly competitive so
> some details could make difference between #1 and #2.
That's the risk in F1. There have been drivers who very deliberately
avoid having a competitive teammate (they have these things written into
their contracts - allegedly) precisely to avoid that situation. In an
F1 team, though, you expect both drivers to do their best in setup,
testing, qualification and the race...but the only real reward comes
from the race.
Would disadvantaging Hamilton make any sense? It might help Alonso
relative to him, but what about the *team*?
> It was said that FA changed some set up at the very last moment at
> last races and that new set up couldn't be adjusted in LH's car.
Why do that?
> I don't know if that was true but every race I have heard that
> *before* the start of the race, FA ended in front of LH (I don't have
> any document here so I am just reminding it)
>
> Just think about your own company and forget F1-world. Wouldn't you be
> pissed off is someone else took credit of your job?
How would they? In the team, it would be well known who had contributed
what. It might be less apparent to those outside the team, but that's
life.
In my job, I have often watched as colleagues or staff junior to me took
the bow for what was my work. I honestly don't mind that - if they've
worked hard and are part of the same team, my main concern is that the
*team* gets the credit. I make sure, however, that *internally* credit
is given where it's due.
>> If you're suggesting that Hamilton willfully withheld development (but,
>> as the rookie, I would seriously doubt it) you might have *some* point.
>> If he didn't, you should *expect* your development information and
>> setups to be shared with your teammate.
>>
>> Wouldn't you?
>
> Of course, but I could expect to be treated as #1 as well. I am not a
> F1 driver so I don't know every detail in a race so, since some other
> teams (and not only Ferrari) play that #1-#2 game, there should be any
> difference.
You *could* expect that, but you could be disappointed. Different teams
play the team game differently.
> In an extremely simple way: Do you think is it fair that a faster-as-
> hell rookie that knows nothing about developing a car beats you by
> using your job? If you answer yes (maybe you support LH), just think
> it in a reverse situation. Would you *still* say yes?
Yes. Feel free to think of me as a Hamilton supporter, but my record is
fairly clear. I like fast drivers (which include Hamilton *and*
Alonso), but I don't exclusively support any driver or team. Right now
(largely as a consequence of the accident), I'm mainly paying attention
to Massa...but he's disappointing somewhat at the moment.
Anyway, some people are very good at setup but not good at racing. Some
people are very good at racing and no good at setup. Some are good at
both. Take a look at Luca Badoer; most people agreed he was a good test
driver, but he absolutely sucked in qualification and the races
themselves.
As it happens, I think Alonso is good at both, and I don't think it was
*anything* to do with Hamilton that he struggled to beat him. It
certainly wasn't Hamilton riding his coat-tails. Alonso was better that
year and should have won. I said at the time and have consistently said
it since. When he did badly, it was (IMO) psychological; he allowed
some fairly random setbacks and issues to convince himself that Hamilton
was being given preferential treatment when I think it was a touch of
paranoia as the new boy at McLaren. I think that if he'd relaxed and
driven, he'd have been fine, would have added another WDC and still be
at McLaren. (and the spygate thing probably wouldn't have blown up -
I'll let others argue about the merits of that!)
As it was, he closed up, started picking fights, publically created
issues which the FIA couldn't ignore and it was a downward spiral after
that.
Look at Hungary - left to the team, they would have had no choice but to
pull Hamilton up for disregarding instructions. As it was, Alonso left
McLaren and the FIA with few choices.
As they say: two wrongs don't make a right.
Of course, you don't have to agree with any of that analysis.
AC
"Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1cf9fb7b-1a0e-478f...@z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Accepting all that, and I have no reason not to, IMHO, it leaves McLaren at
fault for not managing the situation well.
I'm NOT saying that Alonso handled the situation well at all during the
season, but McLaren should have been in control. They weren't and as a
result they lost out.
I honestly believe that once they knew the line up, Alonso should have been
No 1, and if "the rookie's" contract said other wise, then I would call that
a mistake too. And I understand Alonso's frustration.
AC
Mark
>
> Accepting all that, and I have no reason not to, IMHO, it leaves McLaren at
> fault for not managing the situation well.
>
> I'm NOT saying that Alonso handled the situation well at all during the
> season, but McLaren should have been in control. They weren't and as a
> result they lost out.
>
> I honestly believe that once they knew the line up, Alonso should have been
> No 1, and if "the rookie's" contract said other wise, then I would call that
> a mistake too. And I understand Alonso's frustration.
I agree with all that - though I'm not that big on #1 status - including
the frustration comment. What I thought was stupid from Alonso wasn't
his frustration but his response to that. If he had shown a little more
calmness, it would have worked out for him at McLaren no matter how
badly the team handled it.
If the team did handle it badly, of course, which we can't know.
Another possibility is that Alonso convinced himself that he was being
treated as #2 and, despite team efforts, withdrew within his own circle.
If he became convinced of Hamilton's status, it could be very hard for
the team to convince him otherwise short of slapping Hamilton down.
But this is all speculation. I doubt that anyone on either side can
truly be sure what went wrong - time and emotion inevitably clouds
judgement - but I hope that all sides have moved on. Even if the fans
probably haven't. ;-)
CatharticF1
news:N4edneLYYNC9m0XW...@pipex.net:
You are one of many reasons why the Britpack are so well respected.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was freedom is just greed."
CatharticF1
> I'm English, Britpack..
No - you're not on the list.
You'll have to try to be far less reasonable if you have such aspirations.
Mike
> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote innews:4DYBn.137$Ac1...@newsfe20.ams2:
>
> > I'm English, Britpack..
>
> No - you're not on the list.
> You'll have to try to be far less reasonable if you have such aspirations.
Have you thought about subscribing yourself. By everything I read
herevyou MORE than fit the criteria.
No wait, its anyone who disagrees with you isn't it.
Edmund
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
The hypocrite didn't listen to his bosses nor did he do what he
agreed up on. Instead he tell his step daddy go swivel and in
Hongary
he played an extremely dirty game to make Alfonzie look like
Alfonzie was the bad guy here!
It payed of for him as Afonzie got penalized and the cheat was
rewarded
for his foul play.
>
> I honestly believe that once they knew the line up, Alonso
> should have been No 1, and if "the rookie's" contract said
> other wise, then I would call that a mistake too. And I
> understand Alonso's frustration.
As I said before, for some reason -lets call it coincidence- :-)
every team
where Alfonzie comes, suddenly improve a big step, in McLarens
case
indeed .5 second or so.
Not very nice for Alfonzie if the cheat steels additional fuel
burning
rounds, forces his way in front in the pitlane and when there
finanly is
made an agreement about it, he tells the team go swivel and he
steels the
extra round again.
>
> AC
Edmund
AC
"Mark" <sp...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:hra1kc$dnf$1...@north.jnrs.ja.net...
> AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>> Accepting all that, and I have no reason not to, IMHO, it leaves McLaren
>> at
>> fault for not managing the situation well.
>>
>> I'm NOT saying that Alonso handled the situation well at all during the
>> season, but McLaren should have been in control. They weren't and as a
>> result they lost out.
>>
>> I honestly believe that once they knew the line up, Alonso should have
>> been
>> No 1, and if "the rookie's" contract said other wise, then I would call
>> that
>> a mistake too. And I understand Alonso's frustration.
>
> I agree with all that - though I'm not that big on #1 status - including
> the frustration comment. What I thought was stupid from Alonso wasn't
> his frustration but his response to that. If he had shown a little more
> calmness, it would have worked out for him at McLaren no matter how
> badly the team handled it.
I do actually agree. But don't you expect the likes of Ron Dennis, a very
experienced mature voice in F1 to handle things better than a young man?
At the time, an Alonso fan reminded me of Alonso's age at the time, and he
was quite young. He acted childishly because essentially, and relatively, he
was a child.
Its a bit like Piquet and Flav.
>
> If the team did handle it badly, of course, which we can't know.
> Another possibility is that Alonso convinced himself that he was being
> treated as #2 and, despite team efforts, withdrew within his own circle.
> If he became convinced of Hamilton's status, it could be very hard for
> the team to convince him otherwise short of slapping Hamilton down.
Again, I have to point the finger back at McLaren management for not getting
to grips with that before it went too far. May be its fair to say Alonso
snapped
>
> But this is all speculation.
Absolutly. Me included.
>I doubt that anyone on either side can
> truly be sure what went wrong - time and emotion inevitably clouds
> judgement - but I hope that all sides have moved on. Even if the fans
> probably haven't. ;-)
>
My point right now is that people want to blame one or the other. What I'm
trying to say is that IMHO, both were equally at fault. And both lost out.
