Top Gear - Star in a reasonably priced car
Daytona
other night -
Damon Hill - 1m 46.3
Ellen MacArthur - 1.46.7
I've always suspected it's a seat of the pants skill - being able to
feel what a cars doing at the limit isn't so different to being able
to feel what a yachts doing at the limit.
SteveH
There's a *huge* difference between doing a one-off quick lap in a shite
road car and consistently putting in quick laps in competetive
motorsport, though - especially in single-seat classes.
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Fiat Marea 20v HLX - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
Conor
says...
> I thought that Ellen MacArthur made Damon Hill look rather stupid the
> other night -
>
> Damon Hill - 1m 46.3
>
> Ellen MacArthur - 1.46.7
>
--
Conor
"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.
DanTXD
news:MPG.1e0c0a79...@news.individual.net...
> In article <2ig3q118igutkchfj...@4ax.com>, Daytona
> says...
>> I thought that Ellen MacArthur made Damon Hill look rather stupid the
>> other night -
>>
>> Damon Hill - 1m 46.3
>>
>> Ellen MacArthur - 1.46.7
>>
> And Nigel Mansell REALLY showed Damon up.
>
I think Webber would have beaten them both had it not been so wet.
--
Dan
Andy Hewitt
> In article <2ig3q118igutkchfj...@4ax.com>, Daytona
> says...
> > I thought that Ellen MacArthur made Damon Hill look rather stupid the
> > other night -
> >
> > Damon Hill - 1m 46.3
> >
> > Ellen MacArthur - 1.46.7
> >
> And Nigel Mansell REALLY showed Damon up.
Yebbut, Nigel still has his racing skills, Damon does not. Indeed, Nigel
was a true 'racer'. It was quite obvious in that last season he did that
Damon had lost his competitive edge.
--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
<http://andyhewitt.webhop.net/>
(updated Nov. 2005)
Mike G
"Daytona" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2ig3q118igutkchfj...@4ax.com...
> I thought that Ellen MacArthur made Damon Hill look rather stupid the
> other night -
>
> Damon Hill - 1m 46.3
>
> Ellen MacArthur - 1.46.7
>
> I've always suspected it's a seat of the pants skill - being able to
> feel what a cars doing at the limit isn't so different to being able
> to feel what a yachts doing at the limit.
I would agree there are similarities between both personalities, but I don't
think any comparisons can really be made between the two activities.
Apart from them both having a determination to succeed, I see little
similarity between the skills req'd for sailing or driving a car
competitively.
Also I don't recall if there were similar track conditions for both drivers
On the board, track conditions were also noted. The TG site doesn't include
them. So unless they were similar, a true comparison can't be made.
Nevertheless she did extremely well to get to the top of the board.
Mike.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/star_laps/
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>There's a *huge* difference between doing a one-off quick lap in a shite
>road car and consistently putting in quick laps in competetive
>motorsport, though - especially in single-seat classes.
I think they said her lap times were consistent.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Mike H
"Conor" <> wrote in message ...
> And Nigel Mansell REALLY showed Damon up.
Yes, in 2 different cars. So much for programme continuity. Part of his lap
he was in the '52' reg car, and later into the lap he was in the '03' reg
car.
Me thinks it was a con because Clarkson has now got a house on the Isle of
Man, just like Nige. All buddies together.
Mike.
Blast Off!2
wrote:
>In article <2ig3q118igutkchfj...@4ax.com>, Daytona
>says...
>> I thought that Ellen MacArthur made Damon Hill look rather stupid the
>> other night -
>>
>> Damon Hill - 1m 46.3
>>
>> Ellen MacArthur - 1.46.7
>>
>And Nigel Mansell REALLY showed Damon up.
>
>
>--
>Conor
Not really, even though I do rate Nigel much higher than Damon, you
have to concede that Damon has admitedly no interest in driving
competitively anymore (his road car is a lovely renault espace) and
Nigel has recently brushed up his chops considerably for the masters
thing. I bet you Damon could easily get in the 44s had he driven
competitively recently. Id really like to see Schumacher or Alonso do
a lap too as a true benchmark.
