violator101:

Stop going off subject people. I started this topic and it's the first topic I have ever posted here I am not using an fake name and do not. I repeat do not joke around calling me max. People doing this need to respect new comers and see the topic for what it is and someone had to say it.

So if that minority could stop those silly remarks and respect the topic subject please, that is a fair request. When i have been a regular on forums in the past I dont jump to conclusions and make crazzy rumors about them being an alias simply because may have supported an argument of a regular poster.

 The whole max thing, posters like redfrog call it a joke... its a bad one considering the point i am trying to make here. Is it really that hard for some people to believe that people like me don't want an unregulated F1 where rules are made to suit the advantage of manufacturer's only. Use logic I will repeat the example will you enjoy watching a world cup with no ref?

Sorry, violator, that's not how it works.  People are quite free to post what they like, as long as it passes the mods.

You have started a thread saying it would not be good for the manufacturers to make the rules in F1.  This topic has already been discussed on the forum while we were debating the FOTA breakaway.  I think from memory that all posters on various threads agreed with what you say.  We all said that regulation should be done by an independent body.  So we have actually already answered your question on other threads.

Well done for making your first post, and you have defended your idea too, in further posts.  But you must realise that you can't control what people will say on your thread.  Some of us have been making lighthearted comments.  Mo and stigga have been having their own private discussion.  A couple of posters have actually tried to address your post, I'm not sure if you have replied to them yet.

Most threads on here have posts which go off topic.  If you want to see a thread where everyone sticks to the topic, there are a few; a current one is the thread called "Next year's cars this year?"  Everybody has stayed on topic on that thread, but not because they've been told that they have to.  I don't know why, maybe because it's a new topic and people are interested.

mo1965:

stigga:

mo1965:

stigga:

 

There you go again, apparently knowing me better than I know myself, your arrogance is astounding, as for me asking you to "prove it" I will, every time you state something that is factually incorrect, so you shouldn't have long to wait.

 

 

 

Mo, you have time and time again posted innacurate details of many things, and time and time again I have attempted to prove you wrong, in fact every time I've pointed out your errors I've provided proof to back it up,

Another poster mentioned that you "change tune", and conveniently pass over comments that question the validity of what you say, I would go just little further than saying you "change tune", I think you sing in a different arena. 

  

I never thought of it that way, infact I never though expressing openion even wrong is classed as arogance. Or is it because anyone who think differently to you is perhaps wrong by default. I live and learn something new every day!! Nice one.

As for your comment conveniently "pass over comments", I have no answer, obviously your understanding and logic is clearly different to mine. 

As for me "changing tune", don't worry about it, as you age, you will overcome this kind of thinking. 

As for "time and time again I have posted innacurate details of many things", I refer you to first paragraph. Besides why do you worry??? ignore my answers, Remember keep telling yourself, you are always right (include FOTA in your belief too) and believe you know it all. LOL.

 

 

I dont believe I know it all at all Mo, but I would never state that Jean Todt had owned a team as if it were factual without being prepared for someone pointing out my error, same goes for the McLaren being represented by a company solicitor, or indeed Williams dumping Cosworth because it was unreliable, all things you've stated as fact Mo, not opinion, and all incorrect.

I dont worry about it either, but someone who was none the wiser might just assume that what you say is correct and make judgements, further comments or assumptions in posts based on your incorrect statements.

 I'd imagine most people are happy to have their errors and misconceptions pointed out, I certainly dont mind, its how we learn stuff we didn't know, obviously though there's always the exception that would prefer to argue they're right and live in ignorance of the truth.

I dont mind you having an opinion either Mo, but if you state something I know not to be true I'll give you my opinion, and as I have with the 3 instances mentioned above, provide facts to disprove what you say.

 

 

Lets start again:

It is really pointless to argue about this. Really no point and I have passed my college days 20 years ago. However, I set you two tasks which I hope you do: 

1) Find out the name of the lawyer/solicitor or whatever lable that person has (notice that I used the word "whatever lable", to make sure I cover all possiblities otherwise I have added another incorrect statement to my incorrect list - LOOOL) ? Then read a little bit about the way the court system works, how the defence and how many "whatever legal name" can represent the defendant or talk in the court  etc (you can even use the original Ferrari-Mclaren's case, it is all legal jargon, take a note of the names specifically those representing the two parties. 

2) Do a bit of research on Williams changing Cosworth for Toyota, find out the real reason for chaning the engine supplier, you have already come across an article about performance issue. And then let everyone know the facts. This time prove it to everyone that I am wrong and you will have my blessing too. It is easy, isn't it??????

