FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[JackMaster]

I don't think going off topic is a problem, is people arguing and discussions that aren't going anywhere that get topics locked.

I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with that. There are people that aren’t interested in reasoned arguing and fair discussions that get topics locked. I mean insulting, despising or ridiculing people or their opinions because they don’t like them or they don’t share those opinions. I’m not referring to jokes, but to brutal sarcasm or idiotic mocks that produces a chain reaction and the following explosion that gets the thread locked. Moreover, nothing is going anywhere, not only discussions.

The main problem Jack is that some do not post as an opinion but as fact and last time I checked no member here is a member of an F1 team in any capacity, therein lies the problem .

This isn’t in any case the problem. Facts or opinions are always subjective and can be discussed, openly, freely and in a reasoned way. NEVER attacked with insults, brutal mockery or blatant disrespect.

[Jensonb]

I don't think going off topic is a problem, is people arguing and discussions that aren't going anywhere that get topics locked.

I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with that. There are people that aren’t interested in reasoned arguing and fair discussions that get topics locked. I mean insulting, despising or ridiculing people or their opinions because they don’t like them or they don’t share those opinions. I’m not referring to jokes, but to brutal sarcasm or idiotic mocks that produces a chain reaction and the following explosion that gets the thread locked. Moreover, nothing is going anywhere, not only discussions.

The main problem Jack is that some do not post as an opinion but as fact and last time I checked no member here is a member of an F1 team in any capacity, therein lies the problem .

This isn’t in any case the problem. Facts or opinions are always subjective and can be discussed, openly, freely and in a reasoned way. NEVER attacked with insults, brutal mockery or blatant disrespect.

That runs contrary to the heart of free speech, and is quite frankly an abhorrent assault on freedom of expression. Free speech does not require that all opinions be regarded equally, no matter how much you wish it did. Such an assertion is untenable and, frankly, unsettling.

[FRAFPDD]

I don't think going off topic is a problem, is people arguing and discussions that aren't going anywhere that get topics locked.

I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with that. There are people that aren’t interested in reasoned arguing and fair discussions that get topics locked. I mean insulting, despising or ridiculing people or their opinions because they don’t like them or they don’t share those opinions. I’m not referring to jokes, but to brutal sarcasm or idiotic mocks that produces a chain reaction and the following explosion that gets the thread locked. Moreover, nothing is going anywhere, not only discussions.

The main problem Jack is that some do not post as an opinion but as fact and last time I checked no member here is a member of an F1 team in any capacity, therein lies the problem .

This isn’t in any case the problem. Facts or opinions are always subjective and can be discussed, openly, freely and in
a reasoned way. NEVER attacked with insults, brutal mockery or blatant disrespect.

That runs contrary to the heart of free speech, and is quite frankly an abhorrent assault on freedom of expression. Free speech does not require that all opinions be regarded equally, no matter how much you wish it did. Such an assertion is untenable and, frankly, unsettling.

and that, in turn runs contrary to the rules of the forum, opinions are respected on here,'this forum is no free speech forum, so pipe down and get along with people and if youve got nothing of value to add, which
you never do, thenndont sau anything.

[vaptin]

^ (agree with above, just wanted to break the chain of quotes),

[Jensonb]

I don't think going off topic is a problem, is people arguing and discussions that aren't going anywhere that get topics locked.

I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with that. There are people that aren’t interested in reasoned arguing and fair discussions that get topics locked. I mean insulting, despising or ridiculing people or their opinions because they don’t like them or they don’t share those opinions. I’m not referring to jokes, but to brutal sarcasm or idiotic mocks that produces a chain reaction and the following explosion that gets the thread locked. Moreover, nothing is going anywhere, not only discussions.

The main problem Jack is that some do not post as an opinion but as fact and last time I checked no member here is a member of an F1 team in any capacity, therein lies the problem .

This isn’t in any case the problem. Facts or opinions are always subjective and can be discussed, openly, freely and in
a reasoned way. NEVER attacked with insults, brutal mockery or blatant disrespect.

