Forum Replies Created
20th July 2011, 21:58 at 9:58 pm #173575
BasCB, I’m not sure about impoliteness on reading comments that are posted publicly. And I didn’t look for them. Followed a link posted on the forum, then another and stumbled upon it. What I know for sure is that I don’t feel an heavy conscience for that.
I dont know if this is about my supposedly defensiveness or aggressiveness. My posting style has been the same since the beginning, so I suspect I only lost the “seal of approval” from the “community” when I decided to defend Ferrari. Better, maybe it’s really about the posting style: I usually say what I think (what I really think) and don’t worry about being liked or not. Inevitably that leads to a part of the posters/readers (maybe a majority) not liking me. But like I said, that’s not important for me, I didn’t came here to be liked or to make friends, I was only hoping to participate in discussions about F1 using just reason and rhetorics, leaving aside feelings of likability towards other posters. It wasn’t possible, it seems.
So, I’ll be fine, sincerelly wish all the best to the F1Fanatic community, and maybe, if I can’t manage to tame the willingness of debating, I’ll return one day.20th July 2011, 19:14 at 7:14 pm #173572
Well, I could show you half a dozen comments from the litle twitter community some of the posters here share that would directly contradict that, Damon. From you, from the Wise, from The Simpson and a few others. I won’t do that, though.
With intelectual disohnesty, I can handle very well, I just stop answering.
With hypocrasy and a group of users conspiring on a different community over what to do on this community, I’m sorry, that just doesn’t seem fair. It’s not for me. I’ll just walk away and You can keep the forum and the site to yourselves.
Good luck to all.20th July 2011, 12:24 at 12:24 pm #173563
So, I’ve been asking the nicest possible way to some people to don’t interact with me (I have my reasons) and I’m an idiot troll?
ok…, so, good luck to you all, it was a pleasure while it lasted.20th July 2011, 11:32 at 11:32 am #173556
yeah, me too, you should see the twitter community these bunch have. If what’s been self-censored is what I think it is, then to see such a community of virtual friends, only makes me think in self-irony.20th July 2011, 11:14 at 11:14 am #173554
aj_not_okay, none of your business, right?
Greg Flanders, you’ve showed despicable qualities. Please don’t address me too20th July 2011, 4:49 at 4:49 am #174800
I don’t think this is something new, I’ve heard about this before.
Of course, he’s been “formally accused”, this must be around for quite some time. Well, corruption is all around us; it’s just a question of the justice catches them. Let’s hope they do.20th July 2011, 4:45 at 4:45 am #173547
to prevent having to reply to you, I give you the same speech as the previous one:
Please, don’t address me again; I won’t address you too.20th July 2011, 4:42 at 4:42 am #173546
So, I’m going to reply to this in the politest possible way
@LL Jehto – Stop taking everything so personally and then getting angry when people
I don’t know you, and you don’t know me, and I’m not interested in knowing you; so, please, don’t address me trying to tell me what to do. Better, don’t address me again; I won’t address you too.20th July 2011, 4:33 at 4:33 am #174826
apparently james allen also thinks this is an issue:
«New BBC Trust chairman Chris Patten was asked recently on a BBC TV show whether F1 was in line to be dropped and he replied in general terms about things that the corporation “would like to do but can no longer afford to.”»
According to James Allen sources,
Some departments on BBC could suffer up to 10% in lay offs
F1 costs 45 million (rights) + 10M in costs
Some speculate that BBC could cut the deal in the end of this season, but more likely to be in 2012
He talks in channel 5 or channel 4, but more likely to be 419th July 2011, 15:11 at 3:11 pm #173540
I’m getting more and more confused…19th July 2011, 14:29 at 2:29 pm #174119
you can call me whatever you like, BasCB, but if denialism “describes the position of those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly” then I’m not one for sure. Even if denialist means to you “One who denies an assertion in a controversial political debate.”, I rather view myself as a skeptical, one who refuses to believe without prove.
You’re here telling how you feel about this team and trying to give reasons for the feelings/emotions. That’s perfectly fine.
