On 2022-02-18 1:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-17 10:57 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> On 18/02/2022 4:40 pm, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-17 7:27 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:49 pm, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 3:37 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:27 pm, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 3:24 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 9:41 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
>>>>>>>>>>>> (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has
>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to move Michael Masi out of the role of
>>>>>>>>>>>> F1 Race Director. He says Masi will be offered
>>>>>>>>>>>> another FIA role, but whether the Australian
>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be seen. This is not a good precedent for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> federation but obviously Ben Sulayem felt that a
>>>>>>>>>>>> change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>>>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Was inevitable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The FIA needed a scapegoat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Made easy by an obviously culpable party.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do YOU think they won't disclose the results of
>>>>>>>>>> the inquiry?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No idea. But they should.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if Masi were the only one involved at the FIA, they
>>>>>>>> would have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't realise that you sat in on his role at that race,
>>>>>>> and had access to all comms involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If anybody else was involved in coming to that decision,
>>>>>>> yes, then they too should be re-assigned, sacked from that
>>>>>>> job, or whatever you want to call it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's why we're not getting the results of the inquiry
>>>>>> and Masi is getting a new job and not being sacked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sacked from that job, and given another position in the
>>>>> organisation.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but no.
>>>>
>>>> I asked you to show an example where sacking someone resulted in
>>>> them getting another position with the same organization...
>>>>
>>>> ...and you failed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cos I'm not a pedantic dickhead.
>>
>> No?
>>
>> Well we do know that you haven't shown anything to support your claim
>> that even getting demoted is ever referred to as being "sacked".
>
> Look up "constructive dismissal" cases.
>
> You will find plenty of examples.
>

I already know what "constructive dismissal" is...

....and you have no evidence at all that this is that.

On 2022-02-18 12:35 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <sume9e$12b$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>> It's clear from the fact that they aren't disclosing what the inquiry
>> found that there are things they don't want to reveal,
>>
>
> That they have concurred that the WDC title was won outside of the rules
> of the sport. This, for a multitude of reasons (not least, legal action
> by outside parties) is something that they can not admit.
>
> I would also not be surprised if a large chunk of that "transparent
> internal inquiry that we won't be releasing" was spent on working out
> the cheapest method of getting Masi out of that position. More laundry
> that they wouldn't want aired in public.
>
>

And on who was pressuring him from above.

Do you really think Liberty Media wanted the closest F1 championship in
decades ending under a yellow flag?

Do you think they had no conduit to communicate that preference to Masi?

Do you think there is some significance in Masi telling the teams before
the race that every effort would be made to end a safety car period near
the end of the race as quickly as possible?

Or had you just forgotten that?

On 2022-02-18 12:43 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <sumllj$fpr$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>> And if Masi were the only one involved at the FIA, they would have.
>>
>
> This is such a simplistic logical fallacy as I have seen recently. Such
> an inquiry would be difficult to conduct without touching on non-public
> internal structure, policy and ip issues that they wouldn't want made
> public.
>
> If they found that Masi's actions were a contravention of the rules
> then they can't make that public. Not officially, at any rate.

Of course they can.

>
> If anything, the fact that they have reneged on previous statements of
> transparency intent suggests that the inquiry was quite a thorough one.
>

Sorry?

Where is the transparency in holding an inquiry and withholding the results?

On 2022-02-19 7:44 a.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <sup54r$vvm$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>> Of course they are. If someone refuses to take up said offer, do they
>>> still have a job? Does that count as resignation?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> So you believe that employers have the right to turn to their employees
> and demand they move to a different job, and if they refuse, that would
> be resignation with no penalty or reparation?

That depends on the job, doesn't it?

On 2022-02-20 1:02 p.m., geoff wrote:
> On 20/02/2022 10:51 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:33:31 +1000, keithr0 <user@account.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/02/2022 2:05 am, D Munz wrote:
>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
>>>>
>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move Michael
>>>> Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi will be
>>>> offered another FIA role, but whether the Australian wants to accept
>>>> whatever role is on offer remains to be seen. This is not a good
>>>> precedent for the federation but obviously Ben Sulayem felt that a
>>>> change would be a good thing."
>>>>
>>>> FWIW
>>>> DLM
>>> Now that Mercedes have his head on a pike, perhaps Ham can stop being so
>>> petulant.
>>
>> How on earth does Masi being sacked mitigate Ham's annoyance at
>> unfairly being deprived of a record WDC win?
>
> The only 'mitigation' is that Ham will return this year, rather than
> quitting in disgust/despair/dis-whatever.
>
> geoff

That was never ever really going to happen.

