What I dont get is this; Someone sees a post or banter about (driver/team) they dont like, instead of ignore it they attempt to challenge it or discredit it or out banterise it (Ronspeak). When this doesnt work they then start crying about not being allowed to state their opinion.
If my opinion is that (driver/team) latest public statement is (this) and yours is that it isnt state yours, ignore mine or just move on. Why attack my opinion without success then start crying that I am ignoring your opinion. Why should I change my opinion to make you feel better?
Then we got the argument that if you are biased against a particular (driver/team) and pick up on and voice negative opinions more than on others, that you should stop voicing your opinions 'because someone has seen it many times before and doesnt bother reading the thread' yet at the same time this person is most likely first to admit they are biased for another (driver/team) and prefer to hear only positive things about them.
So which is it? Dont voice negative opinions about (driver/team) and positive pinions about (driver/team) because it upsets me, although I do the same thing, except just not in the attention to detail and relentlessness you do it
I will banter about my team but you cant because you are way too passionate and do the same in more detail?
Finally, we have threads that are silent even though there are news out there relating to the theme. But we would rather no one contributes unless its positive and acceptable to a minority who moan and bitch. And this in no way is censorship of the type many a dictatorship would be proud of?
Its like a country saying 'we will only allow our citizens to read things and sites on the internet that are acceptable and positive about our regime' The fact that positive and negative things can be said and that people can make their own minds what is the truth is not enough. No we must tell them what the truth is by only allowing them to read what we say is the truth - positive things about (driver/team) but if negative and true - well thats just not on.
Now there arent any countries who would act this way are there? if so are they democracies?
But its ok for an F1 forum to do this because of the egos of a few whinging bitches (degenderised term) who are not opposed to bantering themselves BUT ONLY IF THEY WIN. If they dont or cant then it becomes spoiling tactics, 'oh I dont even bother reading this thread about (driver/team)' or 'oh I am not allowed my opinion, because even though I didnt have one and failed in my attempt to discredit anothers, they are not just changing their post to make me feel better' and the best one of all 'I am off to another forum where members dont act like this to me, lets say the biggest of all, Autosport' then come back after discovering that its exactly the same except on a much bigger scale and where you are likely to hear your (driver/team) dissected and opinionerised on a scale and in detail that is almost poetic in its thoroughness.
Double standards, ad hominem attacks = cant beat them, not smart enough to join them
edit: If I say something negative about your (driver/team) its not to make you feel bad, but to make by self feel better - to stand on by soapbox and propose an opinion, a view and to see if their are any who agree and want to discuss. And if I do this 1x or 10x, providing its valid, i.e new info that is true, then thats what a discussion forum is about.
Not 'I will ignore news about (driver/team) and will not put forward my opinion because it might upset a few and I will wait till the media are discussing this before its safe to mention it'
Nope the best I can do is promise not to make things up or spread falsities about (driver/team) as I proceed to point out the latest evidence of their activities that I feel can be aired in advance of waiting for the media to do so. And I promise not to critisce or go ad hominem on another member as I proceed to rip a hole in their fave (driver/team)