Pooh Bear
Conor wrote:
> In article <2ig3q118igutkchfj...@4ax.com>, Daytona
> says...
> > I thought that Ellen MacArthur made Damon Hill look rather stupid the
> > other night -
> >
> > Damon Hill - 1m 46.3
> >
> > Ellen MacArthur - 1.46.7
> >
> And Nigel Mansell REALLY showed Damon up.
That was quite funny actually.
Did you see him win that 1st GP Masters in S Africa btw ?
The race wasn't actually *that* exciting - at least initially for sure
since it was - just like F1 - more like watching a train go round and
round. About 1/2 way through though drivers actually got the confidence to
start overtaking and I thought hmmm... maybe there's a future for this.
Graham
Pooh Bear
Andy Hewitt wrote:
> Conor <conor....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <2ig3q118igutkchfj...@4ax.com>, Daytona
> > says...
> > > I thought that Ellen MacArthur made Damon Hill look rather stupid the
> > > other night -
> > >
> > > Damon Hill - 1m 46.3
> > >
> > > Ellen MacArthur - 1.46.7
> > >
> > And Nigel Mansell REALLY showed Damon up.
>
> Yebbut, Nigel still has his racing skills, Damon does not. Indeed, Nigel
> was a true 'racer'. It was quite obvious in that last season he did that
> Damon had lost his competitive edge.
Oh c'mon. He didn't exactly have the fastest car did he ?
Graham
Silk
> And Nigel Mansell REALLY showed Damon up.
Nigel Mansell is an IAM member as well.
Silk
> I would agree there are similarities between both personalities, but I don't
> think any comparisons can really be made between the two activities.
> Apart from them both having a determination to succeed, I see little
> similarity between the skills req'd for sailing or driving a car
> competitively.
I would say it has much more to do with personality type and natural
flair than anything else. Some people just have a kind of fearlessness
than many would consider reckless. Boy racer types are more likely to
make good race drivers but, on the other hand, more likely to make poor
road drivers.
Silk
> There's a *huge* difference between doing a one-off quick lap in a shite
> road car and consistently putting in quick laps in competetive
> motorsport, though - especially in single-seat classes.
Yes, it would be much easier in a racing car.
Mark Foster
wrote:
> I would say it has much more to do with personality type and natural
> flair than anything else. Some people just have a kind of fearlessness
> than many would consider reckless. Boy racer types are more likely to
> make good race drivers but, on the other hand, more likely to make poor
> road drivers.
IME the opposite is usually true[1]. At pro-kart meetings the "boy
racer" element were usually amongst the slowest (untidy lines, sliding,
poor control etc) and were the most frequent visitors to the scenery,
whereas the older drivers were almost invariably far better. You know
the kind of thing - "less is more", "in order to finish first..."
[1] Not meaning that they make good road drivers either.
--
"There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'"
[Driving, HMSO]
Astraman
"Mike G" <met...@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43a20260$0$1476$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
as an aside this one did amuse me slightly "Fay Ripley - 1m 53 (mildly
moist)", was it the track or her???
Sorry just my dirty mind!!!
Tom Robinson
wrote:
>In article <2ig3q118igutkchfj...@4ax.com>, Daytona
>says...
>> I thought that Ellen MacArthur made Damon Hill look rather stupid the
>> other night -
>>
>> Damon Hill - 1m 46.3
>>
>> Ellen MacArthur - 1.46.7
>>
>And Nigel Mansell REALLY showed Damon up.
Two things -
1. Mansell cut virtually every corner
2. In order for TG to continue the illusion that DH isn't the Stig,
they got him to take the wrong line in a few places
--
to respond via email, visit:
http://tinyurl.com/e48z9
Gizmo
"Tom Robinson" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:60h5q1hhdb1ik8ghg...@4ax.com...
> 2. In order for TG to continue the illusion that DH isn't the Stig,
> they got him to take the wrong line in a few places
DH never as / is the Stig.
Google is your friend ;o)
Blast Off!2
wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:20:02 -0000, Conor <conor....@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2ig3q118igutkchfj...@4ax.com>, Daytona
>>says...
