On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> assuming both teams get the new rules right.
>>>>>
>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them
>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is in
>>>> fact what he did.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>
>>>
>> Really?
>>
>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
>>
>> How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people who
>> pay his wages?
>
> How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I kept
> telling him it was wrong)!
>
> another of your classic logical fallacy arguments

No, actually.

I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly
have enough information to know.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> assuming both teams get the new rules right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them
>>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is
>>>>> in fact what he did.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
>>>
>>> How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people
>>> who pay his wages?
>>
>> How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I kept
>> telling him it was wrong)!
>>
>> another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
>
> No, actually.
>
> I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly
> have enough information to know.

Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication & asking for
proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.

That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12 was not
followed (which you have even acknowledged & is no-doubt why you have now
changed tack) & it was the RD that made that call.

when even Texasgate makes more coherent statements than you it is time to
acknowledge that you have completely lost the plot.

--
Your compliance with all terms and conditions, expressed and implied, is
automatic upon viewing.

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > XYXPDQ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > assuming both teams get
> > > > > the new rules right.
> > > >
> > > > The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement
> > > > them accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that
> > > is in fact what he did.
> >
> > Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
> >
>
> Really?
>
> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?

I didn't write "[went] rogue" so why would you put that in quotes?

>
> How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people
> who pay his wages?

I am not a paranoid schizophrenic and have no reason consider such an
unlikely scenario.

If you only dealt in absolute certainties you would just STFU because
so little of what you say has even the slightest degree of certainty.

Your word of the week is making you look a fool every time you use it.
Perhaps skip a head a day a try next weeks word. I have my fingers
crossed for "cogitation".

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > XYXPDQ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > assuming both teams get the new rules right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
> > > > > > implement them accordingly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
> > > > > that is in fact what he did.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Really?
> > >
> > > And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
> > >
> > > How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the
> > > people who pay his wages?
> >
> > How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I
> > kept telling him it was wrong)!
> >
> > another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
>
> No, actually.
>
> I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
> possibly have enough information to know.

Yes, you are.

"But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is in
fact what he did."

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2021-12-19 3:34 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> assuming both teams get
>>>>>> the new rules right.
>>>>>
>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement
>>>>> them accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that
>>>> is in fact what he did.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
>
> I didn't write "[went] rogue" so why would you put that in quotes?

No. You wrote:

'No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.'

The convention is that when one is quoting someone, but one wants to—for
instance—change the tense, you place the word you've changed inside
square brackets to indicate that the quote is not literal for that word;
that the word is coming from the writer.

On 2021-12-19 3:22 p.m., alister wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> assuming both teams get the new rules right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement them
>>>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is
>>>>>> in fact what he did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
>>>>
>>>> How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people
>>>> who pay his wages?
>>>
>>> How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I kept
>>> telling him it was wrong)!
>>>
>>> another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
>>
>> No, actually.
>>
>> I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly
>> have enough information to know.
>
> Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication & asking for
> proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.

No. I am explicitly NOT claiming that.

>
> That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12 was not
> followed (which you have even acknowledged & is no-doubt why you have now
> changed tack) & it was the RD that made that call.

"went rogue" means more than simply the rulebook.

If he had his marching orders given to him, then he wasn't really going
rogue, was he?

But the thing is:

None of us know what instructions Masi received from his bosses and when
he received them.

Get it:

Those who are claiming he "went rogue" are implicitly claiming that they
DO know what happened.

Happy to help you understand this.

On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> assuming both teams get the new rules right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
>>>>>>> implement them accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
>>>>>> that is in fact what he did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
>>>>
>>>> How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the
>>>> people who pay his wages?
>>>
>>> How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I
>>> kept telling him it was wrong)!
>>>
>>> another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
>>
>> No, actually.
>>
>> I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
>> possibly have enough information to know.
>
> Yes, you are.

No. I'm not.

You are the one who states with certainty that he "[went] rogue]".

I'm just pointing out that you don't have all the information to make
that determination.

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-19 3:34 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > XYXPDQ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > assuming both teams get
> > > > > > > the new rules right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
> > > > > > implement them accordingly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
> > > > > that is in fact what he did.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Really?
> > >
> > > And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
> >
> > I didn't write "[went] rogue" so why would you put that in quotes?
>
> No. You wrote:
>
> 'No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.'
>
> The convention is that when one is quoting someone, but one wants
> to—for instance—change the tense, you place the word you've changed
> inside square brackets to indicate that the quote is not literal for
> that word; that the word is coming from the writer.