You see, I like McLaren and am not a fan of Alonso. How ever, I see a large
organization against one man/boy. So I want to defend the little guy. An
irritating contradiction!!!
AC
AC
"CatharticF1" <rasf1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D69745D6CAA5r...@203.26.24.228...
> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in news:4DYBn.137$Ac1...@newsfe20.ams2:
>
>
>> I'm English, Britpack..
>
> No - you're not on the list.
> You'll have to try to be far less reasonable if you have such aspirations.
>
I consider my self both.
During a race and in the heat of the aftermath, I am Britpack. Later on I
try to do reasonable.
Its like the Hamilton weaving, at the time was was all excited and willing
Lewis on. I loved it. But when the race is over, I have to try to be fair
about it.
AC
Bigbird
> " Grant" <Gr...@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in
> news:N4edneLYYNC9m0XW...@pipex.net:
>
> >
> > "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> > news:mvSBn.333857$1j3.3...@newsfe10.ams2...
> > >
> > >
> >> That's the sense I'm beginning to get. Maybe the guy is just
> growing up.
> > >
> > >
> > He's the same cunt at Ferrari as he was at Mclaren.
>
> You are one of many reasons why the Britpack are so well respected.
Another graciously bigoted comment that you don't even see discredits
you as much as he.
Mark
> "Mark" <sp...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:hra1kc$dnf$1...@north.jnrs.ja.net...
>>
>> the frustration comment. What I thought was stupid from Alonso wasn't
>> his frustration but his response to that. If he had shown a little more
>> calmness, it would have worked out for him at McLaren no matter how
>> badly the team handled it.
>
> I do actually agree. But don't you expect the likes of Ron Dennis, a very
> experienced mature voice in F1 to handle things better than a young man?
>
> At the time, an Alonso fan reminded me of Alonso's age at the time, and he
> was quite young. He acted childishly because essentially, and relatively, he
> was a child.
I don't disagree at all. I've never rated Dennis's ability to handle
individuals let alone those with the bigger egos (which includes both
Alonso and Hamilton).
> Its a bit like Piquet and Flav.
Yes, but Flavio *does* understand individuals. Possibly a bit too well.
;-)
>> If the team did handle it badly, of course, which we can't know.
>> Another possibility is that Alonso convinced himself that he was being
>> treated as #2 and, despite team efforts, withdrew within his own circle.
>> If he became convinced of Hamilton's status, it could be very hard for
>> the team to convince him otherwise short of slapping Hamilton down.
>
> Again, I have to point the finger back at McLaren management for not getting
> to grips with that before it went too far. May be its fair to say Alonso
> snapped
Sure.
>> I doubt that anyone on either side can
>> truly be sure what went wrong - time and emotion inevitably clouds
>> judgement - but I hope that all sides have moved on. Even if the fans
>> probably haven't. ;-)
>
> My point right now is that people want to blame one or the other. What I'm
> trying to say is that IMHO, both were equally at fault. And both lost out.
>
> You see, I like McLaren and am not a fan of Alonso. How ever, I see a large
> organization against one man/boy. So I want to defend the little guy. An
> irritating contradiction!!!
No - that's fair enough. My point is that it will never be unpicked in
a way that's satisfactory to all sides, so the fans are just picking at
a scab.
Alvaro
Well, I am not giving an excuse for FA behaviour. I just say whay he
could think about credit for that 0,6 tenths.
>
>
> In general, teams have bonus payments. It depends on the contract, but
> salary and points/win/whatever bonus tend to be separate. I would
> expect a driver to benefit for their work.
Well I just know about my salary and I do work in a completely
different subject so ... I just can guess that bonus would depend on
your performance while racing.
>
> Would disadvantaging Hamilton make any sense? It might help Alonso
> relative to him, but what about the *team*?
> ...
>
>
> You *could* expect that, but you could be disappointed. Different teams
> play the team game differently.
I do agree with you at this point. Different companies play different
policies and you must adapt and play the game. Nevertheless you can
feel dissapointed if that game doesn't match with your expectations.
>
>
> As it happens, I think Alonso is good at both, and I don't think it was
> *anything* to do with Hamilton that he struggled to beat him. It
> certainly wasn't Hamilton riding his coat-tails. Alonso was better that
> year and should have won. I said at the time and have consistently said
> it since. When he did badly, it was (IMO) psychological; he allowed
> some fairly random setbacks and issues to convince himself that Hamilton
> was being given preferential treatment when I think it was a touch of
> paranoia as the new boy at McLaren. I think that if he'd relaxed and
> driven, he'd have been fine, would have added another WDC and still be
> at McLaren. (and the spygate thing probably wouldn't have blown up -
> I'll let others argue about the merits of that!)
Absolutely!!! Alonso should have beaten Hamilton by far but he didn't.
And sometimes (IMHO) the team didn't played the same with both
drivers. I can remind that childish action of Alonso making Lewis to
wait at Hungaroring (?) boxes. That should be fined by McLaren not
LH's manager (daddy) going to complain to FIA. On the other side LH
gave one lap more while clasifying so team strategy was completely
turned upside down ... and the team did nothing to LH. That whole
subject (consider it with FA and LH actions) should be cleaned inside
the team: no claiming to FIA and a great ass-spanking to both
drivers.
I think that after that race war was declared in McLaren. And Dennis
had some fault here with is no-management of the situation.
> Of course, you don't have to agree with any of that analysis.
Maybe I don't agree 100% with your analysis but since no nationality/
racism/hooligan-ism subject has been risen here it's a pleasure to
speak about it. Anyway I support Ferrari and by that time Alonso was
in McLaren so I coudn't make any different that laughing at that
stupid situation. The smile on my face after Brazil race was ...
ummm ... obscene :-)
If I had to blame somebody I would blame Ron Dennis. He was the
principal (manager) and he didn't manage nothing or whatever he did it
was a flaw
AC
Yeah, I think its my inner diplomat that is trying to see a fair conclusion.
Things are generally triple sided. But you are right, it will be a well
picked scab for years to come. I suppose that's what makes up the mythology
of the sport.
AC
Mike
> " Grant" <Gr...@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote innews:N4edneLYYNC9m0XW...@pipex.net:
>
>
>
> > "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >news:mvSBn.333857$1j3.3...@newsfe10.ams2...
>
> >> That's the sense I'm beginning to get. Maybe the guy is just growing up.
>
> > He's the same cunt at Ferrari as he was at Mclaren.
>
> You are one of many reasons why the Britpack are so well respected.
Going by your definition of Britpack, this doesn't fit. Please
explain?
Mark
>
> Well, I am not giving an excuse for FA behaviour. I just say whay he
> could think about credit for that 0,6 tenths.
Of course, but we don't (and can't) know:
a) if it's true
or:
b) what credit was given
A lot of the complaints have been made (on both sides) in the heat of
arguments, and that's never a good atmosphere for "truth" to survive in.
> On 28 abr, 19:20, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In general, teams have bonus payments. �It depends on the contract, but
>> salary and points/win/whatever bonus tend to be separate. �I would
>> expect a driver to benefit for their work.
>
> Well I just know about my salary and I do work in a completely
> different subject so ... I just can guess that bonus would depend on
> your performance while racing.
If a driver has a good manager, they will make sure they get bonuses for
anything which can (clearly) demonstrate performance. On the team's
side, they like to reward performance, particularly where it contributes
points. As we know, points mean money, so a bonus rewarding any
contribution to points is a winner; if they win points, the bonus should
be more than paid for and if they don't win points, they don't pay out:
it's a win-win situation.
Of course, it's possible that they paid so much in salary to Alonso that
they removed a bonus component, but this seems unlikely to me...
>> Would disadvantaging Hamilton make any sense? �It might help Alonso
>> relative to him, but what about the *team*?
>> ...
>>
>> You *could* expect that, but you could be disappointed. �Different teams
>> play the team game differently.
>
> I do agree with you at this point. Different companies play different
> policies and you must adapt and play the game. Nevertheless you can
> feel dissapointed if that game doesn't match with your expectations.
Of course.
>> As it happens, I think Alonso is good at both, and I don't think it was
>> *anything* to do with Hamilton that he struggled to beat him. �It
>> certainly wasn't Hamilton riding his coat-tails. �Alonso was better that
>> year and should have won. �I said at the time and have consistently said
>> it since. �When he did badly, it was (IMO) psychological; he allowed
>> some fairly random setbacks and issues to convince himself that Hamilton
>> was being given preferential treatment when I think it was a touch of
>> paranoia as the new boy at McLaren. �I think that if he'd relaxed and
>> driven, he'd have been fine, would have added another WDC and still be
>> at McLaren. �(and the spygate thing probably wouldn't have blown up -
>> I'll let others argue about the merits of that!)