>>> I thought that Ellen MacArthur made Damon Hill look rather stupid the
>>> other night -
>>>
>>> Damon Hill - 1m 46.3
>>>
>>> Ellen MacArthur - 1.46.7
>>>
>>And Nigel Mansell REALLY showed Damon up.
>
>Two things -
>
>1. Mansell cut virtually every corner
>
>2. In order for TG to continue the illusion that DH isn't the Stig,
>they got him to take the wrong line in a few places
>
Haha believe me DH ISNT the stig!
Daytona
>There's a *huge* difference between doing a one-off quick lap in a shite
>road car
She was putting in consistent fast laps. They were all within 0.3 of a
second. That's the other aspect that will make most intelligent
followers of motorsport sit up and take notice.
>and consistently putting in quick laps in competetive
>motorsport, though - especially in single-seat classes.
Which is irrelevant - this test is about straight speed, rather like
qualifying.
Daytona
Daytona
>Me thinks it was a con because Clarkson has now got a house on the Isle of
>Man, just like Nige.
Wrong.
Daytona
Andy Hewitt
[Snipped Text]
> > Yebbut, Nigel still has his racing skills, Damon does not. Indeed, Nigel
> > was a true 'racer'. It was quite obvious in that last season he did that
> > Damon had lost his competitive edge.
>
> Oh c'mon. He didn't exactly have the fastest car did he ?
No he didn't, but his body language and general attitude was obvious.
Daytona
>2. In order for TG to continue the illusion that DH isn't the Stig,
>they got him to take the wrong line in a few places
What a pathetic excuse.
From Speakers for Business -
"Perry McCarthy
The Stig (from BBC2's Top Gear) and Former Formula 1 Driver
Short Profile
At the age of 42, Perry McCarthy is one of Britain's top racing
drivers and is already part of motor racing folklore. He is known to
millions of motoring enthusisasts as 'The Stig', the mysterious racing
driver who races some of the world's most powerful cars for the BBC's
flagship motoring show, Top Gear."
Daytona
SteveH
Silk
Well, if it's good enough for Nige.
Mark Foster
Daytona <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Tom Robinson <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >2. In order for TG to continue the illusion that DH isn't the Stig,
> >they got him to take the wrong line in a few places
>
> What a pathetic excuse.
>
> From Speakers for Business -
>
> "Perry McCarthy
> The Stig (from BBC2's Top Gear) and Former Formula 1 Driver
Perry McCarthy *was* The Stig - the one in black. The word on
pistonheads is that it is now Ben Collins.
<http://www.bencollinsracing.com>
--
"There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'"
[Driving, HMSO]
Tim S Kemp
> Yebbut, Nigel still has his racing skills, Damon does not. Indeed,
> Nigel was a true 'racer'. It was quite obvious in that last season he
> did that Damon had lost his competitive edge.
Love to see what Michael Schumacher would be doing...
--
The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon; the vessel
with the pestle has the brew that is true.
SteveH
> st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
>
> >There's a *huge* difference between doing a one-off quick lap in a shite
> >road car
>
> She was putting in consistent fast laps. They were all within 0.3 of a
> second. That's the other aspect that will make most intelligent
> followers of motorsport sit up and take notice.
Hmm, I'm not really convinced.
There's some really odd people sitting high on the leader board, and
some you'd expect to have done much better that only turned in 'average'
times.
Daytona
So what effect did membership have on his ability to post faster laps
?
Daytona
Halmyre
He's also a Special Constable, I believe. I wonder if he stops speeding
drivers and says "Who d'you think you are? Me?"
--
Halmyre
Tom Robinson
You should do a bit more research, McCarthy hasn't been the Stig since
series 1 several years ago. Have a look on Wikipedia.
Tom Robinson
<m.e.fosterR...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <ri26q19fbubvdv912...@4ax.com>,
> Daytona <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Tom Robinson <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >2. In order for TG to continue the illusion that DH isn't the Stig,
>> >they got him to take the wrong line in a few places
>>
>> What a pathetic excuse.
>>
>> From Speakers for Business -
>>
>> "Perry McCarthy
>> The Stig (from BBC2's Top Gear) and Former Formula 1 Driver
>
>Perry McCarthy *was* The Stig - the one in black. The word on
>pistonheads is that it is now Ben Collins.
