As you have seen some of my comments have been highly Wummish and unacceptable on a good forum like this. I have to make an apology as I do not want to be classed as a wum. So sorry if I swore or offended you or just pissed you off. But while I am at it, why did Lewis get a penalty and not Kobi???? (Oh yesssss I got Kobi in the sweepstakes didnt I??? So that means I win the battle of tier 2!!!) But please why would JL/FF and Fred always bash Lewis and noone takes notice of it or removes posts. Sorry and I hope you accept my apology and I promise to cool down a bit and take a more think before you speak approach. Best Regards Carno/PMC.
Look - you don't need to apologise, you just need to stop posting **** about racism, being unrealistic, and defending Hamilton with 100% aggression. All you're achieving by doing that is to align yourself with psychiatric patients like De Vries. Everybody here knows what a great, exciting, wanted driver Hamilton is. He massively cocked up this week. Suck it up and move on.
Why apologise for posting your views on a public forum mate? There is no coincidence that certain posters created over 100 ids just to bash lewis on 606, certain posters linked to Hamilton race hate sites Those posters are still been particularly selectively hard on him? And you suspect prejudice? Don't let anyone rubbish your perfectly valid observations Everyone knows the truth about certain posters and have chosen to forgive and forget, fine but doesn't mean they should rubbish your views And the same ones who are quick to say 'what happens on other forums stays there' are the same ones spending lots of time bitching about imagined slights against them on other sites by the site owner Hypocrites abound
I accept your apology and while i was part of some of the "lewis bashing" some posters had gone over the top in criticising what was a very poor race and reaction by lewis , i agree that calls for him to be banned were silly.
True But we did say 16-4 , so let the fun and games continue I was a bit disappointed with Jense today, he should have pressured the two ahead on older tyres. He should have won that race, but was waiting and being cautious as always If he had won with seb second there might be some hope yet for Macca this season
Haha - I'd forgotten about that stupid hypothesis. So what is it now? 13-7? 14-6? The ratio continues to shrink.
Glad you apologised. Hopefully we can move on and look forward to the next race. I understand it was a hard race to swallow for Hamilton fans today just as it was for Alonso fans last week. Maybe next week it will be the Vettel fans that get the stick I joke.. I joke =)
Do you know what a ratio or hypothesis are? Why use big words when you don't have a clue to their meaning? A final ratio of 4-1 at the end of a 20 race season (the hypothesis) is 16-4 Races happen one by one with discrete outcomes, therefore results will either move from 4-1 to 4-2 or to 5-1, if the former then the current ratio has just changed in favour of Button, if the latter then the current ratio would have changed in favour of lewis To say the ratio continues to shrink is ignorance bordering on stupidity. To continue implies progression along a linear path, if the 2 previous current ratios were 3-1 then 4-1, then the shrinkage to 4-2 is a non progressive occurrence, so it cannot have continued Try think before you get all pedantic
At the risk of sounding pedantic... Technically the syntax in Genji's post can be interpreted in 2 ways, so you cannot make those comments without understanding the alternatives. Firstly, "So what is it now? 13-7? 14-6?" could be taken to refer to what the hypothesis has now become, in the light of the new data resulting from the Monaco Grand Prix. It is a speculatory comment, wondering what the hypothesis must now be. By giving 2 options, Genji is clearly aware that races are a discrete quantity, therefore the current ratio of 4-2 cannot be expected to cover the season exactly, as there are 19 (or 20) races on the calendar, neither of which are a multiple of 6, therefore he offers alternatives which are an approximation using discrete values. The comments, "The ratio continues to shrink" then may be referring to what has happened recently. If you consider the change recently, then you can indeed see a change. Prior to China, Hamilton had out-qualified Button in 100% of the races this season, but considering the last 4 races, they are equal. This is a substantial change, which may be what Genji is alluding to, an astute statement about the changing nature of the Mclaren duo's qualifying performance. Therefore, you have insufficient evidence to abuse Genji's vocabulary, making your outburst rather unnecessary. And to be really pedantic, in your last post DeVries, you finish with "Try think before you get all pedantic". Whilst I readily accept my knowledge of the English language is far from perfect, I believe the verb "to think" cannot be used in the "bare infinitive" form in this context, especially when combined with the past tense. The correct form would be to utilise the "to-infinitive form", giving "Try to think before you get all pedantic", or alternatively to use the verb in the correct tense, for example, "Try thinking before you get all pedantic". This stops the mismatch in your post, and allows for other users to better understand your comments.
To avoid sounding pedantic, one should make sure they are clear and concise about the objection they are raising The fact that you have had to offer possible alternatives to the objections mentioned could be taken as evidence of the pedantic nature of the original objection as opposed to your interjection which is concise and therefore pertinent
...or you failed to comprehend the inherent irony in the comment. I was fully aware the proceeding comment was pedantic, so prefaced it as such in order to make use of ironic juxtaposition. I believe my comments beyond this were as clear and concise as was possible, whilst retaining the essential messages I aimed to convey. I apologise if my comment was not received in the manner I had intended. However I do feel that, in the light of the new interpretation I have made of Genji's comments, and in the absence of clarification from Genji himself, you should retract your insulting post. If this were a judicial case, and new evidence came to light that suggested the party in question was innocent, then you would expect the case to be reviewed, and if found innocent in the light of the evidence, the defendant would be absolved of all guilt. In line with this, I would like you to retract your statement.
Firstly, "So what is it now? 13-7? 14-6?" could be taken to refer to what the hypothesis has now become, in the light of the new data resulting from the Monaco Grand Prix. ------------------------------ Not being the author of the hypothesis it is not his place to assume or suggest a change from 4-1 -------------------------- By giving 2 options, Genji is clearly aware that races are a discrete quantity, therefore the current ratio of 4-2 cannot be expected to cover the season exactly, as there are 19 (or 20) races on the calendar, neither of which are a multiple of 6, therefore he offers alternatives which are an approximation using discrete values. ------------------------------- "So what is it now? 13-7? 14-6?" ---------------------------- Both options are based on 20 races and not applicable to 19 --------------------------- Overall I am not convinced that the original objection has any validity beyond flippancy
I would argue that the hypothesis is based upon a ratio derived from real-world data. With the increased data resulting from the Monaco Grand Prix, the ratio can be updated by anyone in possession of all of the facts, not solely by the author of the original ratio. It could be argued that the ratio exists independent of observation, and in any case, I would imagine that people inside the Mclaren F1 team had kept track of this ratio as the season progressed. As with any scientific model, the hypothesis is altered when new data is included, and Genji has used the most recent data to refine the hypothesis, as can anyone. Technically, the 2011 season still consists of 20 races, as the Bahrain Grand Prix has not officially been cancelled yet, and so is technically still on the calendar. My previous mention of 19 races merely alluded to the uncertainty over the race in question, but also aimed to show that even formulating a hypothesis based on a 19 race season, the current ratio does not provide a discrete hypothesis for the situation at the end of the season. And yes, whilst my initial objection could be considered flippant, it still raises a valid point, which I believe you must consider, and therefore, as any logical person would do, retract your insult.