It is not the convention when you change the first word mainly because
it is completely unnecessary.

i.e ...went "rogue". Do you see?

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > XYXPDQ wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > assuming both teams get the new rules right.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
> > > > > > > > implement them accordingly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
> > > > > > > that is in fact what he did.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Really?
> > > > >
> > > > > And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the
> > > > > people who pay his wages?
> > > >
> > > > How do you know he was not in constant communication with me?
> > > > (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
> > > >
> > > > another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
> > >
> > > No, actually.
> > >
> > > I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
> > > possibly have enough information to know.
> >
> > Yes, you are.
>
> No. I'm not.
>

Yes, you are.

"But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is in
fact what he did."

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 1:43:34 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> The convention is that when one is quoting someone, but one wants to—for
> instance—change the tense, you place the word you've changed inside
> square brackets to indicate that the quote is not literal for that word;
> that the word is coming from the writer.

lol

On 2021-12-19 3:51 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> assuming both teams get the new rules right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
>>>>>>>>> implement them accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
>>>>>>>> that is in fact what he did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the
>>>>>> people who pay his wages?
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know he was not in constant communication with me?
>>>>> (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
>>>>>
>>>>> another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
>>>>
>>>> No, actually.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
>>>> possibly have enough information to know.
>>>
>>> Yes, you are.
>>
>> No. I'm not.
>>
>
> Yes, you are.
>
> "But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is in
> fact what he did."

But I'm not the one claiming he "went rogue"... ("that that is in fact
what he did").

I'm just claiming that you lack all the information to make the claim in
the first place.

Happy to help you understand this very basic stuff.

:-)

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 1:46:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:

> > Yes, you are.

> No. I'm not.

lol

On 2021-12-19 3:49 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-19 3:34 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> assuming both teams get
>>>>>>>> the new rules right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
>>>>>>> implement them accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
>>>>>> that is in fact what he did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
>>>
>>> I didn't write "[went] rogue" so why would you put that in quotes?
>>
>> No. You wrote:
>>
>> 'No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.'
>>
>> The convention is that when one is quoting someone, but one wants
>> to—for instance—change the tense, you place the word you've changed
>> inside square brackets to indicate that the quote is not literal for
>> that word; that the word is coming from the writer.
>
> It is not the convention when you change the first word mainly because
> it is completely unnecessary.
>
> i.e ...went "rogue". Do you see?
>

I see you can do it that way...

....but you are hardly required to.

The meaning was still completely clear.

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:

> Alan wrote:
>
> > On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:

> > > Yes, you are.
> >
> > No. I'm not.
> >
> Yes, you are.

lol

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-19 3:51 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > XYXPDQ wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > assuming both teams get the new rules right.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
> > > > > > > > > > implement them accordingly.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty
> > > > > > > > > that that is in fact what he did.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with
> > > > > > > the people who pay his wages?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you know he was not in constant communication with
> > > > > > me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
> > > > >
> > > > > No, actually.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
> > > > > possibly have enough information to know.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you are.
> > >
> > > No. I'm not.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, you are.
> >
> > "But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that
> > is in fact what he did."
>
> But I'm not the one claiming he "went rogue"... ("that that is in
> fact what he did").
>
> I'm just claiming that you lack all the information to make the claim
> in the first place.
>

No, you said "I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could
not
possibly have enough information to know." yet you are.

Do you get it yet? Hoist by your own petard.

Say if you need more help.

> Happy to help you understand this very basic stuff.
>

Deal with the beam in your own eye.

This is what happens when you make irrational nonsensical statements
your MO.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2021-12-19 4:11 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-19 3:51 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming both teams get the new rules right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and
>>>>>>>>>>> implement them accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty
>>>>>>>>>> that that is in fact what he did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with
>>>>>>>> the people who pay his wages?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you know he was not in constant communication with
>>>>>>> me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, actually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not
>>>>>> possibly have enough information to know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you are.
>>>>
>>>> No. I'm not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you are.
>>>
>>> "But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that
>>> is in fact what he did."
>>
>> But I'm not the one claiming he "went rogue"... ("that that is in
>> fact what he did").
>>
>> I'm just claiming that you lack all the information to make the claim
>> in the first place.
>>
>
> No, you said "I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could
> not
> possibly have enough information to know." yet you are.