That runs contrary to the heart of free speech, and is quite frankly an abhorrent assault on freedom of expression. Free speech does not require that all opinions be regarded equally, no matter how much you wish it did. Such an assertion is untenable and, frankly, unsettling.

and that, in turn runs contrary to the rules of the forum, opinions are respected on here,'this forum is no free speech forum, so pipe down and get along with people and if youve got nothing of value to add, which
you never do, thenndont sau anything.

That, is a bunch of horse s**t. You are (Both) guilty of the exact thing you're accusing me of. You have ordained that discussion must take place on your terms, in a manner defined by you, and that all other terms and mannerism are unwanted and out of place. I hate to break it to you, I've been here longer than you, and you are the first people to concoct this fraudulent and cripplingly one-sided idea about how discussion should progress. And what's more, you're attacking a differing opinion without offering a response, in a frequently disrespectful, self-aggrandising way. Which is what you keep saying I'm doing. I'm not, by the way, I just happen to have a personality and I expressed dissension to ideas you two profess in light of that personality. That you took offence is your own problem, and not mine, because as I have frequently pointed out, you are:

A| Taking the internet too seriously
B| Projecting your personal views as if they are fact
C| Presenting an opinion that is almost unique as if it is uniformly held
D| Failing to respond to the substance of anyone's disagreements with you and instead attacking their method or their character, whilst at the same time hypocritically criticising them for being "disrespectful"
E| Assuming, incorrectly, that humour is inherently disrespectful. It is not, it is irreverent, which is something else entirely.
F| Usurping the moral high-ground

And I could go on. That I find your entire argument repellent, insulting and hypocritical would be the main take away from this I guess. But the you don't care, do you? You're just going to come back and smugly work yourselves up as champions of free respectful debate, when it was in fact, in both your cases, not me but you acted with disrespect. If you'll think back you'll note that one of you overreacted to my characteristic irreverence by trumpeting the laughable creed that my dissenting to someone's opinion was hypocritical because other people had not dissented my opinion in radially different circumstances and the other started a dialogue with me because I asked for a simple clarification on just what, exactly, people (not even you specifically) were getting at, a dialogue which started with an assertion of essentially the same thing I was seeking clarification on in a smug, superior tone. You might recall my response was only to insinuate that such a notion was far-fetched.

And yet, we found ourselves in the midst of a childish melodrama in which I was being crucified for attacking people who dared speak their minds.

So, I think I get it now. It's okay for you guys to spout whatever preposterous, libellous crap you want about anybody you want (Be it the apparently hard-working, and generally well-respected Chris Dyer or Michael Schumacher with an admittedly dubious record for fair play, but with something more important to lose than his good name or his job - his role as a legend and more importantly his place as a father) without a shred of credible evidence or even a workable explanation for why these accusations might be true because "reasoned debate is okay" - but it's not okay for anyone with an opinion differing from the one you hold to point out the flaws in your argument. because apparently where you come from "reasoned" doesn't mean "reasoned" it means "toothless and ultimately pointless".

Here's a free tip. Reasoned doesn't mean what you think it means. And it only applies in cases where your opinion forms an assessment of what is a likelihood - ie., where you are trying to figure out the truth. It doesn't really apply in forming out and out opinions, because opinions are subjective and subjectivity tends to fly in the face of reason. Reason means you look at the facts and other information and put together an argument which satisfies them, which can then be challenged by others based on any flaws it has - such as failing to provide a motive. The phrase you appear to be looking for is not "reasoned debate", but rather "free marketplace of ideas".

I have news: Fora, and internet Fora in particular, have never been free marketplaces for ideas. Debate is the antithesis of the free marketplace of ideas.

[vaptin]

It's surprisingly pleasant when posters argue and get worked up about subjects other than Lewis Hamilton.

