Alan wrote:

> 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.

Not true. You may be being a mealy mouthed fuckwit but it is clear that
is exactly what you are claiming. There is no reason to ask such a
question otherwise. By asking the question you are making the
suggestion that there may be some substance or substantiation but you
are unable to supply any.

>
> > 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?
>

As far as you know, nothing.

"bosses"? Why do you say "bosses" and who specifically are you saying
was involved in your fictional conspiracy? What was their motivation?

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

Same answer.

>
> > 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.

You keep implying the FIA had an agenda and used Masi to fulfill it.

One absolute TRUTH is you know nothing; Zero, zilch, zip, nada, nothing.

You have no motive. No suspects. No common sense. No evidence.
Your conspiracy theory exist only in your tiny little overburdened mind.

Those are known facts.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

geoff wrote:

> 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 ;- )
>

:)

That petard of his has been busy doing a lot of heavy lifting lately.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:08:34 -0500, Alan wrote:

> 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?
We don't know, but seeing as it is not something that is likely to have
been foreseen be for the race & applying ocams rasor probably nothing.
meanwhile YOU keep asking people to prove nothing was said, Logical
fallacy reversing the burden of proof. If as you keep claiming you think
there was some interference from his bosses then it is for YOU to prove it

>
>> 2: Only allowing some cars to unlap (in the context used in 48.12 Any
>> does indeed mean all)
>
> Same question.
Same answer, you are making the claim - the burden of proof is on you.

>
>> 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.
>
That is the only correct statement you have made all week

>
>
>> 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.
>
Ahh a hypothetical.
So finally you admit you are making stuff up simply to keep the argument
going, we would never have guessed

> 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.

--
YOW!! The land of the rising SONY!!

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 21:44:36 -0000 (UTC), Bigbird wrote:

> geoff wrote:
>
>> 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 ;- )
>>
>>
> :)
>
> That petard of his has been busy doing a lot of heavy lifting lately.

Yes, i had not seen you had beat me to that phase or I would found another

--
Patches benefit all mankind. Products benefit the vendor.

- Richard Gooch on linux-kernel

alister wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 21:44:36 -0000 (UTC), Bigbird wrote:
>
> > geoff wrote:
> >
> >> 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 ;- )
> >>
> >>
> > :)
> >
> > That petard of his has been busy doing a lot of heavy lifting
> > lately.
>
> Yes, i had not seen you had beat me to that phase or I would found
> another

He has an endless supply of petards and seems to enjoy the experience.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2021-12-20 5:09 p.m., alister wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:08:34 -0500, Alan wrote:
>
>> 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?
> We don't know, but seeing as it is not something that is likely to have
> been foreseen be for the race & applying ocams rasor probably nothing.
> meanwhile YOU keep asking people to prove nothing was said, Logical
> fallacy reversing the burden of proof. If as you keep claiming you think
> there was some interference from his bosses then it is for YOU to prove it

I didn't make a claim.

I questioned how someone else can make a claim without knowing what was
going on behind the scenes.

If you want to claim Masi went rogue, you have to know what he was
instructed before and/or during the race. You have to KNOW that he was
given no instructions.

>
>>
>>> 2: Only allowing some cars to unlap (in the context used in 48.12 Any
>>> does indeed mean all)
>>
>> Same question.
> Same answer, you are making the claim - the burden of proof is on you.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
> That is the only correct statement you have made all week
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
> Ahh a hypothetical.
> So finally you admit you are making stuff up simply to keep the argument
> going, we would never have guessed

Nope. I posed a hypothetical to show the hole in someone's argument.

>
>> 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.

You'll have to try that sentence again with fewer pronouns.

We both know that they (who is "they") do not.. ...what?

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 4:38:19 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> We both know that they (who is "they") do not.. ...what?

lol. you have lost your fucking mind

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 4:38:19 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> You'll have to try that sentence again with fewer pronouns.

fuck you
you fucking cunt

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 4:38:19 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> You'll have to try that sentence again with fewer pronouns.

Why? So you can get your jollies
with another stupid reply?

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-20 5:09 p.m., alister wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:08:34 -0500, Alan wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> > We don't know, but seeing as it is not something that is likely to
> > have been foreseen be for the race & applying ocams rasor probably
> > nothing. meanwhile YOU keep asking people to prove nothing was
> > said, Logical fallacy reversing the burden of proof. If as you keep
> > claiming you think there was some interference from his bosses then
> > it is for YOU to prove it
>
> I didn't make a claim.
>
> I questioned how someone else can make a claim without knowing what
> was going on behind the scenes.
>
> If you want to claim Masi went rogue, you have to know what he was
> instructed before and/or during the race. You have to KNOW that he
> was given no instructions.
>

....and there again is the fallacy.

If you believed that you would never make any assertions ever.

Judgements are made on what is known and what is likely.

There is no reason to think there was direct interference and you are
unable to provide a motive or any other reason to reconsider.