>
> Absolutely!!! Alonso should have beaten Hamilton by far but he didn't.
> And sometimes (IMHO) the team didn't played the same with both
> drivers. I can remind that childish action of Alonso making Lewis to
> wait at Hungaroring (?) boxes. That should be fined by McLaren not
> LH's manager (daddy) going to complain to FIA. On the other side LH
> gave one lap more while clasifying so team strategy was completely
> turned upside down ... and the team did nothing to LH. That whole
> subject (consider it with FA and LH actions) should be cleaned inside
> the team: no claiming to FIA and a great ass-spanking to both
> drivers.
The difficulty here is that we cannot know what happened in the team.
The only bits we can be sure of are:
1. Alonso blocked the pit box
2. Hamilton was impeded
3. Hamilton Sr. complained to the FIA under their statutes
4. Alonso was subsequently sanctioned
None of that could be influenced by McLaren at the time. They didn't
know about (1) and (2) until it was too late, and was entirely under
Alonso's control. (3) was Hamilton's manager complaining and was
outside of McLaren's control. (4) is entirely up to the FIA.
Personally, I suspect that had Alonso not pulled the stunt and (instead)
complained to Dennis and Whitmarsh, Hamilton would have been
(internally) sanctioned. We can't know that, but that *would* have been
shocking: what Hamilton did was wrong.
As it was, Alonso did something worse. Yes, the complaint was
instigated by Hamilton's manager, but he wouldn't have standing if
Alonso hadn't broken the FIA rules. The consequence: not only the grid
penalty, but the team was penalised.
Frankly, that makes it far worse.
Personally, I would be livid with both of them but - though we can't be
sure happened internally - I could see that Dennis and Whitmarsh would
understandably be more unhappy with Alonso than Hamilton. Hamilton
disobeyed the team to gain a benefit resulting in a better track
position for himself over Alonso. Alonso disobeyed the team to seek
revenge, but also damaged the team (points, public image, morale).
The former, they can deal with internally, the latter they can't do much
about.
> I think that after that race war was declared in McLaren. And Dennis
> had some fault here with is no-management of the situation.
Of course he has fault - in his position, he has to take most of the
blame. It doesn't exhonorate the other participants, though.
>> Of course, you don't have to agree with any of that analysis.
>
> Maybe I don't agree 100% with your analysis but since no nationality/
> racism/hooligan-ism subject has been risen here it's a pleasure to
> speak about it. Anyway I support Ferrari and by that time Alonso was
> in McLaren so I coudn't make any different that laughing at that
> stupid situation. The smile on my face after Brazil race was ...
> ummm ... obscene :-)
>
> If I had to blame somebody I would blame Ron Dennis. He was the
> principal (manager) and he didn't manage nothing or whatever he did it
> was a flaw
And I think that's a fair position to take. I suspect both Hamilton and
Alonso learnt something out of the situation and, in hindsight, I'd hope
both would (privately) acknowledge their roles in letting it all get out
of control.
I doubt they'd ever be friends, though, no matter how much time is put
behind them. ;-)
WebSlave
> I'm sure he said it in an interview on the BBC and was referring to
> pre-season set-up.
The Reuters link in my follow-up to my original post tells the
statement was given to Spanish media.
-Webs-
CatharticF1
news:xn0gtgm0t...@news.individual.net:
No - you're the bigots.
Your PM says so :)
Bigbird
We? Who is "we" today?
One day you will wake up to the fact that when you make these comments
you sound just like the bloke who says "he's an arrogant bastard just
like all blacks".
Typical Britpacker, typical woman, typical nigger...typical Brenda.
CatharticF1
@news.individual.net:
I can't believe you typed that.
A poster from a UK domain calls Alonso a c*nt and you use feel the need to
step in only when I point out how bad it is. And then use that sort of
language.
You defend the disgusting and then offend people I would have thought you'd
be more sensitive to.
For all that you attempt to portray me, the lie is well and truly given.
Quite appalling, and in all seriousness - genuinely disappointing.
Mike
> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote in news:xn0gti04u4ow79u007
> @news.individual.net:
>
>
>
> > CatharticF1 wrote:
>
> >> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote in
> >>news:xn0gtgm0t...@news.individual.net:
>
> >> > CatharticF1 wrote:
>
> >> >> " Grant" <Gr...@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in
> >> >>news:N4edneLYYNC9m0XW...@pipex.net:
>
> >> >> > "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:mvSBn.333857$1j3.3...@newsfe10.ams2...
>
> >> >> >> That's the sense I'm beginning to get. Maybe the guy is just
> >> >> >> growing up.
>
> >> >> > He's the same cunt at Ferrari as he was at Mclaren.
>
> >> >> You are one of many reasons why the Britpack are so well respected.
>
> >> > Another graciously bigoted comment that you don't even see
> >> > discredits you as much as he.
>
> >> No - you're the bigots.
> >> Your PM says so :)
>
> > We? Who is "we" today?
>
> > One day you will wake up to the fact that when you make these comments
> > you sound just like the bloke who says "he's an arrogant bastard just
> > like all blacks".
>
> > Typical Britpacker, typical woman, typical nigger...typical Brenda.
>
> I can't believe you typed that.
>
> A poster from a UK domain calls Alonso a c*nt and you use feel the need to
> step in only when I point out how bad it is. And then use that sort of
> language.
Why should someone's whereabouts have anything to do with the fact
that Alonso is a c*nt (or not)
You didn't berate Frank for saying he was full of sh*t, so why go
bonkers if you're ont in some way xenophobic. Did your Grandparents
beat you as a child?
> You defend the disgusting and then offend people I would have thought you'd
> be more sensitive to.
Why is it disgusting when compared to your opinions?
> For all that you attempt to portray me, the lie is well and truly given.
> Quite appalling, and in all seriousness - genuinely disappointing.
Take off your rose tinded blinkers. then you'll avoid disappointment.
Paul Giverin
CatharticF1 <rasf1...@gmail.com> writes
said:-
"Another graciously bigoted comment that you don't even see discredits
you as much as he".
Note the "discredits you as much as he" bit.
I'm also wondering how your "A poster from a UK domain" is relevant.
What has a UK domain got to do with anything? I really do think you need
treatment for your xenophobia.
--
Paul Giverin
My Photos:- www.pbase.com/vendee
Joaquín Topiso
>
>
> Alonso disobeyed the team to seek
> revenge, but also damaged the team (points, public image, morale).
> The former, they can deal with internally, the latter they can't do much
> about.
>
Maybe this will add some context to the story:
Dennis: ”We were not racing Raikkonen, we were racing Alonso.”
But they expected him to be a team-player within that environment.
Alan LeHun
@b18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, jto...@gmail.com says...
> Maybe this will add some context to the story:
>
>
> But they expected him to be a team-player within that environment.
>
I think you've got that arse about tit.
It is a reference to Alonso /not/ being the team player that McLaren,
rightly or wrongly, expected. They didn't /want/ to race Alonso, but
because of the events, circumstances and politics, that's what they
eventually found themselves doing. The environment you speak of was the
result of the breakdown, not the cause of it.
--
Alan LeHun
Bigbird
> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote in
> news:xn0gti04u4ow79u007 @news.individual.net:
>
> > CatharticF1 wrote:
> >
> >> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:xn0gtgm0t...@news.individual.net:
> >>
> >> > CatharticF1 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> " Grant" <Gr...@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:N4edneLYYNC9m0XW...@pipex.net:
> >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > He's the same cunt at Ferrari as he was at Mclaren.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are one of many reasons why the Britpack are so well
> respected. >> >
> >> > Another graciously bigoted comment that you don't even see
> >> > discredits you as much as he.
> >>
> >> No - you're the bigots.
> >> Your PM says so :)
> >
> > We? Who is "we" today?
> >
> > One day you will wake up to the fact that when you make these
> > comments you sound just like the bloke who says "he's an arrogant
> > bastard just like all blacks".
> >
> > Typical Britpacker, typical woman, typical nigger...typical Brenda.
>
> I can't believe you typed that.
>
> A poster
"A poster"...and like any bigot you use it as excuse to attack a much
larger group who are innocent of the comment and of whom it is not
typical.
You don't see large numbers of people here calling all Aussies bigots
in response to your offensive posts.
> from a UK domain calls Alonso a c*nt and you use feel the
> need to step in only when I point out how bad it is. And then use
> that sort of language.
>
If you find the illustration unpalatable, it was meant to be. That is
exactly how your bigoted comments appear to some of us and they are
exactly that.
> You defend the disgusting and then offend people I would have thought
> you'd be more sensitive to.