And I made a critic to some assumptions and insinuations about that team on those reasons, and since then I’ve been defending that position. Since it’s a debate forum, I believe it’s perfectly fine too, right?19th July 2011, 14:12 at 2:12 pm #173538
LL, if you don’t like using the articles, tough. They are the bread and butter of this website and there are plenty of other forums out there. It’s his financial loss if you leave. As Keith has already said, there’s no real difference between commenting on an article to commenting on a forum. In fact, I prefer the articles because you can reply directly instead of all this @PersonTwoPagesBeforeMe stuff
Again, if you don’t mind commenting in the blog, why do you care about us, FOCA members? We don’t want anyone to change what they like to do, why do You have to keep trying to convince us of your personal tastes, to do like you? (please don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not trying to offend you)
To you there’s no problem, because you like the system, you can comment there. We can’t comment here. It’s easy to understand and it’s not just me or Asanator, there’s quite a few others. But I don’t mind keep asking, maybe one day the management changes its mind. Meanwhile, we are forced to comment where we cleary are not confortable if we really want to (I’ve left 5 or 6 comments in two months, 2 different articles)
and there are plenty of other forums out there. It’s his financial loss if you leave.
Thanks, Itchyes.19th July 2011, 12:06 at 12:06 pm #174117
About conspiracy theories. Let’s examine this excerpt from a poster in this thread (hope that Hairs doesn’t mind :) ):
1) You claim not to have heard anything about widely-voiced suspicions around F1 that the FIA gave preferential treatment to one particular team, and demanded some sort of source other than my own 25+years of watching and listening to F1, along with anecdotal evidence of every other F1 fan I’ve ever met.
2) I find it hard to believe that any F1 fan hasn’t heard this phrase, but there you go
To the writer of the excerpt, let’s call him a “believer”, is enough for one thing to be “widely-voiced”, or even hear about it to be considered true. «We, believers, don’t need proof or anything similar. Just that people talk about it. It must be truth!» (Sometimes are added some facts to give credibility. Obviously are just facts of the type “Ferrari is Red!” or “Ferrari won!” that don’t prove anything).
To a person like me, let’s call it a “skeptical”, that’s not enough. Martin Brundle saying
“In the good ol’ days a lot of people would have said, ‘Yeah, FIA – Ferrari International Assistance,’ but that doesn’t seem to be the case in recent months, does it?!””
also isn’t enough. «We, scepticals, need proof that something is truth (for instance, a clear relation between cause and effect) so we can say it is truth.»
It’s what’s called a “conspiracy theory”, a “a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end.”
There’s many more examples, for every taste. Examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGW4nXE9LrE (The ILLUMINATI)
and this is my favorite one: The Reptilian People
End of Lesson19th July 2011, 11:18 at 11:18 am #173535
that second thread would be closed, Damon. That’s how the foruns usually do: close duplicate (or similar) threads. Here we’re not being allowed, as Asanator explained, to a single thread. They already have more troubles now by closing all the threads that discuss similar themes present on the blog.
And apparently we started having censorship on the Forum too, not closed threads, but deleted ones.
I really would like to know from the Boss or the responsible what happened. Can’t handle a bit of satire? That was not my first impression.19th July 2011, 10:15 at 10:15 am #174820
I thought too that it would go until the end of 2013. The issue may arise then, though. UK has a lot of luck for having the public service television that has, but the worldwide trend is for that to end. It will be the market that will make the choices, which is the same as saying: whoever is able to pay more will get the gig, or whoever is able to profitize more the product will get it (because will be able to pay more). And publicity only, can’t keep up with Costumer Paying (+publicity sometimes).
A solution is to continue with what you have now, which I imagine is to not profitizing at all the product (F1), at least directly, and support the loss just for the bragging rights and the prestige of broadcasting F1 for UK. And some consumer-loyalty that is bond to it (consumers that watch F1 also watch other stuff on the channel that broadcasts it, in this case BBC) But how long can they keep doing it?
One problem that will arise when you finally go to pay TV is this: at that moment, only the fanactic, the addicted F1 consumer will go and subscribe to the pay TV channel. The ocasional user won’t do it, because that’s the kind of consumer that watches if it’s on, but doesn’t care very much to watch it if not, at least not to the point to subscribe a monthly paid channel. And usually there’s more consumers of this ocasional type than the “fanatic” one. The result will be that F1 won’t generate new fans, at least not massively as it does now, because all fanatics were once (at least one time) ocasionals.
Speaking by experience.
That said, maybe ultimately the F1 itself doesn’t want that, won’t allow that to happen, at least not in the huge markets like UK or at least not for big consecutive periods of time.