FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[darwin dali]

Gallio (sp) tended to scientifically test his ideas.

What are you suggesting anyway, that Bernie's bodyguard was compliant in his robbery? Or Bernie was himself hence no bodyguard?

On your kinda philosophical arguments, I think the reverse is needed more, "the simplest solution is often the likeliest".

Occam's razor

[What's Burning?]

Gallio (sp) tended to scientifically test his ideas.

What are you suggesting anyway, that Bernie's bodyguard was compliant in his robbery? Or Bernie was himself hence no bodyguard?

On your kinda philosophical arguments, I think the reverse is needed more, "the simplest solution is often the likeliest".

Occam's razor

I use Gillette Mach 3.

[darwin dali]

Gallio (sp) tended to scientifically test his ideas.

What are you suggesting anyway, that Bernie's bodyguard was compliant in his robbery? Or Bernie was himself hence no bodyguard?

On your kinda philosophical arguments, I think the reverse is needed more, "the simplest solution is often the likeliest".

Occam's razor

I use Gillette Mach 3.

For your bikini line?
Ah, TMI...

[The_Stig_Money]

Wow i dont log on for a weekend and this is what happens in the world of F1!

I almost feel sorry for him, almost.JK

Now he knows what most of his fans feel like.JK

Im glad you are all right Bernie

[madbrad]

I'd give odds The perp didn't know who he was or what value his or his companion's personal effects were worth. They just looked rich. A couple hundred quid's worth would have satisfied him. The real question is why you didn't just type your ridiculous theory in the thread that already exists about the subject, instead of violating your TOS and starting a new thread about it, and in the wrong section no less?

Don´t talk to me that way, I don’t like to start again with insults and bad answers. What I’m talking about is just a possibility, nothing else. I don’t understand how you can be so sure about what actually happened. May be you have some information I have not.
I’ve read at least two different explanations:
1.- It happened at his office, FOUR men were waiting for him and robbed 200.000 pounds in jewelry.
2.- It happened when they were arriving at home and they only took their watches.
I don´t understand how a famous and powerful billionaire like him don’t have at least a BODYGUARD.
Well, it possibly happened as you say, why not. But I don´t find so ridiculous to explore other options. This is a forum, not a newspaper, and I’m just talking.
I don't know what is my TOS

Don't ever tell me how I can talk to you. I already explained to you how a forum works. Any opinion you want to start a thread about or post about is open to be flamed, period. people can talk to you any way they please. If you don't like it when people disagree with your opinion, DO NOT POST IT. You have been warned before. I never said anything about being so sure of what actually happened. I never claimed to know what happened. I don't even care. Show me where I said that. I put in a possibility, like you say you are doing. The difference is, when I do it I'm evil. It's a simple mugging, why overanalyze it?
TOS= terms of service. You are required to read them before making your very first post. I can tell you didn't. You've violated them more than once. You have alienated everyone here as well not only with your dumb ideas but with your total intolerance of dissent.

[darwin dali]

I'd give odds The perp didn't know who he was or what value his or his companion's personal effects were worth. They just looked rich. A couple hundred quid's worth would have satisfied him. The real question is why you didn't just type your ridiculous theory in the thread that already exists about the subject, instead of violating your TOS and starting a new thread about it, and in the wrong section no less?

Don´t talk to me that way, I don’t like to start again with insults and bad answers. What I’m talking about is just a possibility, nothing else. I don’t understand how you can be so sure about what actually happened. May be you have some information I have not.
I’ve read at least two different explanations:
1.- It happened at his office, FOUR men were waiting for him and robbed 200.000 pounds in jewelry.
2.- It happened when they were arriving at home and they only took their watches.
I don´t understand how a famous and powerful billionaire like him don’t have at least a BODYGUARD.
Well, it possibly happened as you say, why not. But I don´t find so ridiculous to explore other options. This is a forum, not a newspaper, and I’m just talking.
I don't know what is my TOS

Don't ever tell me how I can talk to you. I already explained to you how a forum works. Any opinion you want to start a thread about or post about is open to be flamed, period. people can talk to you any way they please. If you don't like it when people disagree with your opinion, DO NOT POST IT. I never said anything about being so sure of what actually happened. I never claimed to know what happened. I don't even care. Show me where I said that.
TOS= terms of service. You are required to read them before making your very first post. I can tell you didn't. You've violated them more than once. You have alienated everyone here as well not only with your dumb ideas but with your total intolerance of dissent.

To be more precise: everybody can talk on here as they please WITHIN the guidelines.