>
Who are you calling disgusting today? Blacks? Britpackers? everyone?
I did not defend the writer of the comment you replied to but all those
that haven't made any such comment yet with your usual bigotry you
chose to attempt to tar with the same brush.
> For all that you attempt to portray me, the lie is well and truly
> given.
The lie is that it is a portrayal when you expose yourself this way.
> Quite appalling, and in all seriousness - genuinely
> disappointing.
Indeed, wake up to yourself.
Only Grant is responsible for his comment; it's about time you took
responsibility for yours.
Roger Ramjet
> CatharticF1 wrote:
> > "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote in> > >> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote in
You're a slimy toad.
Who uses bad language, you and the people you defend!
You know who uses racist terms, you do!
And when that's pointed out, you do it again and point at someone
else.
Because you're too stupid to have a normal discussion.
Bigbird
> On May 1, 6:24�ｿｽam, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > CatharticF1 wrote:
> > > "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote in
> > > news:xn0gti04u4ow79u007 @news.individual.net:
> >
> > > > CatharticF1 wrote:
> >
> > > >> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > news:xn0gtgm0t...@news.individual.net:
> >
> > > >> > CatharticF1 wrote:
> >
> > > >> >> " �ｿｽ �ｿｽ Grant" <Gr...@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in
> > > >> >>news:N4edneLYYNC9m0XW...@pipex.net:
> >
> > > >> >> > He's the same cunt at Ferrari as he was at Mclaren.
> >
> > > >> >> You are one of many reasons why the Britpack are so well
> > > respected. �ｿｽ>> >
> > > given. �ｿｽ
> >
> > The lie is that it is a portrayal when you expose yourself this way.
> >
> > > Quite appalling, and in all seriousness - genuinely
> > > disappointing.
> >
> > Indeed, wake up to yourself.
> >
> > Only Grant is responsible for his comment; it's about time you took
> > responsibility for yours.
>
> You're a slimy toad.
>
> Who uses bad language, you and the people you defend!
> You know who uses racist terms, you do!
> And when that's pointed out, you do it again and point at someone
> else.
>
> Because you're too stupid to have a normal discussion.
That you are unable to grasp the thrust of the argument no matter why
the devices used illustrate the racism of the subject hardly paints you
as a person of intellect.
The clearly mistaken assertion that I am defending anyone using "bad
language" is evidence enough.
If you can deduce why you are wrong you will prove yourself far less of
an imbecile that you currently appear.
Good luck with that.
Frank Adam
<Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote:
Have to say, that is a damn good post Bird..
..for a Brit. ;)
Brendan, <sigh>
--
Regards, Frank
Bob Dubery
> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote in news:xn0gti04u4ow79u007
> @news.individual.net:
>
>
>
> > CatharticF1 wrote:
>
> >> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote in
> >>news:xn0gtgm0t...@news.individual.net:
>
> >> > CatharticF1 wrote:
>
> >> >> " Grant" <Gr...@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in
> >> >>news:N4edneLYYNC9m0XW...@pipex.net:
>
> >> >> > "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:mvSBn.333857$1j3.3...@newsfe10.ams2...
>
> >> >> >> That's the sense I'm beginning to get. Maybe the guy is just
> >> >> >> growing up.
>
> >> >> > He's the same cunt at Ferrari as he was at Mclaren.
>
> >> >> You are one of many reasons why the Britpack are so well respected.
>
> >> > Another graciously bigoted comment that you don't even see
> >> > discredits you as much as he.
>
> >> No - you're the bigots.
> >> Your PM says so :)
>
> > We? Who is "we" today?
>
> > One day you will wake up to the fact that when you make these comments
> > you sound just like the bloke who says "he's an arrogant bastard just
> > like all blacks".
>
> > Typical Britpacker, typical woman, typical nigger...typical Brenda.
>
> I can't believe you typed that.
>
> A poster from a UK domain calls Alonso a c*nt and you use feel the need to
> step in only when I point out how bad it is. And then use that sort of
> language.
"You are one of many reasons why the Britpack are so well respected. "
That doesn't look like much to do with a protest about language. It
looks a lot more like a generalisation from you made on the basis of
nationality.
And your protest is disingenuous and also reinforces the impression
that your making this all about nationality.
> A poster from a UK domain calls Alonso a c*nt and you use feel the need to
> step in only when I point out how bad it is. And then use that sort of
> language.
Notice the emphasis on the domain. And the suggestion that you somehow
did "point out how bad it is", when all you did was start dealing in
generalisations along national lines.
>
> You defend the disgusting
He did not. He attacked you. You're telling porkies.
> and then offend people I would have thought you'd
> be more sensitive to.
He was saying you're in the same boat as people who make
generalisations along lines of race or gender.
Bob Dubery
> Maybe this will add some context to the story:
>
> Dennis: ”We were not racing Raikkonen, we were racing Alonso.”
>
> But they expected him to be a team-player within that environment.
You got a reliable source for that quote? The only references I can
find to it are on discussion forums where unverifiable sources make it
and usually preface it with something like "apparently Ron said".
IOW it looks like hearsay at best, a fabrication at worst.
Edmund
============
Everything we discuss here is hearsay because none of
us was there.
This smart remark of dennis is or was well documented
so you can be very sure has said it.
It is published and criticized on several occasions.
Ans yes it was a confession of "step daddy" Dennis
what McLaren meant by equal treatment.
Edmund
Edmund
"Alan LeHun" <t...@reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.26452f03...@news.x-privat.org...
So you say revenge is OK as long it isn't Alfonzie who take
revenge on hamilton for steeling all the additional fuel burning
rounds an tell his step daddy to go swivel.
The blocking was clearly not the cause of the problems but a
result of Hamiltons hypo-critic cheating.
>
>
> --
> Alan LeHun
Edmund
ric zito
> AC wrote:
>
> > Very IIRC,
> >
> > There was an article posted here recently where Alonso said that the 0.6
> > (whatever) came from procedural improvements he bought from Renault.
>
> HE bought from Renault and brought to McLaren? That sounds
> extraordinary. I'd sure like to see that article. What "procedural
> improvement" would affect lap times?
>
> > But it seemed
> > that Alonso was distancing himself from the idea that he has 0.6 secs
> > over other drivers.
>
> That's understandable, but the whole 0.6 secs statement has been used
> (by fans and especially anti-fans) as a (arrogant) claim of Alonso's
> abilities as a car developer. Which I think is a misunderstanding at
> least, a deliberate misinterpretation at worst. That's why I'm asking
> why he's said it or you think what he meant saying it.
>
> -Webs-
For your info, here is a reprint of a post I made here on 10/03/2009 :
Dave Baker (no fan of Alonso) actually came here in 2008 and wrote that
engineers at McLaren had confirmed to him personally that Fred did
indeed bring half a second or so, because he brought with him some
engine calibration techniques that Renault were doing better than
McLaren. The silver team adopted the Renault methodology and gained a
lot of time immediately.
Which kind of reinforces Fred's claim that he "brought" the gains, and
weakens the engineers "close to perfect" argument...
Here's the quote :
> I think I've mentioned it briefly before but if not I'm told he actually did
> take maybe half a second with him from Renault to McLaren. It was a one off
> thing and mainly to do with how Renault used to set the engine (yes engine
> not chassis) up for each circuit in pre race practice. Now I guess most of
> you are going to be saying "eh, how can an engine be set up for a specific
> circuit?"
> It's not widely known that the amount of ignition timing an engine needs for
> optimum power at each rpm is partly a function of how fast the engine is
> accelerating as it passes through that rpm point. The faster the
> acceleration the more ignition advance is required. It's not something that
> any road car has built in either from a basic distributer type ignition or
> even a fancy electronic ecu controlled one but at the highest levels of
> motorsport and in particular drag racing it's need to know stuff.
> A little thought will tell you this means the ignition advance curve must
> need to be different in each gear - more advance in the low gears and less
> in the high ones as acceleration tails off. However it's also going to be
> affected by drag settings and track gradients. For example one circuit might
> have an uphill section when the car is in third gear and another might have
> a downhill section at similar speeds. The car accelerates faster on the
> downhill sections and the ignition advance would need to be increased a tad.
> Alonso brought some info about how Renault went about doing this sort of
> thing and McLaren found those methods worked better than what they'd been
> doing themselves up till then. It helped get the engine dialed in for
> optimum power and throttle response at each circuit.
> It was certainly nothing to do with Alonso's driving ability or his feedback
> on car handling and set up. By far the best at that is Pedro DLR so I'm
> told.
HTH
--
ric at pixelligence dot com
Mark
No - I saw it broadcast live on the BBC. He certainly said it.