In the moment Masi was entirely responsible for the decision not to
apply the regulations as dictated.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2021-12-21 6:05 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-20 5:09 p.m., alister wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:08:34 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>> We don't know, but seeing as it is not something that is likely to
>>> have been foreseen be for the race & applying ocams rasor probably
>>> nothing. meanwhile YOU keep asking people to prove nothing was
>>> said, Logical fallacy reversing the burden of proof. If as you keep
>>> claiming you think there was some interference from his bosses then
>>> it is for YOU to prove it
>>
>> I didn't make a claim.
>>
>> I questioned how someone else can make a claim without knowing what
>> was going on behind the scenes.
>>
>> If you want to claim Masi went rogue, you have to know what he was
>> instructed before and/or during the race. You have to KNOW that he
>> was given no instructions.
>>
>
> ...and there again is the fallacy.
>
> If you believed that you would never make any assertions ever.

No. I would just make them more temperately than you do.

>
> Judgements are made on what is known and what is likely.

But not on what is completely UNKNOWN; not without acknowledging it.

>
> There is no reason to think there was direct interference and you are
> unable to provide a motive or any other reason to reconsider.

Could the FIA have a motive for wanting the winning of the WDC to come
down two drivers racing for victory rather than behind a safety car?

Yes or no.

Do you think (in what you call your "judgement") that they would prefer
that?

Yes or no.

>
> In the moment Masi was entirely responsible for the decision not to
> apply the regulations as dictated.

Yes. It was his decision.

But whether it was a rogue decision depends on what his bosses told him
they wanted from him.

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 9:22:29 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-21 6:05 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> >> On 2021-12-20 5:09 p.m., alister wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:08:34 -0500, Alan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 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?
> >>> We don't know, but seeing as it is not something that is likely to
> >>> have been foreseen be for the race & applying ocams rasor probably
> >>> nothing. meanwhile YOU keep asking people to prove nothing was
> >>> said, Logical fallacy reversing the burden of proof. If as you keep
> >>> claiming you think there was some interference from his bosses then
> >>> it is for YOU to prove it
> >>
> >> I didn't make a claim.
> >>
> >> I questioned how someone else can make a claim without knowing what
> >> was going on behind the scenes.
> >>
> >> If you want to claim Masi went rogue, you have to know what he was
> >> instructed before and/or during the race. You have to KNOW that he
> >> was given no instructions.
> >>
> >
> > ...and there again is the fallacy.
> >
> > If you believed that you would never make any assertions ever.
> No. I would just make them more temperately than you do.
> >
> > Judgements are made on what is known and what is likely.
> But not on what is completely UNKNOWN; not without acknowledging it.
> >
> > There is no reason to think there was direct interference and you are
> > unable to provide a motive or any other reason to reconsider.
> Could the FIA have a motive for wanting the winning of the WDC to come
> down two drivers racing for victory rather than behind a safety car?
>
> Yes or no.
>
> Do you think (in what you call your "judgement") that they would prefer
> that?
>
> Yes or no.
> >
> > In the moment Masi was entirely responsible for the decision not to
> > apply the regulations as dictated.
> Yes. It was his decision.
>
> But whether it was a rogue decision depends on what his bosses told him
> they wanted from him.

yawn

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-21 6:05 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-20 5:09 p.m., alister wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:08:34 -0500, Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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?
> > > > We don't know, but seeing as it is not something that is likely
> > > > to have been foreseen be for the race & applying ocams rasor
> > > > probably nothing. meanwhile YOU keep asking people to prove
> > > > nothing was said, Logical fallacy reversing the burden of
> > > > proof. If as you keep claiming you think there was some
> > > > interference from his bosses then it is for YOU to prove it
> > >
> > > I didn't make a claim.
> > >
> > > I questioned how someone else can make a claim without knowing
> > > what was going on behind the scenes.
> > >
> > > If you want to claim Masi went rogue, you have to know what he was
> > > instructed before and/or during the race. You have to KNOW that he
> > > was given no instructions.
> > >
> >
> > ...and there again is the fallacy.
> >
> > If you believed that you would never make any assertions ever.
>
> No. I would just make them more temperately than you do.
>

But you don't so that is transparently untrue.

> >
> > Judgements are made on what is known and what is likely.
>
> But not on what is completely UNKNOWN; not without acknowledging it.
>

You do it all the time but as above if there are no reasonable grounds
for "UNKNOWN[S]" then they cannot be considered.

You have been asked repeatedly for grounds for your consideration of a
completely conspiracy theory and have come up with... ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING which gives me no reason to reconsider.

> >
> > There is no reason to think there was direct interference and you
> > are unable to provide a motive or any other reason to reconsider.
>
> Could the FIA have a motive for wanting the winning of the WDC to
> come down two drivers racing for victory rather than behind a safety
> car?
>
> Yes or no.
>

That is a convoluted and irrelevant question. The question is whether
you think they would interfere with the RD in real time while he is
dealing with a safety incident to manufacture and ultimately fix the
race.

You also need to consider who you mean by "the FIA". This would not be
a course that would have been decided by committee.

> Do you think (in what you call your "judgement") that they would
> prefer that?
>
> Yes or no.
>