On 2022-02-20 1:04 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:15:11 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-17 10:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move
>>>>>>> Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi
>>>>>>> will be offered another FIA role, but whether the Australian
>>>>>>> wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains to be seen.
>>>>>>> This is not a good precedent for the federation but obviously
>>>>>>> Ben Sulayem felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Called it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure you did. LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly "promote"
>>>>> him)?"
>>>>
>>>> "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
>>>
>>> Indeed, sacked as RD as several of us said; notably not YOU.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 'or possibly "promote" him'...
>>
>> ...or could you just not read those words?
>>
>> Let's sum up:
>>
>> Masi is not being fired: he is being offered a different FIA position.
>>
>> The FIA won't disclose what their inquiry discovered.
>>
>> Since you can't read the words that I actually wrote, there's no chance
>> that YOU can read between the lines...
>>
>> ...but I bet there are those that can.
>>
>> Tell me:
>>
>> When a company finds someone has committed major misconduct...
>
> You are the only one I see trying to make out that Masi was guilty of
> *major misconduct*, now involving some sort of FIA coverup; most
> people accept that Masi just made a gigantic cockup. Grounds for
> moving someone to a less challenging position but not necessarily
> getting rid of him entirely.

So you're claiming he's being removed from the Race Director position
for MINOR misconduct, are you?

>
>
>
>>
>> ...do they typically offer that person a different position in the company?
>>
>> Is someone "sacked" when he's actually offered a different position?

Well?

On 2022-02-20 1:42 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:21:48 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-17 1:04 p.m., alister wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:47:06 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-17 12:16 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 18/02/2022 7:15 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 10:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi
>>>>>>>>>>> will be offered another FIA role, but whether the Australian
>>>>>>>>>>> wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains to be seen.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a good precedent for the federation but obviously Ben
>>>>>>>>>>> Sulayem felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW DLM
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Called it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure you did. LOL!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly "promote"
>>>>>>>>>   him)?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed, sacked as RD as several of us said; notably not YOU.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'or possibly "promote" him'...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...or could you just not read those words?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's sum up:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Masi is not being fired: he is being offered a different FIA position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FIA won't disclose what their inquiry discovered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you can't read the words that I actually wrote, there's no
>>>>>> chance that YOU can read between the lines...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but I bet there are those that can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a company finds someone has committed major misconduct...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...do they typically offer that person a different position in the
>>>>>> company?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is someone "sacked" when he's actually offered a different position?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sacked 'from a position' and given another is not misuse of the term.
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Show an example of it being used in that manner.
>>>>
>>>> You've got the entire internet to choose from.
>>>
>>> As everyone knows any possition he is offered is simply a sweetener to
>>> prevent any protest on his part after removal (probably a better word than
>>> sacked in this case but the implication is the same you are just being a
>>> pedantic twat playing with words as normal)
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> I'm making the very salient point that if Masi acted solely on his own,
>> they could have actually sacked him, and nothing he could say would matter.
>>
>> It's clear from the fact that they aren't disclosing what the inquiry
>> found that there are things they don't want to reveal, and from the fact
>> that they're offering Masi another position, it's clear he's being
>> incented not to relate what he knows on the matter.
>
> Clear to you but not everybody else.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/e9Tb5sT.jpeg

Really?

So you're claiming that they're withholding the results but there are no
facts they don't want to reveal?

Really?

On 2022-02-20 1:49 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:47:06 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-17 12:16 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> On 18/02/2022 7:15 am, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-17 10:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move
>>>>>>>>> Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi
>>>>>>>>> will be offered another FIA role, but whether the Australian
>>>>>>>>> wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains to be seen.
>>>>>>>>> This is not a good precedent for the federation but obviously
>>>>>>>>> Ben Sulayem felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Called it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure you did. LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly "promote"
>>>>>>>   him)?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, sacked as RD as several of us said; notably not YOU.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'or possibly "promote" him'...
>>>>
>>>> ...or could you just not read those words?
>>>>
>>>> Let's sum up:
>>>>
>>>> Masi is not being fired: he is being offered a different FIA position.
>>>>
>>>> The FIA won't disclose what their inquiry discovered.
>>>>
>>>> Since you can't read the words that I actually wrote, there's no
>>>> chance that YOU can read between the lines...
>>>>
>>>> ...but I bet there are those that can.
>>>>
>>>> Tell me:
>>>>
>>>> When a company finds someone has committed major misconduct...
>>>>
>>>> ...do they typically offer that person a different position in the
>>>> company?
>>>>
>>>> Is someone "sacked" when he's actually offered a different position?
>>>
>>> Sacked 'from a position' and given another is not misuse of the term.
>>>
>>> geoff
>>>
>>
>> Show an example of it being used in that manner.
>>
>> You've got the entire internet to choose from.
>
> Happens regularly in politics e.g. Dominic Rab was sacked as Foreign
> Secretary and moved to Justice Secretary

Look up "rhetorical language".