From the context, however, Dennis clearly meant that (from Hamilton's
perspective) the only competition was his teammate that day. Those who
chose to see conspiracy, however, took it as proof that the whole team
were fighting Alonso.
Paul Giverin
<add...@in.sig> writes
>
>For your info, here is a reprint of a post I made here on 10/03/2009 :
>
>
Yes it does. I remember it now that I have seen it again. Of course
everyone is thinking that Alonso claimed to have brought 0.6 secs from
his driving but in fact it seems that he brought engineering know how
which may have resulted in 0.6 seconds gain.
AC
"ric zito" <add...@in.sig> wrote in message
news:1jht63w.594r021pwmh2oN%add...@in.sig...
That's what I was getting at.
As its put there, it suggests less credit for Alonso, unless one wants to
credit information flow, or spying as the Tiffauxi would have it.
AC
John Briggs
You know, for that to have worked reliably he must have brought it in
documentary form.
--
John Briggs
ric zito
If ever a team were equipped for that sort of thing, it's McLaren...:-)
Bob Dubery
> You know, for that to have worked reliably he must have brought it in
> documentary form.
Hmmmm.... in 2008 all teams used the standard ECU. In 2007 Renault
would have used very different systems from McLaren. Could such a
methodology then have been transferred from Renault to McLaren?
I'm not saying that Alonso couldn't have bought something with him,
only that I wonder if it was really this.
Alan LeHun
says...
> So you say revenge is OK as long it isn't Alfonzie who take
> revenge on hamilton for steeling all the additional fuel burning
> rounds an tell his step daddy to go swivel.
> The blocking was clearly not the cause of the problems but a
> result of Hamiltons hypo-critic cheating.
> >
>
Not saying that at all. I'm talking about the quote that Ron Dennis
"made" and it's context with regards to the team as it was at that time.
I realise that you may want the discussion to drift according to your
own pre-concieved bias but I'm afraid I won't be playing with you.
btw, as I don't post here that often, you may want to contemplate, prior
to replying, that I am a bit of an Alonso fan.
--
Alan LeHun
Bob Dubery
> Maybe this will add some context to the story:
>
> Dennis: ”We were not racing Raikkonen, we were racing Alonso.”
>
> But they expected him to be a team-player within that environment.
The reports of that quote that I've read claim that Dennis uttered
these words at the 2007 Chinese GP.
Now by that time Alonso had had his famous tantrum at Hungary during
which he threatened to blackmail his own team. Then he'd gone ahead
and done it, revealing in the process that he was actively tapping a
mole within Ferrari for information - and note that there was no
evidence, not even a suggestion that Hamilton had been involved in the
same scheme.
So, by the time that Dennis allegedly uttered those words, what sort
of team-player had Alonso revealed himself to be?
Bigbird
>
> "Alan LeHun" <t...@reply.to> wrote in message
> news:MPG.26452f03...@news.x-privat.org...
> > In article <5a10ac69-c56d-464f-8d7c-cf1dcb40e220
> > @b18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, jto...@gmail.com says...
> > > Maybe this will add some context to the story:
> > >
> > > Dennis: ?We were not racing Raikkonen, we were racing Alonso.?
> > >
> > > But they expected him to be a team-player within that
> > > environment.
> > >
> >
> > I think you've got that arse about tit.
> >
> > It is a reference to Alonso not being the team player that McLaren,
> > rightly or wrongly, expected. They didn't want to race Alonso, but
> > because of the events, circumstances and politics, that's what they
> > eventually found themselves doing. The environment you speak of
> > was the result of the breakdown, not the cause of it.
>
> So you say revenge is OK as long it isn't Alfonzie who take
> revenge on hamilton for steeling all the additional fuel burning
> rounds an tell his step daddy to go swivel.
> The blocking was clearly not the cause of the problems but a
> result of Hamiltons hypo-critic cheating.
...the blocking was a misjudged escalation, the result was penalties
for both McLaren and Alonso.
Bigbird
It was all accidental. He found a few McLaren floppies lying around at
Renault and decided to return them little knowing they had been reused
by the engine department.
Edmund
=================
The kind of team player that live up to the things they agree
in the team, like giving the lying hypocrite the additional
fuel burning rounds in the UK
IAW the kind of team player that Hamilton is not and
never will be.
Edmund
Bigbird
>
> "Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c9e1b8b3-d36c-4643...@p2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.
3 years on you are still hurting but I think you'll find that all
parties involved have learned from 2007. Why not you?
APLer
news:CDbDn.121069$Ht4....@newsfe20.iad:
>
> "Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c9e1b8b3-d36c-4643...@p2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com..
Riight. That's why they *fired* Alonzo and he had to go begging to Flav
for a job.
CatharticF1
news:xn0gtluh0...@news.individual.net:
Oh look - someone else has got your number.
You're transparent.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was freedom is just greed."
CatharticF1
news:s0tmt59r5g4553b6e...@4ax.com:
So the n word is all OK Frank?
CatharticF1
He's one of the posters I point out should be discredited, yes.
Do you disagree?
>> A poster from a UK domain calls Alonso a c*nt and you use feel the
>> need t
> o
>> step in only when I point out how bad it is. And then use that sort
>> of language.
> Notice the emphasis on the domain. And the suggestion that you somehow
> did "point out how bad it is", when all you did was start dealing in
> generalisations along national lines.
He tows the same line as many other disreputable (not all) posters.
You think I should separate him from them.
>>
>> You defend the disgusting
> He did not. He attacked you. You're telling porkies.
>
>> and then offend people I would have thought you'd
>> be more sensitive to.
> He was saying you're in the same boat as people who make
> generalisations along lines of race or gender.
No - Bird was using quite disgusting language and associating it with me.
Bob Dubery
> He tows the same line as many other disreputable (not all) posters.
> You think I should separate him from them.
You didn't say the things that you claim to have. You didn't point out
how bad anything was. You just went, as usual, for the generalisation
along national lines.
This disreputable grouping only exists, in some minds, because you
invented it in the first place. It's a convenient construct for you.
You don't have to deal in facts any more, just put whoever it is in
the "britpack" bin.
>
>
>
> >> You defend the disgusting
> > He did not. He attacked you. You're telling porkies.
>
> >> and then offend people I would have thought you'd
> >> be more sensitive to.
> > He was saying you're in the same boat as people who make
> > generalisations along lines of race or gender.
>
> No - Bird was using quite disgusting language and associating it with me.
I'm no Bird fan, as you may have noticed, but that doesn't mean that
you weren't dealing in generalisations and that you're not talking
bollocks here. It's clear that the association he's drawing is with
people who deal in generalisations. Which is fair enough because
that's what you do when it suits you.
You've offered two non-truths in your defense. One is that you pointed
out how bad something (presumably language) was when you didn't. The
second is that Bird defended "the disgusting" when he didn't. If
you're going to carry on like that then you're not well placed to put
a spin on what anybody else said.
I think there's something else that's implied here. That yes, you know
that some folks find it offensive but you're going to apply that label
anyway because it fits. Well fine, and maybe they're being a bit
oversensitive and should remember that it's just names and not sticks
and stones. But then you take some of that medicine too and understand
that whilst you have some kind of idol fixation on Ferrari and it's
drivers that other folks feel that Alonso is a snake in the grass and
wish to state that. And saying that doesn't ipso facto make somebody a
racist.
CatharticF1
> On May 4, 1:19 am, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:2143861f-0437-4643...@a34g2000yqn.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>
>> He tows the same line as many other disreputable (not all) posters.
>> You think I should separate him from them.
> You didn't say the things that you claim to have. You didn't point out
> how bad anything was. You just went, as usual, for the generalisation
> along national lines.
>
> This disreputable grouping only exists, in some minds, because you
> invented it in the first place. It's a convenient construct for you.
> You don't have to deal in facts any more, just put whoever it is in
> the "britpack" bin.
I do, yes and I stand by it.
And that sort of language, followed up by Bird using the n word are the
sort of things that lead to it.
>> >> You defend the disgusting He did not. He attacked you. You're
>> >> telling porkies.
>>
>> >> and then offend people I would have thought you'd be more
>> >> sensitive to.
>> > He was saying you're in the same boat as people who make
>> > generalisations along lines of race or gender.
>>
>> No - Bird was using quite disgusting language and associating it with
>> me.
> I'm no Bird fan, as you may have noticed, but that doesn't mean that
> you weren't dealing in generalisations and that you're not talking
> bollocks here. It's clear that the association he's drawing is with
> people who deal in generalisations. Which is fair enough because
> that's what you do when it suits you.