><http://www.bencollinsracing.com>
Another myth - the Wikipedia article explains why it isn't / can't be
Collins.
Silk
> So what effect did membership have on his ability to post faster laps
> ?
It didn't, silly.
Silk
> He's also a Special Constable, I believe. I wonder if he stops speeding
> drivers and says "Who d'you think you are? Me?"
Nah. If askes them if they're Damon Hill and, if they say yes, he takes
them back to the nick for a good kicking.
Mark Foster
Tom Robinson <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Neither the "Top Gear" article, "The Stig" article or the "Ben Collins"
article explain any such thing. Which article are you referring to and
how do you come to the conclusion that it's a myth?
Ian Johnston
: Another myth - the Wikipedia article explains why it isn't / can't be
: Collins.
Wikipedia? "explains"?
OK, Collins it is, then.
Ian
--
Ian Johnston
<m.e.fosterR...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
: Neither the "Top Gear" article, "The Stig" article or the "Ben Collins"
: article explain any such thing. Which article are you referring to and
: how do you come to the conclusion that it's a myth?
It's Wikipedia. What it said an hour ago, or ten minutes ago, or what
it will say in five minutes time need have nothing to do with what it
says now - or the truth.
Ian
--
Mike H
"Daytona" <> wrote in message ...
> "Mike H" <> wrote:
>
>>Me thinks it was a con because Clarkson has now got a house on the Isle of
>>Man, just like Nige.
>
> Wrong.
Tis true I tell you. Clarkson has a house on the IoM. Well, if you want to
be pedantic, it's actually a lighthouse.
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4944
Mike.
Halmyre
Not likely - once out of the car Damon could outrun Nigel "I eat pies,
me" Mansell no problem...
--
Halmyre
Brimstone
A copper pulled a car and coming up to the window asked "Who do you think
you are, Stirling Moss?" I'd love to have seen his face when the driver
identified himself as that very person!!
Tim S Kemp
> "Daytona" <> wrote in message ...
>> "Mike H" <> wrote:
>>
>>> Me thinks it was a con because Clarkson has now got a house on the
>>> Isle of Man, just like Nige.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> Tis true I tell you. Clarkson has a house on the IoM. Well, if you
> want to be pedantic, it's actually a lighthouse.
Isle of Man.
Personal allowans 8500 quid
Basic rate 10% on first 10,300
Higher rate 18% therafter.
Married couples are treated as a single entity - so 17000 allowance and then
the next 21600 at 10%, so no higher rate until your combined income is
38,600, even if only one of you is working.
And the NSL sign means NO speed limit.
Tim S Kemp
> In <nti6q15h5oll7klvk...@4ax.com>, Tom Robinson
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> You should do a bit more research, McCarthy hasn't been the Stig
>> since series 1 several years ago. Have a look on Wikipedia.
>
> Rippon!
He's talking series 1 of the Clarkson Show, not Top Gear....
Daytona
>
>"Daytona" <> wrote in message ...
>> "Mike H" <> wrote:
>>
>>>Me thinks it was a con because Clarkson has now got a house on the Isle of
>>>Man, just like Nige.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>Tis true I tell you.
Nigel Mansell hasn't got a house on IoM.
Daytona
Daytona
Quite, the facts are unrelated.
> silly.
You're the one who mentioned IAM, not me.
Daytona
Silk
> You're the one who mentioned IAM, not me.
Well, yes. And?
Mike H
"Daytona" <> wrote in message ...
> Nigel Mansell hasn't got a house on IoM.
ROTFLMAO.
Mike.
Steve Firth
> Nigel Mansell hasn't got a house on IoM.
Has he sold his massive great estate on the IoM then?
bob Jeffray
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:do1a86$aes$5...@genet.malloc.co.uk...
baggy1963
Presumably there is no handicap system.
Geoff May
> He now owns a glof club and resort complex in devon
Woodbury Park:
http://www.woodburypark.co.uk/
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:do1a86$aes$5...@genet.malloc.co.uk...
>
>>Daytona wrote:
>>
>>>Nigel Mansell hasn't got a house on IoM.
>>
>>Has he sold his massive great estate on the IoM then?