You really need to learn this, if you want to prove someone is wrong properly, than prove yourself right by coming up with the right answer and back it up with a reasonable proof.

 In your previous post you stated I am arrogant, the interesting point is this: in one of the post I made on Monday, I stated "apologies" to you, because your name was among the "posted quotes". Do you think this would come from an arrogant person, tell me what dictionary you use or do you really understand the meaning of the word arrogance???

I give you another example, you posted results of 2006, I have the paper copy of all those as well as all being available on Formula 1 website. My response to you was "Thank you for your effort I will use the information for my reference". Is this the sign of an arrogant person????????? I am confident, you don't understand the meaning of the word arrogance. 

Don't have a go at someone for your incorrect perception and understanding. Give it a small chance that you are also wrong in all your assumptions. Remember, Labling or judging people you have never met or dealt with is only sign of a weak person.

When you find the answer to Cosworth and Mclaren's (whatever legal name), come back to me. 

 ----------------------------------------------------------------

Violater 101

I was accused of being arrogance, stating incorrect information and so on, all because I am not in support of FOTA specifically Ferrari.  Which for me, this is due to factual and historical reasons.

As you may have noticed this one person is now doing a fault finding in what I say. To his suprise, I find this kind of attitude most challenging !!!!!!!!!!

Apologies to "Viloater 101" for deviating from the original subject. I haven't got anything to add to your post.  I made a reference to one of your statement which I strongly agreed with, but it triggered the above again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

"I was accused of being arrogance, stating incorrect information and so on, all because I am not in support of FOTA specifically Ferrari"

No, I said you were arrogant for intimating that you know what I'll do or what/how I think, and I "accused" you of stating incorrect information because you did state incorrect information..

http://forums.itv.com/2/758931/ShowThread.aspx

"They used Cosworth for one season (after BMW left) and they dropped it due to lack of performance and unacceptable reliability"

Thats what you stated Mo, when I asked you for a source, you quoted an article from wikipedia, that mentioned nothing about Williams dropping Cosworth because of unreliability, and you then quoted a sidepodcast, which also mentioned nothing about Williams dropping Cosworth because of unreliability. just as the pitpass artice you quoted as a source of proof contained nothing at all about Williams dropping Cosworth due to unacceptable reliability.

I showed proof of the entire season of 2006 when Williams used Cosworth engines, together with retirements, and the reasons for them.

"1) Find out the name of the lawyer/solicitor or whatever lable that person has (notice that I used the word "whatever lable", to make sure I cover all possiblities otherwise I have added another incorrect statement to my incorrect list - LOOOL) "

The paragraph above, which i've posted in its entirety makes about as much sense as most of your posts,

Find out the name of which lawyer/solicitor ? the lawyer/soicitor that did what ? or said what ?.

2) Do a bit of research on Williams changing Cosworth for Toyota, find out the real reason for chaning the engine supplier, you have already come across an article about performance issue. And then let everyone know the facts. This time prove it to everyone that I am wrong and you will have my blessing too. It is easy, isn't it??????

I've already proven you wrong.    http://forums.itv.com/8/852464/ShowThread.aspx     Post 852150

the scarlet assassin:

Without Ferrari there would be no f1. No championship would ever be the same without Ferrari. Be thankful and bow down before the great and mighty prancing horse.

Tut tut, Cavallino Rampante !!

pedekay:

That's how I read it too, coops.

But I think that a big confusion has arisen because violator didn't use the quote button properly.  His answer of "you wish redfrog" has been taken as a reply to the posts about the Red Prince and his princess.  (These were a little joke between myself and redfrog, with stigga joining in.)  Because these posts were some time ago, people have assumed that violator has been reading this forum for a while.

But violator's answer of "you wish redfrog" is, in my opionion, directed at redfrog's joking comment of  "Violator...don't go away...I need as much backup as I can get to fight the good fight against the evil FOTA".  In that case there is no suggestion that violator has been around for a while.

So no need for anyone to imply or infer anything, it's all quite straightforward.  That's how it appears to me, anyway.

pdk, why would violator say "you wish" to redfrog saying "don't go away"? 

Surely this would imply from violator that he is going away? or am I missing something?

the scarlet assassin:

Without Ferrari there would be no f1. No championship would ever be the same without Ferrari. Be thankful and bow down before the great and mighty prancing horse.

haha theres one of them.. ferrari pride

violator101:

asanator:

Question....hmmmm....question.....lots of spurious 'facts' and 'information' ......hmmmm question! Ah you mean the football thing?

Ok here goes, no-one was talking about having a non-reguated series (not that it matters anymore), the FOTA teams were talking about having an independent body regulate the series and according to Ross Brawn were even considering the FIA as the FIA is obliged to (if asked) under some european or international law.