What am I stating as a certainty: that you couldn't possibly have enough
information to know?

Weak sauce.

You know you don't. I know you don't.

If you had the goods, you'd have been crowing it.

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-19 4:11 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-19 3:51 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > XYXPDQ wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > assuming both teams get the new rules right.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right"
> > > > > > > > > > > > and implement them accordingly.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But only an omniscient can speak with utter
> > > > > > > > > > > certainty that that is in fact what he did.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Really?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And how can you know for certain that he "[went]
> > > > > > > > > rogue"?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
> > > > > > > > > with the people who pay his wages?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How do you know he was not in constant communication
> > > > > > > > with me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, actually.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could
> > > > > > > not possibly have enough information to know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, you are.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. I'm not.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you are.
> > > >
> >>> "But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that
> > > > is in fact what he did."
> > >
> > > But I'm not the one claiming he "went rogue"... ("that that is in
> > > fact what he did").
> > >
> > > I'm just claiming that you lack all the information to make the
> > > claim in the first place.
> > >
> >
> > No, you said "I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I
> > could not
> > possibly have enough information to know." yet you are.
>
> What am I stating as a certainty: that you couldn't possibly have
> enough information to know?
>
> Weak sauce.
>
> You know you don't. I know you don't.
>
> If you had the goods, you'd have been crowing it.

Now that is weak sauce. What in your inane convoluted nonsense are "the
goods"

Rather, you, I and anyone who gives a damn know you have absolutely no
reason or rationale to suggest the RD was being directly influenced by
"his bosses" in the FIA. You have no reason or evidence that anyone up
the command chain within the FIA was in communication with him during
that process. If you had you would be crowing about it.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2021-12-19 4:30 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-19 4:11 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-19 3:51 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming both teams get the new rules right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and implement them accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter
>>>>>>>>>>>> certainty that that is in fact what he did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went]
>>>>>>>>>> rogue"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
>>>>>>>>>> with the people who pay his wages?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you know he was not in constant communication
>>>>>>>>> with me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, actually.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could
>>>>>>>> not possibly have enough information to know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. I'm not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> "But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that
>>>>> is in fact what he did."
>>>>
>>>> But I'm not the one claiming he "went rogue"... ("that that is in
>>>> fact what he did").
>>>>
>>>> I'm just claiming that you lack all the information to make the
>>>> claim in the first place.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you said "I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I
>>> could not
>>> possibly have enough information to know." yet you are.
>>
>> What am I stating as a certainty: that you couldn't possibly have
>> enough information to know?
>>
>> Weak sauce.
>>
>> You know you don't. I know you don't.
>>
>> If you had the goods, you'd have been crowing it.
>
> Now that is weak sauce. What in your inane convoluted nonsense are "the
> goods"
>
> Rather, you, I and anyone who gives a damn know you have absolutely no
> reason or rationale to suggest the RD was being directly influenced by
> "his bosses" in the FIA. You have no reason or evidence that anyone up
> the command chain within the FIA was in communication with him during
> that process. If you had you would be crowing about it.
>

I have every reason to believe that every employee is given guidance by
his employers/superiors as to how the expect him to carry out his duties.

Do you really think that beyond, "Read the regulations and enforce them"
Masi has received no other words on how he supposed to do his job?

Implicit in "go[ing] rogue" is the idea that he acted without any regard
to any part of the regulations AND the instructions he was given by his
bosses as to how he is supposed to behave...

....and you just don't know (and you KNOW you don't know) that that is
the case.