[FRAFPDD]

i dont care how long youve been here, sucks for you that ive been here less time abd clocked on quicker on how i should act, and them a-d points have nothing to do with me as does
the chris dyer sack /michael achumacher crash conspiracy,
youve got noyhing on me?

i cant believe how some of your views were let by without any crit at all ( jensonnbest driver) and you exploit eceryones reason with such a claim
by going around making sarcy comments on theirs.


oh yeah and as for your " unique opinion presented as uniform" i see jackmaster and vaptin, who i wish not to bring more into this silly excuse of an argument have either directly
disagreed with you (jack) ot indirectly by agreeing with me( vaptin) a little humility earns
major points to me, but you wont even consider your in the wrong, it was only a minor thing i picked up on in the first place buy you blew it up into something it didnt need to be.

ive been corrected a fair few times before aswell and accepted it, so your self righteous moral
high ground thing is tosh, in this case you are in the wrong

[JackMaster]

That runs contrary to the heart of free speech, and is quite frankly an abhorrent assault on freedom of expression. Free speech does not require that all opinions be regarded equally, no matter how much you wish it did. Such an assertion is untenable and, frankly, unsettling.

I’ve said that all opinions should be regarded equally. You can do other way if you want, for example you can regard some opinions with an eye and the rest with the other eye, and you’re perfectly free for doing it. What you or I shouldn’t do is attack, insult or disrespects other people because we have regarded their opinions with the wrong eye. We can perfectly disagree, discuss or just don’t participate but there is no need to offend.

That, is a bunch of horse s**t. You are (Both) guilty of the exact thing you're accusing me of. You have ordained that discussion must take place on your terms, in a manner defined by you, and that all other terms and mannerism are unwanted and out of place. I hate to break it to you, I've been here longer than you, and you are the first people to concoct this fraudulent and cripplingly one-sided idea about how discussion should progress. And what's more, you're attacking a differing opinion without offering a response, in a frequently disrespectful, self-aggrandising way. Which is what you keep saying I'm doing. I'm not, by the way, I just happen to have a personality and I expressed dissension to ideas you two profess in light of that personality. That you took offence is your own problem, and not mine, because as I have frequently pointed out, you are:

A| Taking the internet too seriously
B| Projecting your personal views as if they are fact
C| Presenting an opinion that is almost unique as if it is uniformly held
D| Failing to respond to the substance of anyone's disagreements with you and instead attacking their method or their character, whilst at the same time hypocritically criticising them for being "disrespectful"
E| Assuming, incorrectly, that humour is inherently disrespectful. It is not, it is irreverent, which is something else entirely.
F| Usurping the moral high-ground

And I could go on. That I find your entire argument repellent, insulting and hypocritical would be the main take away from this I guess. But the you don't care, do you? You're just going to come back and smugly work yourselves up as champions of free respectful debate, when it was in fact, in both your cases, not me but you acted with disrespect. If you'll think back you'll note that one of you overreacted to my characteristic irreverence by trumpeting the laughable creed that my dissenting to someone's opinion was hypocritical because other people had not dissented my opinion in radially different circumstances and the other started a dialogue with me because I asked for a simple clarification on just what, exactly, people (not even you specifically) were getting at, a dialogue which started with an assertion of essentially the same thing I was seeking clarification on in a smug, superior tone. You might recall my response was only to insinuate that such a notion was far-fetched.

And yet, we found ourselves in the midst of a childish melodrama in which I was being crucified for attacking people who dared speak their minds.

So, I think I get it now. It's okay for you guys to spout whatever preposterous, libellous crap you want about anybody you want (Be it the apparently hard-working, and generally well-respected Chris Dyer or Michael Schumacher with an admittedly dubious record for fair play, but with something more important to lose than his good name or his job - his role as a legend and more importantly his place as a father) without a shred of credible evidence or even a workable explanation for why these accusations might be true because "reasoned debate is okay" - but it's not okay for anyone with an opinion differing from the one you hold to point out the flaws in your argument. because apparently where you come from "reasoned" doesn't mean "reasoned" it means "toothless and ultimately pointless".

Here's a free tip. Reasoned doesn't mean what you think it means. And it only applies in cases where your opinion forms an assessment of what is a likelihood - ie., where you are trying to figure out the truth. It doesn't really apply in forming out and out opinions, because opinions are subjective and subjectivity tends to fly in the face of reason. Reason means you look at the facts and other information and put together an argument which satisfies them, which can then be challenged by others based on any flaws it has - such as failing to provide a motive. The phrase you appear to be looking for is not "reasoned debate", but rather "free marketplace of ideas".