I believe that he still has the estate in the Isle of Man but spends
most of his time in Devon.
Cheers
Geoff
--
Unofficial Formula One [tm](r)(c) Statistics Database is available at:
http://glibs.ssmmdd.co.uk/
NeedforSwede2
says...
>So what effect did membership have on his ability to post faster laps
>?
>
safe to do so.
And boy did he press on.
--
Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Daytona
Silk
Oh, well he is anyway, irrelevant or not. :-)
Tony Bond (UncleFista)
"Tim S Kemp" <ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_YWdnRJBtoR...@karoo.co.uk...
> Isle of Man.
>
> Personal allowans 8500 quid
> Basic rate 10% on first 10,300
> Higher rate 18% therafter.
>
> Married couples are treated as a single entity - so 17000 allowance and
> then the next 21600 at 10%, so no higher rate until your combined income
> is 38,600, even if only one of you is working.
>
>
> And the NSL sign means NO speed limit.
Sounds lovely, but have you spent much time on the Isle Of Man ?
70,000 alcies clinging to a rock....
--
Tony Bond / UncleFista
Love is like a snowmobile, speeding across the frozen tundra.
Which suddenly flips, pinning you underneath.
At night the ice-weasels come...
Conor
(UncleFista) says...
>
> "Tim S Kemp" <ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:_YWdnRJBtoR...@karoo.co.uk...
> > Isle of Man.
> >
> > Personal allowans 8500 quid
> > Basic rate 10% on first 10,300
> > Higher rate 18% therafter.
> >
> > Married couples are treated as a single entity - so 17000 allowance and
> > then the next 21600 at 10%, so no higher rate until your combined income
> > is 38,600, even if only one of you is working.
> >
> >
> > And the NSL sign means NO speed limit.
>
> Sounds lovely, but have you spent much time on the Isle Of Man ?
>
limit for newly qualified drivers.
--
Conor
"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.
Daytona
Last I heard he'd shipped out to America having done his time on IoM
and get whatever tax advantages you get.
God only knows why out of all the worlds tax havens, he chose IoM.
Daytona
Tom Robinson
<m.e.fosterR...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <ivi6q110ne21ag3m7...@4ax.com>,
> Tom Robinson <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:01:02 +0000, Mark Foster
>> <m.e.fosterR...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >Perry McCarthy *was* The Stig - the one in black. The word on
>> >pistonheads is that it is now Ben Collins.
>> ><http://www.bencollinsracing.com>
>>
>> Another myth - the Wikipedia article explains why it isn't / can't be
>> Collins.
>
>Neither the "Top Gear" article, "The Stig" article or the "Ben Collins"
>article explain any such thing. Which article are you referring to and
>how do you come to the conclusion that it's a myth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Stig
--
to respond via email, visit:
http://tinyurl.com/e48z9
Mark Foster
Tom Robinson <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:48:03 +0000, Mark Foster
> <m.e.fosterR...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <ivi6q110ne21ag3m7...@4ax.com>,
> > Tom Robinson <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:01:02 +0000, Mark Foster
> >> <m.e.fosterR...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >Perry McCarthy *was* The Stig - the one in black. The word on
> >> >pistonheads is that it is now Ben Collins.
> >> ><http://www.bencollinsracing.com>
> >>
> >> Another myth - the Wikipedia article explains why it isn't / can't be
> >> Collins.
> >
> >Neither the "Top Gear" article, "The Stig" article or the "Ben Collins"
> >article explain any such thing. Which article are you referring to and
> >how do you come to the conclusion that it's a myth?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Stig
Interesting. I hadn't seen that, thanks.
Tom Robinson
<m.e.fosterR...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <uhamq152j4u139k2e...@4ax.com>,
> Tom Robinson <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:48:03 +0000, Mark Foster
>> <m.e.fosterR...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >Neither the "Top Gear" article, "The Stig" article or the "Ben Collins"
>> >article explain any such thing. Which article are you referring to and
>> >how do you come to the conclusion that it's a myth?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Stig
>
>Interesting. I hadn't seen that, thanks.