A cabinet shuffle is not a sacking.

In article <sv3lb4$v95$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> > If anything, the fact that they have reneged on previous statements of
> > transparency intent suggests that the inquiry was quite a thorough one.
> >
>
> Sorry?
>
> Where is the transparency in holding an inquiry and withholding the results?
>

Non sequitur. I think you must have misread my sentence above.

--
Alan LeHun

On 2022-02-22 3:02 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <sv3lb4$v95$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>> If anything, the fact that they have reneged on previous statements of
>>> transparency intent suggests that the inquiry was quite a thorough one.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry?
>>
>> Where is the transparency in holding an inquiry and withholding the results?
>>
>
> Non sequitur. I think you must have misread my sentence above.
>

How does reneging on previous statements of transparency suggest that
the inquiry was thorough?

It may have been a rubberstamp...

....that they then wouldn't want to make public.

Or it may have been thorough...

....but uncovered things they didn't want to make public.

Or literally anywhere between those two extremes

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 5:20:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> How does reneging on previous statements of transparency suggest that
> the inquiry was thorough?
>
> It may have been a rubberstamp...
>
> ...that they then wouldn't want to make public.
>
> Or it may have been thorough...
>
> ...but uncovered things they didn't want to make public.
>
> Or literally anywhere between those two extremes

fuck off moron

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 5:20:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> It may have been a rubberstamp...
>
> ...that they then wouldn't want to make public.
>
> Or it may have been thorough...
>
> ...but uncovered things they didn't want to make public.
>
> Or literally anywhere between those two extremes

form a sentence
you stupid cunt

In article <sv3ujv$q68$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>
> On 2022-02-22 3:02 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
> > In article <sv3lb4$v95$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> >>> If anything, the fact that they have reneged on previous statements of
> >>> transparency intent suggests that the inquiry was quite a thorough one.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sorry?
> >>
> >> Where is the transparency in holding an inquiry and withholding the results?
> >>
> >
> > Non sequitur. I think you must have misread my sentence above.
> >
>
> How does reneging on previous statements of transparency suggest that
> the inquiry was thorough?

Ok. That's a different question.

>
> It may have been a rubberstamp...
>
> ...that they then wouldn't want to make public.
>
> Or it may have been thorough...
>
> ...but uncovered things they didn't want to make public.
>
> Or literally anywhere between those two extremes

Yes. But consider if it was rubber stamped, and it contained information
that they did not want public. That would have been known at the time,
and the promise of transparency would not have been forthcoming.

That, the promise was made, and then reneged, suggests that the inquiry
has covered information that originally, was thought would not be
covered. Thus the inquiry has gone further/deeper than originally
expected/intended.

Yes, there are different scenarios and degrees of scenarios, (and we
are, oc, just guessing) but Occam's razor suggests that it was simply a
case of the inquiry been more thorough than expected.

--
Alan LeHun

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-18 1:45 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-17 10:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-17 10:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
> > > > > > > > > > (joeblogsf1):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided
> > > > > > > > > > to move Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race
> > > > > > > > > > Director. He says Masi will be offered another FIA
> > > > > > > > > > role, but whether the Australian wants to accept
> > > > > > > > > > whatever role is on offer remains to be seen. This
> > > > > > > > > > is not a good precedent for the federation but
> > > > > > > > > > obviously Ben Sulayem felt that a change would be a
> > > > > > > > > > good thing."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > FWIW
> > > > > > > > > > DLM
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Called it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sure you did. LOL!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly
> > > > > > > > "promote"
> >>>>>>> him)?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Indeed, sacked as RD as several of us said; notably not YOU.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 'or possibly "promote" him'...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > He has not been promoted.
> > >
> > > Really?
> > >
> > > You think he's going to be demoted, do you?
> > >
> > > What's your prediction, sunshine?
> > >
> >
> > What's yours, mealy mouth?
>
> I asked you first, so pony up, pussy.
>

LOL, not willing to back up your own assertions.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > ...or could you just not read those words?
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's sum up:
> > > > >
> > > > > Masi is not being fired: he is being offered a different FIA
> > > > > position.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. Masi has been sacked from the role as F1 Race Director.
> > > > He has been replaced.
> > >
> > > Nope. Simply, factually, incorrect.
> > >
> >
> > Yet, you don't say how, Mealy.
>
> "Sacked" means dismissed from an organization.