All: please tone it down a notch - I'm getting a headache...

[SennaVille]

Awww Maaan! Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy *sniff*.

Poor ole Bernie

[madbrad]

I was well within the limit as I only called his theory ridiculous and asked why he started a new thread about it. What's not within the limits is showing up new in here and bi+ching at anyone who disagrees with you and trying to dictate how they respond to you.

[vaptin]

I was well within the limit as I only called his theory ridiculous and asked why he started a new thread about it. What's not within the limits is showing up new in here and bi+ching at anyone who disagrees with you and trying to dictate how they respond to you.

Stay cool madbrad baby, stay cool.

It's the off season, you gotta bottle up your rage to take it out on the opposing teams in the season.

[Jack Master]

To SCOTTY: OK. Thank you. I will do it this way. I’m sorry.
To VAPTIN: Galileo arrived to his conclusions because he was able to consider other possibilities, even when they were absolutely impossible at first sight. It’s also important to consider the reaction of people; in fact, he had to say that he was wrong to avoid being killed.
As you know very well, I’ve never suggested that Bernie’s bodyguard was compliant in his robbery. In fact I don’t know if he has any.
I would like to know which of the two versions is right, if any is.
If the first one is right and four men were waiting for him leaving his office building to steal him 200.000 pounds in jewelry. They we’re targeting him, four men for an 80 years old one and a girl. May be he had a bodyguard and they needed to be four to confront him. Who knows? In this case there are more odds of being a warning or a punishment.
After that, the official version changed and said that the robbery took place when he was arriving at home and was something casual, just because he was rich, and they only took their watches (That are Bernie’s declarations)
I would also want to know why the versions have changed.
You says: “I think the reverse is needed more: The simplest solution is often the likeliest”
I agree with that sentence, but I don’t believe it´s the reverse of what I’m saying. The reverse should be: “The official version is always the truth”, what as you can see is a very different sentence.
The Occam’s razor never denies de existence of other possibilities, and it isn’t the same the simplest solution than the official version, especially when the official versions are two.
And I want to repeat that I’m just talking. I don’t know what actually happened and I don’t like anybody taken this like something personal.

[vaptin]

The problem is, your considerations aren't the simplest.

Gallio had a method to his madness if you like, he could explain logically why the world worked x way, or at least measure it to show that it did.

[darwin dali]

I was well within the limit as I only called his theory ridiculous and asked why he started a new thread about it. What's not within the limits is showing up new in here and bi+ching at anyone who disagrees with you and trying to dictate how they respond to you.

Yes. I was simply making your statement

people can talk to you any way they please.

a bit more accurate

[Four mules as one]

Has anyone seen the Guy Ritchie movie, Snatch, starring Brad Pitt? Bernie always reminds me of the character Bricktop. This whole episode surrounding this robbery sounds like something out of that movie. I'd hate to be the thieves when they find out one Bernard Ecclestone has just invested in a pig farm.

Hope they got him once in the balls too, darwin

[Jack Master]

To MADBRAT:
You said: “The perp didn’t know who he was or what value his or his companion’s personal effects were worth. They just looked rich. A couple hundred quids worth would have satisfied him. The real question is what you didn’t just type your ridiculous theory…”
Probably I’ve misunderstood, but I thought that, by saying that, you knew that it was one thief, he didn’t know he was attacking BE, you even knew with how much money would have him felt satisfied and that everything was casual. Sorry if it has been my fault.
Following your “instructions” I will tell you whatever I want. If you say what I say is ridiculous, I’ll say that what you are saying is stupid. And so on. Do you really think this is the best way to behave between two people that are just talking?
I’ve been warned before, but I found it a little bit unfair, because I was called stupid, idiot, ridiculous, troll, etc, so many times that I can’t remember the number, and nobody was warned. When I was warned the only ugly word that I used was s***, just a mistake.
I have to repeat that I’m just talking. I don’t want that to become a fight, but if you want to lead this into a personal confrontation and the mods are satisfied with that, go on, I feel great confronting hostility.
If you can talk to me any way you please, so can I. And don’t ever tell me how I can talk to you.

[Jack Master]

The problem is, your considerations aren't the simplest.

Gallio had a method to his madness if you like, he could explain logically why the world worked x way, or at least measure it to show that it did.

The problem is that you apparently don’t understand anything about what I’m saying. The simplest is NOT ALWAYS the truth. There are other options. I’m only trying to take a look at them. That’s all. I don’t deserve to be attacked for doing so.