Yeah, sorry, I should have checked when I posted beforehand that it
was actually in the main article as opposed to the Talk: area. Often
the discussion sections on Wikipedia are actually more
interesting/useful than the article itself. Obviously the caveat with
WP that has already been mentioned applies here, although I usually
find that most of the content on WP is accurate and verifiable, and
the editing is usually pretty robust so overall it is pretty good. Of
course the same caveat applies to most websites on the internet, at
least with WP the text is more likely to represent the
opinions/consensus of many separate people rather than just one
persons viewpoint!
Mark Foster
Tom Robinson <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:38:30 +0000, Mark Foster
> <m.e.fosterR...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <uhamq152j4u139k2e...@4ax.com>,
> > Tom Robinson <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:48:03 +0000, Mark Foster
> >> <m.e.fosterR...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >Neither the "Top Gear" article, "The Stig" article or the "Ben Collins"
> >> >article explain any such thing. Which article are you referring to and
> >> >how do you come to the conclusion that it's a myth?
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Stig
> >
> >Interesting. I hadn't seen that, thanks.
>
> Yeah, sorry, I should have checked when I posted beforehand that it
> was actually in the main article as opposed to the Talk: area. Often
> the discussion sections on Wikipedia are actually more
> interesting/useful than the article itself. Obviously the caveat with
> WP that has already been mentioned applies here, although I usually
> find that most of the content on WP is accurate and verifiable, and
> the editing is usually pretty robust so overall it is pretty good. Of
> course the same caveat applies to most websites on the internet, at
> least with WP the text is more likely to represent the
> opinions/consensus of many separate people rather than just one
> persons viewpoint!
I believe there was a recent idependant test where by WP was checked
against Britannica.
IIRC information from both was presented to experts with the source
unidentified and checked for errors. BOTH contained errors but WP only
very slightly more so that Britannica.
It was kind of "encouraging".
John Briggs
Not to me it isn't - Britannica is not very reliable these days.
--
John Briggs
Silk
> Not to me it isn't - Britannica is not very reliable these days.
Especially the bit that says humans were decended from apes.
Tom Robinson
<m.e.fosterR...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>I believe there was a recent idependant test where by WP was checked
>against Britannica.
>
>IIRC information from both was presented to experts with the source
>unidentified and checked for errors. BOTH contained errors but WP only
>very slightly more so that Britannica.
>
>It was kind of "encouraging".
Yeah, WP is probably fairly accurate in subject areas which you'd
expect to find in an encyclopedia, because there's not exactly much
dispute over the facts in most of these areas. It's all the other
areas (e.g. Top Gear ;) in which it's probably marginally more dodgy.
:)
Mark Foster
Tom Robinson <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
That is true of pretty much any other web site, especially those where
the content is the "opinion" of little more than one person. At least WP
has the advantage that it is, to a greater or lesser extent according to
how you look at it, the collaboration of many independent individuals.
Like it or not, it is almost certainly more accurate than any one person
here. :-)
Silk
At least WP
> has the advantage that it is, to a greater or lesser extent according to
> how you look at it, the collaboration of many independent individuals.
> Like it or not, it is almost certainly more accurate than any one person
> here. :-)
>
I'd rather take the word of an informed individual than a collaboration
of fools.
Tom Robinson
Haven't you heard the monkeys/typewriters theory?
Jeff York
>On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:21:22 +0000, Silk <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>Mark Foster wrote:
>>
>>At least WP
>>> has the advantage that it is, to a greater or lesser extent according to
>>> how you look at it, the collaboration of many independent individuals.
>>> Like it or not, it is almost certainly more accurate than any one person
>>> here. :-)
>>>
>>
>>I'd rather take the word of an informed individual than a collaboration
>>of fools.
>
>Haven't you heard the monkeys/typewriters theory?
Yes.. But the internet proved it false. :-)
--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
je...@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)
... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."
Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
John Briggs
You'll have to explain that.
--
John Briggs
Silk
> Haven't you heard the monkeys/typewriters theory?
>
They wrote Shakespeare, didn't they? That would explain a lot.
Steve Firth
That is patently bollocks. You prefer the concepts generated bya
consensus of fools (intelligent design) to the word of an informed
individual.
Steve Firth
> In article <ExTrf.57241$uR.1...@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>, john.briggs4
> @ntlworld.com says...