Wrong... and you know so which makes it look like you're heading down
your usual route of falsehoods.

>
> 'verb [with object ]
> 1 informal dismiss from employment: any official found to be involved
> would be sacked on the spot.'
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > He currently has no role within the FIA. So he has not been
> > > > promoted out of the role... for doing such a good job in Abu
> > > > Dhabi.
> > > >
> > > > So it's clear to anyone that the FIA are not standing behind him
> > > > supporting his actions in Abu Dhabi.
> > >
> > > "Scapegoat": look it up.
> >
> > How can he be a scapegoat when he instigated and was solely
> > responsible for the actions that were deemed the problem.
>
> And you know he was solely responsible... ...how?

"No-one, not even miserable conspiracy theorists like you have named
anyone else."

Wonder why you snipped that... LOL

:-)

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-18 1:48 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-17 3:00 p.m., alister wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:21:48 -0800, Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-17 1:04 p.m., alister wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:47:06 -0800, Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 12:16 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 18/02/2022 7:15 am, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 10:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saward (joeblogsf1):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > decided to move Michael Masi out of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be offered another FIA role, but whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Australian wants to accept whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > role is on offer remains to be seen. This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not a good precedent for the federation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but obviously Ben Sulayem felt that a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change would be a good thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > FWIW DLM
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Called it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sure you did. LOL!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or
> > > > > > > > > > > > possibly "promote"
> >>>>>>>>>>>   him)?"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Indeed, sacked as RD as several of us said; notably
> > > > > > > > > > not YOU.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 'or possibly "promote" him'...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ...or could you just not read those words?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let's sum up:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Masi is not being fired: he is being offered a
> > > > > > > > > different FIA position.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The FIA won't disclose what their inquiry discovered.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since you can't read the words that I actually wrote,
> > > > > > > > > there's no chance that YOU can read between the
> > > > > > > > > lines...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ...but I bet there are those that can.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tell me:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When a company finds someone has committed major
> > > > > > > > > misconduct...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ...do they typically offer that person a different
> > > > > > > > > position in the company?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is someone "sacked" when he's actually offered a
> > > > > > > > > different position?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sacked 'from a position' and given another is not
> > > > > > > > misuse of the term.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > geoff
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Show an example of it being used in that manner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You've got the entire internet to choose from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As everyone knows any possition he is offered is simply a
> > > > > > sweetener to prevent any protest on his part after removal
> > > > > > (probably a better word than sacked in this case but the
> > > > > > implication is the same you are just being a pedantic twat
> > > > > > playing with words as normal)
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm making the very salient point that if Masi acted solely on
> > > > > his own, they could have actually sacked him, and nothing he
> > > > > could say would matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's clear from the fact that they aren't disclosing what the
> > > > > inquiry found that there are things they don't want to reveal,
> > > > > and from the fact that they're offering Masi another position,
> > > > > it's clear he's being incented not to relate what he knows on
> > > > > the matter.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Expect a tinfoil shortage as you will need all of it for your
> > > > hat
> > >
> > > So what's your explanation?
> > >
> > > It was all Masi's fault... ...but they're offering him another
> > > position, why?
> > >
> > > They held an inquiry, but they won't release their findings...
> > >
> > > ...why?
> >
> > If you weren't so busy defending the indefensible you might take the
> > time to look at the changes they are making and consider what that
> > says about the situation. Of course as you like to put your
> > conclusions before any consideration you might struggle...
> >
> > ...but just ask for help.
> >
>
> I notice you failed to address anything I said.

Did I credit you with the intelligence to work a few of these things
out for yourself... oh dear.

The most obvious reason for not releasing the findings is that it makes
them look even worse than not doing so. If everything is as we know
then they would basically be saying that they gave the WDC to the wrong
guy. There is no remedy and whatever they did would not be a good look
for the FIA or F1. You think perhaps they would overturn the result of
the GP and have another Gala to celebrate Hamilton's 8th title? or have
Max's first title forever tainted and have it officially known it was a
stolen title? Of course not. That would not do the sport any favours;m
even Hamilton and Mercedes can see that. They want to sweep it all
under the rug and do what is needed to appease those affected.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-18 12:35 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
> > In article <sume9e$12b$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> > > It's clear from the fact that they aren't disclosing what the
> > > inquiry found that there are things they don't want to reveal,
> > >
> >
> > That they have concurred that the WDC title was won outside of the
> > rules of the sport. This, for a multitude of reasons (not least,
> > legal action by outside parties) is something that they can not
> > admit.
> >
> > I would also not be surprised if a large chunk of that "transparent
> > internal inquiry that we won't be releasing" was spent on working
> > out the cheapest method of getting Masi out of that position. More
> > laundry that they wouldn't want aired in public.
> >
> >
>
> And on who was pressuring him from above.
>

Who was pressuring him from above?