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 3:30:45 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> ...and you just don't know (and you KNOW you don't know) that that is
> the case.

lol

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-19 4:30 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-19 4:11 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2021-12-19 3:51 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > XYXPDQ wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assuming both teams get the new rules
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > right" and implement them accordingly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-one could predict that the RD would go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rogue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But only an omniscient can speak with utter
> > > > > > > > > > > > > certainty that that is in fact what he did.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Really?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And how can you know for certain that he "[went]
> > > > > > > > > > > rogue"?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > How do you know he wasn't in constant
> > > > > > > > > > > communication with the people who pay his wages?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How do you know he was not in constant communication
> > > > > > > > > > with me? (& I kept telling him it was wrong)!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, actually.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I
> > > > > > > > > could not possibly have enough information to know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, you are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No. I'm not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, you are.
> > > > > >
> >>>>> "But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that
> that
> > > > > > is in fact what he did."
> > > > >
> > > > > But I'm not the one claiming he "went rogue"... ("that that
> > > > > is in fact what he did").
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm just claiming that you lack all the information to make
> > > > > the claim in the first place.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, you said "I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which
> > > > I could not
> >>> possibly have enough information to know." yet you are.
> > >
> > > What am I stating as a certainty: that you couldn't possibly have
> > > enough information to know?
> > >
> > > Weak sauce.
> > >
> > > You know you don't. I know you don't.
> > >
> > > If you had the goods, you'd have been crowing it.
> >
> > Now that is weak sauce. What in your inane convoluted nonsense are
> > "the goods"
> >
> > Rather, you, I and anyone who gives a damn know you have absolutely
> > no reason or rationale to suggest the RD was being directly
> > influenced by "his bosses" in the FIA. You have no reason or
> > evidence that anyone up the command chain within the FIA was in
> > communication with him during that process. If you had you would be
> > crowing about it.
> >
>
> I have every reason to believe that every employee is given guidance
> by his employers/superiors as to how the expect him to carry out his
> duties.
>

Not relevant to the discussion regarding timing and content.

> Do you really think that beyond, "Read the regulations and enforce
> them" Masi has received no other words on how he supposed to do his
> job?
>

Again not relevant to your specific assertions.

> Implicit in "go[ing] rogue" is the idea that he acted without any
> regard to any part of the regulations AND the instructions he was
> given by his bosses as to how he is supposed to behave...
>

No. Now you are attempting to put words in my mouth. As usual
falsehoods come easier to you than to most.

Either you have something to back up your assertions or you admit you
are just being an argumentative dickwad.

> ...and you just don't know (and you KNOW you don't know) that that is
> the case.

You nor anyone else has any evidence to claim otherwise. It would be a
huge story if anyone had made even a suggestion that the FIA had
conspired to ignore the rules in order to influence the result of the
WDC. It would likely be a criminal offence or linked to one.

Your conspiracy theory is not credible and you have provided no support
for any such conspiracy within the FIA nor any rational for it.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:37 -0500, Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-19 3:22 p.m., alister wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> assuming both teams get the new rules right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement
>>>>>>>> them accordingly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is
>>>>>>> in fact what he did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people
>>>>> who pay his wages?
>>>>
>>>> How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I
>>>> kept telling him it was wrong)!
>>>>
>>>> another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
>>>
>>> No, actually.
>>>
>>> I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly
>>> have enough information to know.
>>
>> Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication & asking
>> for proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.
>
> No. I am explicitly NOT claiming that.
>
>
>> That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12 was not
>> followed (which you have even acknowledged & is no-doubt why you have
>> now changed tack) & it was the RD that made that call.
>
> "went rogue" means more than simply the rulebook.
>
> If he had his marching orders given to him, then he wasn't really going
> rogue, was he?
>
> But the thing is:
>
> None of us know what instructions Masi received from his bosses and when
> he received them.
>
> Get it:
>
> Those who are claiming he "went rogue" are implicitly claiming that they
> DO know what happened.
>
> Happy to help you understand this.
Your statement was "How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
with the people who pay his wages?

Reversing the burden of proof

on the other hand there is pleanty of evidence to indicate Masi may have
indeed gone rouge

1: Failure to correctly apply 48.12
2: Only allowing some cars to unlap (in the context used in 48.12 Any does
indeed mean all)
3: The FACT that the FIA are now looking into the incident.

Happy to help you understand this.

--
<Silvrbear> Oxymorons? I saw one yesterday - the pamphlet on "Taco Bell
Nutritional Information"

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:46:26 -0500, Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> assuming both teams get the new rules right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement
>>>>>>>> them accordingly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is
>>>>>>> in fact what he did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people
>>>>> who pay his wages?
>>>>
>>>> How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I
>>>> kept telling him it was wrong)!
>>>>
>>>> another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
>>>
>>> No, actually.
>>>
>>> I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly
>>> have enough information to know.
>>
>> Yes, you are.
>
> No. I'm not.
>
> You are the one who states with certainty that he "[went] rogue]".
>
> I'm just pointing out that you don't have all the information to make
> that determination.