Oh and before someone takes this the wrong way, it is not the regulatory body's job to set the Technical regulations! (which is half of what this is all about anyway!)

The techical issues still upheld by the regulator. If there is a scuff on the track it's them they have to report it to and provide evidence. The regulators have the ability to make sure the rules are stuck to like with the Hamilton safety car overtake in the first race. If there had been no regulator to check deeper into what happend no one would have found out about the lie to much later on if at all.

It's summer 2009 and regular deadlines for 2010 have passed and been ignored of clear reasons but realistically a breakaway series by 2010 is now cutting it close considering the teams have to finish this season. A new regulator would need to be made from scratch to support a tour of the size and expense of F1. There was talk ok John Todt taking the chair of such an idea which didnt help and quite rightfully the other teams wee not happy about that either as it would for sure play into Ferarri pride under pressure.

This is another reason why i don't like the change because the breakaway idea is being thown together with theory on what will and won't work where as if they stay with the FIA there is no question what ever rules are in place next year no 1 team will be able to find loopholes or hide details to their advantage.

Ok, firstly there is a difference between the Technical regulations (Rules to which the cars are built) and the Sporting Regulations (Racing rules).  Also, none of these have anything to do with track condition which is something that is the circuits responsibility although the regulator do get involved when there are safety concerns.

The point is, that the breakaway series could use the FIA as a regulator if they wanted to, but the FIA being regulator does not give them the power to set the technical or sporting regulations, their job is to make sure that they are being followed.  That is one of the main things that FOTA are objecting to, the arbitrary way in which the FIA are changing the Technical regultaions without thought to the teams business models or costs.

pt71:

pedekay:

That's how I read it too, coops.

But I think that a big confusion has arisen because violator didn't use the quote button properly.  His answer of "you wish redfrog" has been taken as a reply to the posts about the Red Prince and his princess.  (These were a little joke between myself and redfrog, with stigga joining in.)  Because these posts were some time ago, people have assumed that violator has been reading this forum for a while.

But violator's answer of "you wish redfrog" is, in my opionion, directed at redfrog's joking comment of  "Violator...don't go away...I need as much backup as I can get to fight the good fight against the evil FOTA".  In that case there is no suggestion that violator has been around for a while.

So no need for anyone to imply or infer anything, it's all quite straightforward.  That's how it appears to me, anyway.

pdk, why would violator say "you wish" to redfrog saying "don't go away"? 

Surely this would imply from violator that he is going away? or am I missing something?

Now I'm starting to get confused !!!

I thought that by saying "you wish", violator was implying that redfrog was being sarcastic and that he (redfrog) really wanted him (violator) to go away.

Now are you confused too ?  lol

stigga:

the scarlet assassin:

Without Ferrari there would be no f1. No championship would ever be the same without Ferrari. Be thankful and bow down before the great and mighty prancing horse.

Tut tut, Cavallino Rampante !!

ok, smarty stigga, I thought that Cavallino Rampante sounded like it might mean prancing horse, but I had to google it to find out for sure.  For sure !!!

Great post, scarlet, I enjoyed it a lot.

pedekay:

pt71:

pedekay:

That's how I read it too, coops.

But I think that a big confusion has arisen because violator didn't use the quote button properly.  His answer of "you wish redfrog" has been taken as a reply to the posts about the Red Prince and his princess.  (These were a little joke between myself and redfrog, with stigga joining in.)  Because these posts were some time ago, people have assumed that violator has been reading this forum for a while.

But violator's answer of "you wish redfrog" is, in my opionion, directed at redfrog's joking comment of  "Violator...don't go away...I need as much backup as I can get to fight the good fight against the evil FOTA".  In that case there is no suggestion that violator has been around for a while.

So no need for anyone to imply or infer anything, it's all quite straightforward.  That's how it appears to me, anyway.

pdk, why would violator say "you wish" to redfrog saying "don't go away"? 

Surely this would imply from violator that he is going away? or am I missing something?

Now I'm starting to get confused !!!

I thought that by saying "you wish", violator was implying that redfrog was being sarcastic and that he (redfrog) really wanted him (violator) to go away.

Now are you confused too ?  lol

pt71:

pedekay:

That's how I read it too, coops.

But I think that a big confusion has arisen because violator didn't use the quote button properly.  His answer of "you wish redfrog" has been taken as a reply to the posts about the Red Prince and his princess.  (These were a little joke between myself and redfrog, with stigga joining in.)  Because these posts were some time ago, people have assumed that violator has been reading this forum for a while.