>>>> Not to me it isn't - Britannica is not very reliable these days.
>>> Especially the bit that says humans were decended from apes.
>> You'll have to explain that.
>>
>
> from dogs, although I'm not sure of the OP's objection.
>
The OP is a bible thumper, although he denies this and at the same time
champions "Intelligent Design", which is now, officially, religious
doctrine and not science.
Mark Foster
wrote:
Except that apparently you don't.
Mark Foster
Alan LeHun <t...@reply.to> wrote:
> In article <ExTrf.57241$uR.1...@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>, john.briggs4
> @ntlworld.com says...
> > >> Not to me it isn't - Britannica is not very reliable these days.
> > >
> > > Especially the bit that says humans were decended from apes.
> >
> > You'll have to explain that.
> >
>
> FMPOV, I think it's a bit like saying that Dalmatians were descended
> from dogs, although I'm not sure of the OP's objection.
The OP is a religious zealot.
Silk
> The OP is a bible thumper, although he denies this and at the same time
> champions "Intelligent Design", which is now, officially, religious
> doctrine and not science.
It's interesting that the Yanks have outlawed alternative theories to
evolution. That doesn't sound very scientific to me. I wonder what
they're afraid of?
Silk
> The OP is a religious zealot.
>
Shut up Mark.
Silk
> The OP is a bible thumper, although he denies this and at the same time
> champions "Intelligent Design", which is now, officially, religious
> doctrine and not science.
Hmm. What a good idea. let's make alternative theories illegal. I wonder
what they're frightened of.
FYI, Stevie boy, I'm not championing anything, just questioning Evolution.
Silk
>>I'd rather take the word of an informed individual than a collaboration
>>of fools.
>
>
> Except that apparently you don't.
>
I take my information from a variety of sources, depending on the subject.
Mark Foster
wrote:
> Mark Foster wrote:
>
> > The OP is a religious zealot.
> >
>
> Shut up Mark.
Oooh, truth hurt does it?
Mark Foster
wrote:
Bollocks. Any search back through past discussion will show exactly what
you have been championing. Not only are you a hypocrite, you're a
fucking liar too.
Mark Foster
wrote:
Nothing, because they haven't outlawed anything other than teaching it
in a science classroom.
Mark Foster
wrote:
Yes, and from only one source on one subject in particular.
Knight Of The Road
"Mark Foster"> wrote
Not only are you a hypocrite, you're a fucking liar too.
Ad hominem and therefore worthless.
--
Regards, Vince
www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk
Mark Foster
"Knight Of The Road" <russiat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Mark Foster"> wrote
>
> Not only are you a hypocrite, you're a fucking liar too.
>
> Ad hominem and therefore worthless.
Wrong. It is a statement of fact.
John Briggs
I see - but why would he champion an American religious doctrine?
--
John Briggs
Steve Firth
> Steve Firth wrote:
>
>> The OP is a bible thumper, although he denies this and at the same
>> time champions "Intelligent Design", which is now, officially,
>> religious doctrine and not science.
>
> Hmm. What a good idea. let's make alternative theories illegal.
They haven't, they have made it illegal to replace the teaching of
science with the teaching of religious dogma. If anyone want to teach
dogma, including "Intelligent Design" they can still do so, however they
cannot pretend that it is a scientific theory.
> I wonder
> what they're frightened of.
One one level, absolutely nothing. On another that if the religious
zealots have their way, we shall be plunged into a second Dark Age where
fact is suppressed by doctrine.
> FYI, Stevie boy, I'm not championing anything,
Liar.
> just questioning Evolution.
You are attempting to portray religious dogma as fact.
Steve Firth
You'll have to ask him. My guess would be that he was brainwashed by a cult.
Silk
> Nothing, because they haven't outlawed anything other than teaching it
> in a science classroom.
>
You don't outlaw something unless it presents some kind of threat. If
the theory of Evolution were that sound, it would stand up to scrutiny
in the classroom, would it not?
Silk
> They haven't, they have made it illegal to replace the teaching of
> science with the teaching of religious dogma. If anyone want to teach
> dogma, including "Intelligent Design" they can still do so, however they
> cannot pretend that it is a scientific theory.