>
> You've offered two non-truths in your defense. One is that you pointed
> out how bad something (presumably language) was when you didn't. The
> second is that Bird defended "the disgusting" when he didn't. If
> you're going to carry on like that then you're not well placed to put
> a spin on what anybody else said.
Non truths?
It's clear I took issue with Grant for using the c word. That you
disapprove of the 'how' doesn't change that.
Bird and everyone else decided not to comment on Grant using 'c*nt' about
Alonso. Who happens to be both Spanish and drive for a foreign team.
But rather he decides to go after me for the horrible word Britpacker.
Which is not about race - if you understand it. And it has been
elaborated in full.
His actions are selective, as are yours.
> I think there's something else that's implied here. That yes, you know
> that some folks find it offensive but you're going to apply that label
> anyway because it fits.
Again, I stand by it.
Read it and tell me if I'm wrong.
> Well fine, and maybe they're being a bit
> oversensitive and should remember that it's just names and not sticks
> and stones. But then you take some of that medicine too and understand
> that whilst you have some kind of idol fixation on Ferrari and it's
> drivers that other folks feel that Alonso is a snake in the grass and
> wish to state that. And saying that doesn't ipso facto make somebody a
> racist.
Double standards here, Bob.
If you want to play policeman, how about being outraged at the term sp*c,
c*nt and n*gger. All used by the Britpackers. And in return play they
racist card (with not a hint of irony) to hide what they lack every other
post - for no reason whatsoever.
Yet you move not one finger.
Why are you compelled to step in?
From Bird and the Britpackers I understand. I have their number.
But from you?
Or do you just want an argument? :)
Bob Dubery
Grant: "He's the same cunt at Ferrari as he was at Mclaren.
You: "You are one of many reasons why the Britpack are so well
respected. "
Not one word about the language. Just what is becoming predictable
from you.
BTW it's not racist to call somebody a "cunt". And there's reasonable
grounds for believing that Alonso is something less than a knight in
shining armour.
>
> Bird and everyone else decided not to comment on Grant using 'c*nt' about
> Alonso. Who happens to be both Spanish and drive for a foreign team.
Co-incidental - on everybody's part except yours. YOU are the person
bringing nationality into the argument. It's not racist, it's not anti-
Spanish, it's not anti-Italian to assert that Alonso is a cunt. If you
asserted that Alonso, like all Spaniards, is a cunt then that's a
different matter, but that's not what anybody said.
>
> But rather he decides to go after me for the horrible word Britpacker.
> Which is not about race - if you understand it. And it has been
> elaborated in full.
Not that I believed a word of it.
>
> His actions are selective, as are yours.
I thought his actions were quite inclusive in this instance. He's
saying that you're as bad as any other bigoted fool who choses to make
generalisations along arbitrary lines of distinction such as gender,
race or nationality.
>
> > I think there's something else that's implied here. That yes, you know
> > that some folks find it offensive but you're going to apply that label
> > anyway because it fits.
>
> Again, I stand by it.
Then take what comes with it.
> Read it and tell me if I'm wrong.
There was not, in this case, anything racist about the comments that
you responded to with a generalisaton. As I've said already, the only
person bringing race or nationality into this is you. And as I've
already said that's not unusual.
>
> > Well fine, and maybe they're being a bit
> > oversensitive and should remember that it's just names and not sticks
> > and stones. But then you take some of that medicine too and understand
> > that whilst you have some kind of idol fixation on Ferrari and it's
> > drivers that other folks feel that Alonso is a snake in the grass and
> > wish to state that. And saying that doesn't ipso facto make somebody a
> > racist.
>
> Double standards here, Bob.
Only if somebody else was engaging in racist rhetoric. They weren't.
>
> If you want to play policeman, how about being outraged at the term sp*c,
> c*nt and n*gger. All used by the Britpackers. And in return play they
> racist card (with not a hint of irony) to hide what they lack every other
> post - for no reason whatsoever.
You're hardly well placed to point that finger. You've offered
falsehoods in your own defence here, accused Bird of doing things that
he has not done, dealt in the kind of generalisations that you rail
about. Why should I believe one word that you offer in your defense or
in justification?
>
> Yet you move not one finger.
Really?
> Why are you compelled to step in?
Red herring! My motive (which amounts to "because I felt like it")
doesn't change what you've said.
> From Bird and the Britpackers I understand. I have their number.
> But from you?
Sycophant.
Edmund
"APLer" <AP...@floor.tilde> wrote in message
news:Xns9D6DBEA...@127.0.0.1...
I don't understand your point, is this a weak attempt to suggest
there is something wrong with what I just said?
Edmund
>
>
CatharticF1
>> Bird and everyone else decided not to comment on Grant using 'c*nt'
>> about Alonso. Who happens to be both Spanish and drive for a foreign
>> team.
> Co-incidental - on everybody's part except yours. YOU are the person
> bringing nationality into the argument. It's not racist, it's not
> anti- Spanish, it's not anti-Italian to assert that Alonso is a cunt.
> If you asserted that Alonso, like all Spaniards, is a cunt then that's
> a different matter, but that's not what anybody said.
I see the language and its continual direction at foreigners as not
coincidental.
>> But rather he decides to go after me for the horrible word
>> Britpacker. Which is not about race - if you understand it. And it
>> has been elaborated in full. Not that I believed a word of it.
>>
>> His actions are selective, as are yours.
> I thought his actions were quite inclusive in this instance. He's
> saying that you're as bad as any other bigoted fool who choses to make
> generalisations along arbitrary lines of distinction such as gender,
> race or nationality.
It's one of the characteristics of the Britpack. It's not confined to
that one post from him of course. But calling a Spaniard that was a
suitable example. And imo no coincidence.
>>
>> > I think there's something else that's implied here. That yes, you
>> > know that some folks find it offensive but you're going to apply
>> > that label anyway because it fits.
>>
>> Again, I stand by it. Then take what comes with it.
>> Read it and tell me if I'm wrong.
> There was not, in this case, anything racist about the comments that
> you responded to with a generalisaton. As I've said already, the only
> person bringing race or nationality into this is you. And as I've
> already said that's not unusual.
I don't care if you're purple it's the 'what' you say. And read his last
20 or 30 posts..
Do you really think I'm racially prejudiced against myself?!
I am _entirely_ of British descent. You may be wrong. :)
>>
>> > Well fine, and maybe they're being a bit
>> > oversensitive and should remember that it's just names and not
>> > sticks and stones. But then you take some of that medicine too and
>> > understand that whilst you have some kind of idol fixation on
>> > Ferrari and it's drivers that other folks feel that Alonso is a
>> > snake in the grass and wish to state that. And saying that doesn't
>> > ipso facto make somebody a racist.
>>
>> Double standards here, Bob.
> Only if somebody else was engaging in racist rhetoric. They weren't.
>>
>> If you want to play policeman, how about being outraged at the term
>> sp*c, c*nt and n*gger. All used by the Britpackers. And in return
>> play they racist card (with not a hint of irony) to hide what they
>> lack every other post - for no reason whatsoever.
> You're hardly well placed to point that finger. You've offered
> falsehoods in your own defence here, accused Bird of doing things that
> he has not done, dealt in the kind of generalisations that you rail
> about. Why should I believe one word that you offer in your defense or
> in justification?
You'll do what you'll do I suppose.
You don't like 'Britpack' but don't complain about the n, c and s words.
It's a free world.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote innews:b626d8a3-bc64-40ec...@j33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> Bird and everyone else decided not to comment on Grant using 'c*nt'
> >> about Alonso. Who happens to be both Spanish and drive for a foreign
> >> team.
> > Co-incidental - on everybody's part except yours. YOU are the person
> > bringing nationality into the argument. It's not racist, it's not
> > anti- Spanish, it's not anti-Italian to assert that Alonso is a cunt.
> > If you asserted that Alonso, like all Spaniards, is a cunt then that's
> > a different matter, but that's not what anybody said.
>
> I see the language and its continual direction at foreigners as not
> coincidental.
racist conspiracy to invoke every time somebody has a go at anything
to do with Ferrari.
>
> >> But rather he decides to go after me for the horrible word
> >> Britpacker. Which is not about race - if you understand it. And it
> >> has been elaborated in full. Not that I believed a word of it.
>
> >> His actions are selective, as are yours.
> > I thought his actions were quite inclusive in this instance. He's
> > saying that you're as bad as any other bigoted fool who choses to make
> > generalisations along arbitrary lines of distinction such as gender,
> > race or nationality.
>
> It's one of the characteristics of the Britpack. It's not confined to
> that one post from him of course. But calling a Spaniard that was a
> suitable example. And imo no coincidence.