I have news: Fora, and internet Fora in particular, have never been free marketplaces for ideas. Debate is the antithesis of the free marketplace of ideas.

I wasn’t talking about you, but I absolutely agree with what FRAFPDD have said. Nonetheless, I don’t like discussions about the umpalumpa of the angels I prefer to talk about things more related to life or more simple if you prefer. I don't know who is Fora but I imagine I disagree with them. Could I?

[Jensonb]

i dont care how long youve been here, sucks for you that ive been here less time abd clocked on quicker on how i should act, and them a-d points have nothing to do with me as does
the chris dyer sack /michael achumacher crash conspiracy,
youve got noyhing on me?

i cant believe how some of your views were let by without any crit at all ( jensonnbest driver) and you exploit eceryones reason with such a claim
by going around making sarcy comments on theirs.


oh yeah and as for your " unique opinion presented as uniform" i see jackmaster and vaptin, who i wish not to bring more into this silly excuse of an argument have either directly
disagreed with you (jack) ot indirectly by agreeing with me( vaptin) a little humility earns
major points to me, but you wont even consider your in the wrong, it was only a minor thing i picked up on in the first place buy you blew it up into something it didnt need to be.

ive been corrected a fair few times before aswell and accepted it, so your self righteous moral
high ground thing is tosh, in this case you are in the wrong

You're either a liar or offensively ignorant. In neither case did I criticise anyone, my Posts were about the ides presented themselves, entirely isolated from who had said them. In both cases it was not me but the other party (once you, once him) who turned the discussion personal, threw out respect and brought the vitriol. You attempted to crucify me for daring to respond with derision to someone else's secondhand claim, and he attacked me for pointing out that simply saying what he said was possible wasn't a good enough reason for stating it as a fact.

Neither one of you has ever addressed either my actual point, or the fact that it was you, and not I, who turned things personal. I didn't blow anything out of proportion. You did. The complaint you had was ludicrous - amounting to an attack on my very nature and a baseless criticism of what I guess one might call my ability to engage in fair play. You have some apparent insane idea that flippancy and irreverence on the internet is some kind of unheard of personal slight, some bizarre belief that just because you don't argue with me, I'm not allowed to argue with...Not even you! With someone else, in a totally different context no less! It's amazing to me that you so fundamentally fail to see the dichotomy between the two things you compared in that instance.

@JackMaster: Fora is the plural of Forum.

[What's Burning?]

Take this discussion private, this is not a suggestion. It's been a productive thread, don't derail it.

[JackMaster]

To Jensonb:
Here are some of your remarks:
“Stop taking internet so seriously”: Why? I’m not talking about Internet, I’m talking through Internet. What should be evaluated is what I’m saying not the means that I employ to do it. It’s like if I write something in a notebook and you say to me: Don’t take so seriously the notebook. Without even consider what I’ve written in it.
“That is a bunch of horse s**t”: No need to comment.
“You are (Both) guilty of the exact thing you’re accusing me of”: I wasn’t talking to you or about you. I was talking to texasmr2 and the different way in which we believe that a fair debate should progress. FRAFPPD and I are two different people, sometimes we agree and others disagree. We had some little problems a time ago but we settled them and now even disagreeing we try to respect each other. Moreover, he’s a Lewis fan and I support Alonso and that don’t suppose any additional problem. (for the moment)
“You have ordained that discussion must take place in your terms”: I had only said that we have to respect others opinion, even disagreeing, there is no need to offend or personally attack others. Because those other could retaliate in the same terms and thinks could become unpleasant for everybody at the Forum. Apart from that I said that anyone could say his opinion freely and openly.
“I just happen to have a personality”: I guess like everybody else.
“You are projecting your personal views as if they are facts”: What do you want us to do, saying IMHO at every moment? People distinguish perfectly between facts and opinions as I guess you do. This sort of discussion comes from texasmr2 and I feel it like a small professional distortion from his part. This is a Forum, not a Court of Justice. (Saying that I don’t try to offend texasmr2, if I’m doing it I apologize)
“Presenting an opinion that is almost unique as if it is uniformly held”: I believe that what was uniformly held was the contrary at what I was saying and many times without any explanation, just insults and disrespect. I have given so many reasons and explanations about this question that you can never accuse me of not doing it.
“Failing to respond to the substance of anyone’s disagreements with you”: I responded once and again, I gave and unbelievable amount of explanations, despite that I didn’t find much substance in their points. I find much more mocking and insults.
“Assuming incorrectly that humor is inherently disrespectful”: I can perfectly distinguish between humor and disrespect and I guess that you too. Calling people a paranoid, insane, an idiot, posting pics ridiculing them….. can be humor for those who make it all together like at a lynching, but I would like to see you in the other side of the wall, alone and under such heavy fire of crap.
“That I find your entire argument repellent, insulting and hypocritical”: Next time I will ask you your opinion about what I think before posting it. It will be better that I don’t say to you my opinion about you and your arguments. There’s no need to offend.
“Fora have never been free marketplace of ideas”: I believe it’s time for it to be free, and a marketplace is where people are selling something and I’m not selling anything.
I believe we have very different ideas about life, freedom and many other things. That’s OK for me. I’m not going to insult you for that. I’m gonna respect what you say even fully disagreeing. I only hope to have the same treatment from you. If I don’t I will respond to you in the same terms that you are used to use. Maybe this way you learn to distinguish between humor and brutal mocking.

