 | |
Re: Now this is just getting silly...
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#41
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Now this is just getting silly... -
05-09-2007
, 04:40 AM
|
Phil Newnham wrote: Bigbird wrote: Phil Newnham wrote: Bigbird wrote: Hold on you are getting ahead of yourself. Do less or no "twiddly bits" equate to no aero grip? Do the wings produce (and other bodywork) produce any aero grip? Are the wings part of the main bodywork? Are you putting your own spin on someone elses' preference? WTF are you on about? No, don't answer that just try to stick with the original tack. I.e. how do you get from "It's time they banned any twiddly bits that are proud of the main bodywork altogether" to "Why not just mandate that one company makes all the cars" and "Why must the only alternatives be loads of aero grip or no aero grip?" It's called hyperbole to make a point. I'd have thought that you'd be familiar with the concept, this being rasf1 and you being a reader and a poster. If you insist on taking everything absolutely literally then you'll end up being confused all the time. Stop trying to pin me into a corner, it's boring and it adds nothing to the discussion. On the contrary it is your choice not to clarify your intention but rather to go into long winded diversions that is utterly tedious. So you were talking bollocks in order to attempt to make a point. |
a waste of time. Why did you bother to get involved anyway?
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
#42
| |||
| |||
|
|
Perhaps because you were talking bollocks or perhaps because I had something pertinent to say. It is usually one or the other. Probably the former in this case. Oh no, I just checked back. I asked you a simple question in order to clarify your point of view... *then* you just started talking bollocks and wasting our time. |
have "cars are so dependent on aerodynamic grip that they cannot
follow another through a fast corner?". Which is just as much hyperbole
and bollocks and that's why you didn't get a straight answer.
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
#43
| |||
| |||
|
|
Phil Newnham wrote: Bigbird wrote: Perhaps because you were talking bollocks or perhaps because I had something pertinent to say. It is usually one or the other. Probably the former in this case. Oh no, I just checked back. I asked you a simple question in order to clarify your point of view... then you just started talking bollocks and wasting our time. You asked me to choose whether I wanted to ban all twiddly aero bits, or have "cars are so dependent on aerodynamic grip that they cannot follow another through a fast corner?". Which is just as much hyperbole and bollocks and that's why you didn't get a straight answer. Don't be fucking stupid. Not only is the first part not entirely accurate there is nothing extreme in either the current situation nor the idea of removing several of the aero devices as suggested by DC. |
big issues, you didn't read or understand what he wrote in the first place.
Quote:
|
You failed to make any point, I guess because you don't have one, so you can fuck off now. |
hyperbole. If you want to continue to grab the wrong end of the stick
despite being told so several times there's precious little I can do
about it.
Quote:
|
My only mistake was in thinking you might be someone capable of explaining their comments in an intelligent manner. |
whatsoever and made a laboured effort to prove me "wrong". And now
you're getting all upset about it.
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.