Well anybody you might want to call a cunt has a nationality. Me
calling you a cunt means I think you're a cunt, it doesn't mean that I
hate Australians en masse. If he'd said something like "typical
Spanish cunt" then you could accuse him of racism but
a) he didn't so you can't
b) it wouldn't let you off the hook either.
>
>
>
> >> > I think there's something else that's implied here. That yes, you
> >> > know that some folks find it offensive but you're going to apply
> >> > that label anyway because it fits.
>
> >> Again, I stand by it. Then take what comes with it.
> >> Read it and tell me if I'm wrong.
> > There was not, in this case, anything racist about the comments that
> > you responded to with a generalisaton. As I've said already, the only
> > person bringing race or nationality into this is you. And as I've
> > already said that's not unusual.
>
> I don't care if you're purple it's the 'what' you say. And read his last
> 20 or 30 posts..
Whose? Grant's? I don't have time right now but I've read the last 7
or 8 quickly and if there's a clear pattern of him saying things like
"spic" or making generalisations about the Spanish or the Italians
then it's not clear to me. It's clear that he has differences with
you, but that doesn't make him a racist in the eyes of a sensible
person.
>
> Do you really think I'm racially prejudiced against myself?!
> I am _entirely_ of British descent. You may be wrong. :)
>
> >> > Well fine, and maybe they're being a bit
> >> > oversensitive and should remember that it's just names and not
> >> > sticks and stones. But then you take some of that medicine too and
> >> > understand that whilst you have some kind of idol fixation on
> >> > Ferrari and it's drivers that other folks feel that Alonso is a
> >> > snake in the grass and wish to state that. And saying that doesn't
> >> > ipso facto make somebody a racist.
>
> >> Double standards here, Bob.
> > Only if somebody else was engaging in racist rhetoric. They weren't.
>
> >> If you want to play policeman, how about being outraged at the term
> >> sp*c, c*nt and n*gger. All used by the Britpackers. And in return
> >> play they racist card (with not a hint of irony) to hide what they
> >> lack every other post - for no reason whatsoever.
> > You're hardly well placed to point that finger. You've offered
> > falsehoods in your own defence here, accused Bird of doing things that
> > he has not done, dealt in the kind of generalisations that you rail
> > about. Why should I believe one word that you offer in your defense or
> > in justification?
>
> You'll do what you'll do I suppose.
Well in the face of your lies why should I believe that you're acting
honestly or out of principle?
> You don't like 'Britpack' but don't complain about the n, c and s words.
> It's a free world
I think you need to speak plainly instead of beating around the bush.
Bigbird
Distraction.
Someone fell for you lies or perhaps this mystery poster is you. That
you cling to factual inaccuracy as a lifeline is not unsurprising.
That you have no answer to my refutation of your deliberately
misleading and deceitful response is where everybody else is looking.
Brenda's on the run again.
Brad
You've just missed the pertinent ones then I think. Definitely a major
contender for bigoted asshat of the year, already. ;)
--
Brad
Bigbird
You're thinking "the n word" all the time, Brendan. THAT is what is NOT
OK. Not using it overtly doesn't make that less apparent.
I'm not afraid to use it to illustrate that.
It's not the word nigger that is most offensive it is the people like
you who use the same stereotypes and hate mongering rhetoric as those
that use the word in an overtly offensive manner.
Replace the term "Brit" with "the n word" and your remarks are exposed
to the true light of day for the form they take.
All racists speak the same language, some just pretend otherwise by
avoiding sensitive terms.
Bigbird
A few anti-Aussie posts and he'd be almost as bad as Brendan...just
more honest with it. ;)
Bigbird
> > Riight. That's why they fired Alonzo and he had to go begging to
> > Flav for a job.
>
> I don't understand your point, is this a weak attempt to suggest
> there is something wrong with what I just said?
>
Not as weak as trying to portray Alonso as a devoted team player while
he was at McLaren.
...and you can't get much weaker than making future claims about a
driver based on an isolated incident or two in his rookie year.
Frank Adam
wrote:
Why should i care about the 'n' word ? Nobody ever called me an 'n'
and i'd think i would have a good laugh if it happened.
I have no idea why you can't understand that the repeated use of the
'b' word, especially in the context you mostly use it in, IS offensive
to those who happen to be 'b' born.
I'll take a fair amount of Aussie bashing, but sooner or later it gets
past the funny and i'd tell the person to get 'f' worded by a kangaroo
in the 'a' word and/or punch his 'f' ing lights out and i would not
for a second think that as me being unreasonable. Jokes and ribbing
have a past due date.
If you want to act like Alonso's Mum, then fine, tell people off when
you feel that the poor boy is mistreated, but leave that fucking
tiresome generalisation the hell out of it. It's way past it's bed
time and your insistence in using it puts you into grade 5.
You're not a dumbarse, let it go already FFS..
--
Regards, Frank
Mike
> On 4 May 2010 10:20:23 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Frank Adam <f...@optushome.com> wrote in> >> <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>CatharticF1 wrote:
>
> >>>> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote in> >>>> >> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote in
Well done Frank, but what makes you think he'll listen to a fellow
Skippy?
Oops :)
Edmund
"Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0gtqjly...@news.individual.net...
You can dislike his as much as you want but the facts are that he
gave his setup to Lewis and he gave the additional fuel burning
rounds
to him, still not good enough for you I guess.
>
> ...and you can't get much weaker than making future claims
> about a
> driver based on an isolated incident or two in his rookie year.
isolated incident, already forgotten about his lying?
You better cut on down drinking, you're memory is
suffering from it.
>
> --
> Bigbird
> #
> You'll be laughing when I'm dead!
Edmund
APLer
news:JyODn.155337$gF5.1...@newsfe13.iad:
>
> "APLer" <AP...@floor.tilde> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D6DBEA...@127.0.0.1...
>> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:CDbDn.121069$Ht4....@newsfe20.iad:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The kind of team player that live up to the things they agree
>>> in the team, like giving the lying hypocrite the additional
>>> fuel burning rounds in the UK
>>> IAW the kind of team player that Hamilton is not and
>>> never will be.
>>>
>> Riight. That's why they *fired* Alonzo and he had to go begging
>> to Flav
>> for a job.
>
> I don't understand your point, is this a weak attempt to suggest
> there is something wrong with what I just said?
>
Only the facts.
CatharticF1
Of course you should - it's disgusting.
> I have no idea why you can't understand that the repeated use of the
> 'b' word, especially in the context you mostly use it in, IS offensive
> to those who happen to be 'b' born.
No. It's not.
> I'll take a fair amount of Aussie bashing, but sooner or later it gets
> past the funny and i'd tell the person to get 'f' worded by a kangaroo
> in the 'a' word and/or punch his 'f' ing lights out and i would not
> for a second think that as me being unreasonable. Jokes and ribbing
> have a past due date.
When they stop lying, making claims of racism to hide theirs and see that
the sun shines over other parts of the world than Blighty, I will stop.
Deal?
> If you want to act like Alonso's Mum, then fine, tell people off when
> you feel that the poor boy is mistreated, but leave that fucking
> tiresome generalisation the hell out of it. It's way past it's bed
> time and your insistence in using it puts you into grade 5.
> You're not a dumbarse, let it go already FFS..
They use claims of racism to refute any criticism of the those they
support and those they choose to insult.
They openly use terms that I wouldn't and don't and am surprised you
don't explicitly oppose.
Britpack is not about race. I am completely of British descent and being
'British' doesn't do it. It's about that behaviour.
CatharticF1
>> You don't like 'Britpack' but don't complain about the n, c and s
>> words. It's a free world
> I think you need to speak plainly instead of beating around the bush.
You're a hyprocrite who loves an argument, Bob.
That's why you're here.
CatharticF1
news:xn0gtqi2v...@news.individual.net:
You are disgusting.
I'm done with this now, it's distasteful and if you were truly motivated
by a higher motive not insensitive to it you'd not be having this
discussion.
You are racist, Bird.
> It's not the word nigger that is most offensive it is the people like
> you who use the same stereotypes and hate mongering rhetoric as those
> that use the word in an overtly offensive manner.
I don't do either, you can throw any colour paint you like.
Show me a *single* case.
> Replace the term "Brit" with "the n word" and your remarks are exposed
> to the true light of day for the form they take.
Replace 'lollipop' or perhaps 'the' if you like.
It's all _very_ revealing. Or maybe only to the incapable.
I am of British descent, your hand is empty.
> All racists speak the same language, some just pretend otherwise by
> avoiding sensitive terms.
You use the terms.
You walk the walk. I don't even talk the talk.
Allusions and supposition are your pretence.
Frank Adam
<mike...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>Well done Frank, but what makes you think he'll listen to a fellow
>Skippy?