But violator's answer of "you wish redfrog" is, in my opionion, directed at redfrog's joking comment of  "Violator...don't go away...I need as much backup as I can get to fight the good fight against the evil FOTA".  In that case there is no suggestion that violator has been around for a while.

So no need for anyone to imply or infer anything, it's all quite straightforward.  That's how it appears to me, anyway.

pdk, why would violator say "you wish" to redfrog saying "don't go away"? 

Surely this would imply from violator that he is going away? or am I missing something?

Yes the subject

stigga:

"

 

1) Find out the name of the lawyer/solicitor or whatever lable that person has (notice that I used the word "whatever lable", to make sure I cover all possiblities otherwise I have added another incorrect statement to my incorrect list - LOOOL) "

The paragraph above, which i've posted in its entirety makes about as much sense as most of your posts,

Find out the name of which lawyer/solicitor ? the lawyer/soicitor that did what ? or said what ?.

 

 

2) Do a bit of research on Williams changing Cosworth for Toyota, find out the real reason for chaning the engine supplier, you have already come across an article about performance issue. And then let everyone know the facts. This time prove it to everyone that I am wrong and you will have my blessing too. It is easy, isn't it??????

 

I've already proven you wrong.    http://forums.itv.com/8/852464/ShowThread.aspx     Post 852150

Regarding the paragraph (1),  never mind you understand whenever or whatever suits you. Lets forget that one too!!!! 

I get it, You proof for proving me wrong when (Williams dropped Cosworth in favour of Toyota) is the results of 2006.  Don't you think that would goes against what you are saying? 

So If someone ever asked me why Williams replaced the Cosworth engine for Toyota, I will tell them that Costworth was a fantastic engine their performance and reliability was so good and that is why they were replaced!!!!! And if they asked me for a proof, I shall refer them to your results.

Nice one. Never mind lets leave it at that.

You deserve medals for proving me wrong. And for that, I shall award you the followings:  

mo1965:

stigga:

"

 

1) Find out the name of the lawyer/solicitor or whatever lable that person has (notice that I used the word "whatever lable", to make sure I cover all possiblities otherwise I have added another incorrect statement to my incorrect list - LOOOL) "

The paragraph above, which i've posted in its entirety makes about as much sense as most of your posts,

Find out the name of which lawyer/solicitor ? the lawyer/soicitor that did what ? or said what ?.

 

 

2) Do a bit of research on Williams changing Cosworth for Toyota, find out the real reason for chaning the engine supplier, you have already come across an article about performance issue. And then let everyone know the facts. This time prove it to everyone that I am wrong and you will have my blessing too. It is easy, isn't it??????

 

I've already proven you wrong.    http://forums.itv.com/8/852464/ShowThread.aspx     Post 852150

 

I get it,

No,

you dont.

stigga:

mo1965:

stigga:

"

 

1) Find out the name of the lawyer/solicitor or whatever lable that person has (notice that I used the word "whatever lable", to make sure I cover all possiblities otherwise I have added another incorrect statement to my incorrect list - LOOOL) "

The paragraph above, which i've posted in its entirety makes about as much sense as most of your posts,

Find out the name of which lawyer/solicitor ? the lawyer/soicitor that did what ? or said what ?.

 

 

2) Do a bit of research on Williams changing Cosworth for Toyota, find out the real reason for chaning the engine supplier, you have already come across an article about performance issue. And then let everyone know the facts. This time prove it to everyone that I am wrong and you will have my blessing too. It is easy, isn't it??????

 

I've already proven you wrong.    http://forums.itv.com/8/852464/ShowThread.aspx     Post 852150

 

I get it,

 

No,

you dont.

And you do?????????????????????????????

Sure. LoL 

mo1965:

stigga:

mo1965:

stigga:

"

 

1) Find out the name of the lawyer/solicitor or whatever lable that person has (notice that I used the word "whatever lable", to make sure I cover all possiblities otherwise I have added another incorrect statement to my incorrect list - LOOOL) "

The paragraph above, which i've posted in its entirety makes about as much sense as most of your posts,

Find out the name of which lawyer/solicitor ? the lawyer/soicitor that did what ? or said what ?.

 

 

2) Do a bit of research on Williams changing Cosworth for Toyota, find out the real reason for chaning the engine supplier, you have already come across an article about performance issue. And then let everyone know the facts. This time prove it to everyone that I am wrong and you will have my blessing too. It is easy, isn't it??????

 

I've already proven you wrong.    http://forums.itv.com/8/852464/ShowThread.aspx     Post 852150

 

I get it,

 

No,

you dont.

And you do?????????????????????????????

Sure. LoL 

Now you're getting it.