If we want to get rid of dogma, we have to stop Evolution being taught
as fact.
>
>> I wonder what they're frightened of.
>
>
> One one level, absolutely nothing. On another that if the religious
> zealots have their way, we shall be plunged into a second Dark Age where
> fact is suppressed by doctrine.
If the Evolutionist zealots have their way, all alternative theories
will be suppressed and anyone putting them forward in the classroom will
be put in prison. Oh look, it's happening already.
>> just questioning Evolution.
>
>
> You are attempting to portray religious dogma as fact.
I'm not portraying anything as fact. As I've said many times, I don't know.
Silk
> In article <dopstt$6t6$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
> "Knight Of The Road" <russiat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Mark Foster"> wrote
>>
>> Not only are you a hypocrite, you're a fucking liar too.
>>
>>Ad hominem and therefore worthless.
>
>
> Wrong. It is a statement of fact.
>
Ok, prove it.
Silk
> You'll have to ask him. My guess would be that he was brainwashed by a
> cult.
I have an open mind on the subject. Evolution may be correct, but there
are just too many holes in the theory at the moment to convince me. If
there was enough evidence, there would be no need to forcibly suppress
criticism.
Silk
> Yes, and from only one source on one subject in particular.
>
It all depends on the subject.
Pete Smith
Right wing, ignorant, religious zealots/bigots, attempting to push their
own religious, unscientific[0] agendas onto schools, for their own reasons,
and labelling it as valid science.
Pete.
[0] Evolution : How does it work? Let's try and figure it out.
ID/Creationism: GOD DID IT![1]
[1] I have actually had conversations with creationists that go something
like So, how old is the world? 4000 years. How do you know? GOD DID IT! OK.
What about <scientific evidence>? All lies. GOD DID IT! Fine. What about...
GOD DID IT! It's in the bible[2].
[2] A (poor)[3] English translation of a book translated from other
languages, put together from bits & pieces of half remembered stuff, put
together after the fact.
[3] It's easier for a *rope* (not a camel) to pass through the eye of a
needle. Mis-translation from a Greek version of the bible, which makes a
hell of a lot more sense than a camel going through the eye of a needle.
--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be deleted
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail
Pooh Bear
Silk wrote:
You're missing the point. The US Constitution forbids the state from
'endorsing' ( I forget the precise wording ) religious beliefs. Therefore
teaching religious dogma is unconstitutional and may not be taught in US
public schools. End of story.
Nothing to do with its merits ( not that there are any of course ).
Graham
Pooh Bear
Pete Smith wrote:
Has anyone else here seen the US 'creationist' site that teaches humans lived
alongside dinosaurs ! No I'm not joking - some USAans think it really happened
!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1489520,00.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml
If anyone feels they need any more evidence that Americans are seriously
retarded pls let me know !
Graham
Pooh Bear
Steve Firth wrote:
> Silk wrote:
> > Steve Firth wrote:
> >
> >> The OP is a bible thumper, although he denies this and at the same
> >> time champions "Intelligent Design", which is now, officially,
> >> religious doctrine and not science.
> >
> > Hmm. What a good idea. let's make alternative theories illegal.
>
> They haven't, they have made it illegal to replace the teaching of
> science with the teaching of religious dogma.
Actually they didn't need to *make* it illegal. It already was under the US
Constitution. It was simply a case of enforcing the Constitution.
> If anyone want to teach
> dogma, including "Intelligent Design" they can still do so, however they
> cannot pretend that it is a scientific theory.
They cannot do so in any US public school at all as I understand it since
the state is not allowed to teach religiously inspired ideas.
It would be perfecty legal in a private e.g religious school though.
> > I wonder
> > what they're frightened of.
Nothing
> One one level, absolutely nothing. On another that if the religious
> zealots have their way, we shall be plunged into a second Dark Age where
> fact is suppressed by doctrine.
>
> > FYI, Stevie boy, I'm not championing anything,
>
> Liar.
>
> > just questioning Evolution.
>
> You are attempting to portray religious dogma as fact.
The US disease is spreading here now ?
See my post about the Christian dinosaurs !
Graham