>Oops :)
>
Kangaroo in the mail.. stand by for further instructions. ;)
--
Regards, Frank
Frank Adam
wrote:
>>>> Brendan, <sigh>
>>>
>>>So the n word is all OK Frank?
>>>
>> Why should i care about the 'n' word ? Nobody ever called me an 'n'
>> and i'd think i would have a good laugh if it happened.
>
>Of course you should - it's disgusting.
>
To me ? No.
Don't you understand the distinction between being called something
and hearing someone else being called something ?
>> I have no idea why you can't understand that the repeated use of the
>> 'b' word, especially in the context you mostly use it in, IS offensive
>> to those who happen to be 'b' born.
>
>No. It's not.
>
You must've missed a few posts on the subject..
>> I'll take a fair amount of Aussie bashing, but sooner or later it gets
>> past the funny and i'd tell the person to get 'f' worded by a kangaroo
>> in the 'a' word and/or punch his 'f' ing lights out and i would not
>> for a second think that as me being unreasonable. Jokes and ribbing
>> have a past due date.
>
>When they stop lying, making claims of racism to hide theirs and see that
>the sun shines over other parts of the world than Blighty, I will stop.
>Deal?
>
"They" who ? You may have an argument with Grant,(who enjoys my kill
file at the moment), but that doesn't mean that Bird is a fuckwit. Or
when Bird is a dick, it doesn't mean that Bob is. Or...
IOW, it is very simple. Slag off the guy you are having the issue
with, but leave the generaliaation where it should be.
>> If you want to act like Alonso's Mum, then fine, tell people off when
>> you feel that the poor boy is mistreated, but leave that fucking
>> tiresome generalisation the hell out of it. It's way past it's bed
>> time and your insistence in using it puts you into grade 5.
>> You're not a dumbarse, let it go already FFS..
>
>They use claims of racism to refute any criticism of the those they
>support and those they choose to insult.
>They openly use terms that I wouldn't and don't and am surprised you
>don't explicitly oppose.
>
>Britpack is not about race. I am completely of British descent and being
>'British' doesn't do it. It's about that behaviour.
>
Fucking Queenslanders... always an excuse to suck the rest dry with
subsidies and produce people inclined for fraudulant behaviour.
Not you of course.. :)
--
Regards, Frank
CatharticF1
> Fucking Queenslanders... always an excuse to suck the rest dry with
> subsidies and produce people inclined for fraudulant behaviour.
> Not you of course.. :)
I just don't understand why Rudd is taxing us when he's *one* of us!
But actually I think it's brilliant, and something the rest of the world
should adopt to curb the outrageous imbalance of wealth towards the already
obscenely wealthy. You know, like Build :)
Brad
> Frank Adam <fa...@optushome.com> wrote in
> news:vad1u51rq9788n0v5...@4ax.com:
>
>> Fucking Queenslanders... always an excuse to suck the rest dry with
>> subsidies and produce people inclined for fraudulant behaviour.
>> Not you of course.. :)
>
> I just don't understand why Rudd is taxing us when he's *one* of us!
> But actually I think it's brilliant, and something the rest of the
> world should adopt to curb the outrageous imbalance of wealth towards
> the already obscenely wealthy. You know, like Build :)
Too off topic to go on with here, but can't help but say... WTF??? It seems
like everything Rudd is doing lately is aimed at wooing the core Liberal
support base at the expense of the average wage earner and the poor, in
particular.
--
Brad
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote innews:7a25c5c1-bbae-41ce...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> You don't like 'Britpack' but don't complain about the n, c and s
> >> words. It's a free world
> > I think you need to speak plainly instead of beating around the bush.
>
> You're a hyprocrite who loves an argument, Bob.
porkies in the process), so, sorry, I won't lose any sleep over that
particular statement.
> That's why you're here.
And I suppose you KNOW this.
Frank Adam
wrote:
Everything (apart from the stimulous, which was an obvious action
either the way he did it or the way it could have been done) that Rudd
did so far is hot air or based on deception.
It is the usual Labor ploy, make it look good for the dicks and worry
about the aftermath when the time comes.. Usually by deferring the
keys to the Liberals to fix it all up again.
--
Regards, Frank
Bigbird
Perhaps the truth of your position is finally hitting home.
Are you finally ashamed to see how others have seen you and your
comments all these months?
Are you beginning to be enlightened to how "disgusting" and
"distasteful" all your hate mongering, your false stereotypes, your
straw man arguments and your lies are?
> You are racist, Bird.
Am I? Why, because I am not afraid to type a word that makes you feel
uncomfortable about yourself?
>
> > It's not the word nigger that is most offensive it is the people
> > like you who use the same stereotypes and hate mongering rhetoric
> > as those that use the word in an overtly offensive manner.
>
> I don't do either,
Every time you use the word Britpack you do...
...if you still haven't woken up to it then you are going to see the
"n" word a lot as I'm going to replace one with the other in all your
posts until you see your own posts in the same way I do.
> you can throw any colour paint you like.
> Show me a single case.
>
Every time you say Brit you may as well be saying nigger for it's the
same stereotyping, the same generalisations the same straw man
arguments that all you racists use.
> > Replace the term "Brit" with "the n word" and your remarks are
> > exposed to the true light of day for the form they take.
>
> Replace 'lollipop' or perhaps 'the' if you like.
> It's all very revealing. Or maybe only to the incapable.
> I am of British descent, your hand is empty.
>
Clearly that doesn't stop the hate.
Same old rhetoric. No doubt you once had a "friend" who was black.
You've even used the same "some Brits are okay" here.
> > All racists speak the same language, some just pretend otherwise by
> > avoiding sensitive terms.
>
> You use the terms.
Being unafraid to type the word nigger does not make someone racist.
> You walk the walk.
WTF is that meant to mean? Meaningless crap when you need to be taking
a long hard look at yourself.
> I don't even talk the talk.
Oh but you do.
> Allusions and supposition are your pretence.
No, they are your reality, they are how you appear.
Bigbird
You claim that sums up his time in McLaren.
Do you want someone to start listing the ways in which he was not a
team player?
Are you sure you really want to bring this up again?
> >
> > ...and you can't get much weaker than making future claims about a
> > driver based on an isolated incident or two in his rookie year.
>
> isolated incident, already forgotten about his lying?
So now you claim that was evidence that he is "not a team player and
never will be"? So he had the choice, go along with the lie or not.
Which would make him more or less the team player?
Come on, do you need someone to say "Alonso is a cheat and always will
be" to understand how pathetic your assertion sounds?
You don't know how Hamilton will act in the future any more than you
know how Alonso or most other drivers that have made mistakes will act.
You are just hate mongering. Would you like to join Brendans party?
Would could give you a name and make up things about you that you never
said.
> You better cut on down drinking, you're memory is
> suffering from it.
You need to try to find some balance and just accept what has happened
in the past.
Bigbird
> When they stop lying, making claims of racism to hide theirs and see
> that the sun shines over other parts of the world than Blighty, I
> will stop. Deal?
>
"When all dem lying useless niggers stops that callin' me racist maybe
I ain't gonna call 'em stupid niggers, no more. Deal?"
> > If you want to act like Alonso's Mum, then fine, tell people off
> > when you feel that the poor boy is mistreated, but leave that
> > fucking tiresome generalisation the hell out of it. It's way past
> > it's bed time and your insistence in using it puts you into grade
> > 5. You're not a dumbarse, let it go already FFS..
>
> They use claims of racism to refute any criticism of the those they
> support and those they choose to insult.
> They openly use terms that I wouldn't and don't and am surprised you
> don't explicitly oppose.
>
> Britpack is not about race. I am completely of British descent and
> being 'British' doesn't do it. It's about that behaviour.
"They","they","they". Is your bigotry is so ingrained you can't see it?
If you want to pick a fight with someone then do it like a man. One on
one.
Your indiscriminant maligning, your sterotyping, your lying, your
constant use of one persons view to attack another who does not hold
the same view...
You are a straw man.
When you become a real man let us know.
CatharticF1
news:xn0gtruzk...@news.individual.net:
>> You are racist, Bird.
>
> Am I? Why, because I am not afraid to type a word that makes you feel
> uncomfortable about yourself?
So if anyone feels uncomfortable about *your* language it's their problem.
Racist.
>> you can throw any colour paint you like.
>> Show me a single case.
>>
>
> Every time you say Brit you may as well be saying nigger for it's the
> same stereotyping, the same generalisations the same straw man
> arguments that all you racists use.
Nothing. You've still got nothing and this is a discussion that may offend
people I'm done, this is about F1 not you attempts to backpedal.