Then ask for proof that the RD went rouge, do not ask "How do you know he
wasn't in constant communication with the people who pay his wages?"

which is not only un-knowable, but also acknowledges that he did
manipulate the rules.

It is worth adding that if that was the case then the RD did indeed go
rouge as he should not be answering to external parties during he race!

Which way do you want it - in either case you loose.

Hoist by your own petard.

--
Do what you can to prolong your life, in the hope that someday you'll
learn what it's for.

On 2021-12-20 9:46 a.m., alister wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:37 -0500, Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-19 3:22 p.m., alister wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:09:49 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> assuming both teams get the new rules right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement
>>>>>>>>> them accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is
>>>>>>>> in fact what he did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people
>>>>>> who pay his wages?
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I
>>>>> kept telling him it was wrong)!
>>>>>
>>>>> another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
>>>>
>>>> No, actually.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly
>>>> have enough information to know.
>>>
>>> Sorry You are one claiming he was in constant communication & asking
>>> for proof he wasn't. Logical Fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.
>>
>> No. I am explicitly NOT claiming that.
>>
>>
>>> That the RD went rouge is evidenced by the fact that 48.12 was not
>>> followed (which you have even acknowledged & is no-doubt why you have
>>> now changed tack) & it was the RD that made that call.
>>
>> "went rogue" means more than simply the rulebook.
>>
>> If he had his marching orders given to him, then he wasn't really going
>> rogue, was he?
>>
>> But the thing is:
>>
>> None of us know what instructions Masi received from his bosses and when
>> he received them.
>>
>> Get it:
>>
>> Those who are claiming he "went rogue" are implicitly claiming that they
>> DO know what happened.
>>
>> Happy to help you understand this.
> Your statement was "How do you know he wasn't in constant communication
> with the people who pay his wages?
>
> Reversing the burden of proof
>

No. Because I'm not saying as a statement of what I claim was happening.

> on the other hand there is pleanty of evidence to indicate Masi may have
> indeed gone rouge
>
> 1: Failure to correctly apply 48.12

And what did his bosses discuss with him about the application of that
regulation?

> 2: Only allowing some cars to unlap (in the context used in 48.12 Any does
> indeed mean all)

Same question.

> 3: The FACT that the FIA are now looking into the incident.

Of COURSE they're looking into it. It's face saving for them and for
Mercedes.

>
> Happy to help you understand this.

Why is it you can't understand that posing a hypothetical is not the
same as making a claim.

Those who have claimed that Masi went rogue are implicitly claiming that
they know all the internal details.

And we both know that they do not.

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 11:08:38 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> And we both know that they do not.

fuck off asshole

On 21/12/2021 3:53 am, alister wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:46:26 -0500, Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-19 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-19 2:11 p.m., alister wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:16:02 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 11:03 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-19 9:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> XYXPDQ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> assuming both teams get the new rules right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The onus is on the FIA to "get the rules right" and implement
>>>>>>>>> them accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No-one could predict that the RD would go rogue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But only an omniscient can speak with utter certainty that that is
>>>>>>>> in fact what he did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, but yet again, you are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how can you know for certain that he "[went] rogue"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know he wasn't in constant communication with the people
>>>>>> who pay his wages?
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know he was not in constant communication with me? (& I
>>>>> kept telling him it was wrong)!
>>>>>
>>>>> another of your classic logical fallacy arguments
>>>>
>>>> No, actually.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not the one stating as a certainty that which I could not possibly
>>>> have enough information to know.
>>>
>>> Yes, you are.
>>
>> No. I'm not.
>>
>> You are the one who states with certainty that he "[went] rogue]".
>>
>> I'm just pointing out that you don't have all the information to make
>> that determination.
>
> Then ask for proof that the RD went rouge, do not ask "How do you know he
> wasn't in constant communication with the people who pay his wages?"
>
> which is not only un-knowable, but also acknowledges that he did
> manipulate the rules.
>
> It is worth adding that if that was the case then the RD did indeed go
> rouge as he should not be answering to external parties during he race!
>
> Which way do you want it - in either case you loose.
>
> Hoist by your own petard.
>

I'm sure he went rouge. Very embarrassing for him ;- )

geoff