[scotty]

This thread is being temporarily locked.

[scotty]

Unlocked. Please, can we not have this thread go off the rails again.

The new Ferrari is unveiled on the 28th Jan so we'll see if these changes predicted by Marca come true or not!

[spankyham]

As Scotty has already mentioned...

Ferrari announces the launch of their new car.

The new F1 car

Madonna di Campiglio, 12 January – The car which Ferrari will race in this year’s Formula 1 World Championship will be officially unveiled in Maranello on Friday 28 January. This news was announced by Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro team principal, Stefano Domenicali at a press meeting held today at the Italian ski resort, which is hosting Wrooom 2011, the event organised by Philip Morris International, to kick off the Formula 1 and Moto GP seasons.

[spankyham]

Good read, I think Stefano raises a very good question "will this system make the duels more spectacular or too predictable?"

Domenicali unsure about rear wing rules

By Michele Lostia and Pablo Elizalde Wednesday, January 12th 2011, 10:29 GMT

Ferrari boss Stefano Domenicali says he is unsure the moveable rear wing rules will be able to boost overtaking in 2011.

As from this season, drivers will be to adjust their car's rear wing from the cockpit in order to have more top speed and improve the chances of overtaking.

The system will only be available to the driver when he is is less than one second behind a rival at pre-determined areas of the circuit.

Domenicali admitted he is sceptical about it.

"It's an unknown field: it has been fairly well defined with clarifications on the technical regulations, but like every new thing we need to be cautious," Domenicali told Autosprint magazine in an interview.

"The driver running behind another one will be able to activate it to get in the slipstream only in determined points of the track, and only if the gap between himself and his rival is very tight. It will be up to race direction so signal the possibility with a light on the cockpit.

"However, I wonder: besides helping overtaking, will this system make the duels more spectacular or too predictable? At the moment I'm a bit sceptical, but I hope to be wrong. I also hope that the TVs find a way to make people understand on screen who has activated the mechanism and who hasn't, otherwise you won't understand a thing anymore."

The Ferrari boss also insisted that his team is still against the rules introduced to restrict testing during the season, but claimed the Maranello squad is not the biggest spender in F1.

"Our president has often expressed criticism against that rule, by saying that it's like prohibiting a football team to train between games," he said.

"I want to remind people that Ferrari, by accepting this rule that cuts testing, is that team that has renounced the most to its investments, because in the past we had aimed more at real testing than the simulator, differently from others. Let's not forget we had two test tracks that are now unused.

"And then, it's time to quit with this story that Ferrari is the team that spends more than everyone else in F1. That's not true anymore."

He added: "For sure Red Bull and McLaren spend more than we do to build their chassis. Then there is the engine, which represents an important cost for us because we have to build it. For them it's simply an invoice to pay because they buy it nice and ready."