In all your dozens of mealy mouthed responses you have still failed to
put a single name to these fictitious interlopers nor elaborated on how
they could caused Masi to have intentionally ignored the regulations.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-18 1:50 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > He's quite likely to say "I was under pressure from my bosses to
> > > make sure the race ended with excitement rather than under a
> > > yellow flag".
> >
> > What bosses? Have you even the slightest evidence to make such an
> > assertion?
>
> Are you pretending that there are not officials/employees of the FIA
> who are Masi's bosses?
>
> >
> > All your evidence... here... now?
>
> Why?
>

So that's no names and no evidence. Perhaps conspiracy theories are not
your strength. LOL

> You claimed he was "solely responsible" without any evidence, didn't
> you?

No; ALL the evidence supports that view.

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-18 1:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-17 10:57 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > On 18/02/2022 4:40 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > > > On 2022-02-17 7:27 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > On 18/02/2022 12:49 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 3:37 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 18/02/2022 12:27 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 3:24 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 18/02/2022 9:41 am, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (joeblogsf1):
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > decided to move Michael Masi out of the role
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of F1 Race Director. He says Masi will be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > offered another FIA role, but whether the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Australian wants to accept whatever role is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on offer remains to be seen. This is not a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > good precedent for the federation but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > obviously Ben Sulayem felt that a change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would be a good thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > FWIW
> > > > > > > > > > > > > DLM
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Was inevitable.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yup.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The FIA needed a scapegoat.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Made easy by an obviously culpable party.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See below.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Why do YOU think they won't disclose the results
> > > > > > > > > > > of the inquiry?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No idea. But they should.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And if Masi were the only one involved at the FIA,
> > > > > > > > > they would have.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Didn't realise that you sat in on his role at that race,
> > > > > > > > and had access to all comms involved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't of course.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If anybody else was involved in coming to that decision,
> > > > > > > > yes, then they too should be re-assigned, sacked from
> > > > > > > > that job, or whatever you want to call it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And that's why we're not getting the results of the
> > > > > > > inquiry and Masi is getting a new job and not being
> > > > > > > sacked.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sacked from that job, and given another position in the
> > > > > > organisation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, but no.
> > > > >
> > > > > I asked you to show an example where sacking someone resulted
> > > > > in them getting another position with the same
> > > > > organization...
> > > > >
> > > > > ...and you failed.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cos I'm not a pedantic dickhead.
> > >
> > > No?
> > >
> > > Well we do know that you haven't shown anything to support your
> > > claim that even getting demoted is ever referred to as being
> > > "sacked".
> >
> > Look up "constructive dismissal" cases.
> >
> > You will find plenty of examples.
> >
>
> I already know what "constructive dismissal" is...

Oh, that's tough.

>
> ...and you have no evidence at all that this is that.

LOL, so NOW you think evidence is all important.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-18 1:57 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > geoff wrote:
> >
> > > On 18/02/2022 12:49 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > > On 2022-02-17 3:37 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > On 18/02/2022 12:27 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > On 2022-02-17 3:24 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > On 18/02/2022 9:41 am, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
> > > > > > > > > > (joeblogsf1):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided
> > > > > > > > > > to move Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race
> > > > > > > > > > Director. He says Masi will be offered another
> > > > > > > > > > FIA role, but whether the Australian wants to
> > > > > > > > > > accept whatever role is on offer remains to be
> > > > > > > > > > seen. This is not a good precedent for the
> > > > > > > > > > federation but obviously Ben Sulayem felt that a
> > > > > > > > > > change would be a good thing."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > FWIW
> > > > > > > > > > DLM
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Was inevitable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yup.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The FIA needed a scapegoat.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Made easy by an obviously culpable party.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why do YOU think they won't disclose the results of the
> > > > > > > > inquiry?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No idea. But they should.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And if Masi were the only one involved at the FIA, they
> > > > > > would have.
> > > > >
> > > > > Didn't realise that you sat in on his role at that race, and
> > > > > had access to all comms involved.
> > > >
> > > > I don't of course.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If anybody else was involved in coming to that decision, yes,
> > > > > then they too should be re-assigned, sacked from that job, or
> > > > > whatever you want to call it.
> > > >
> > > > And that's why we're not getting the results of the inquiry and
> > > > Masi is getting a new job and not being sacked.
> > >
> > > Sacked from that job, and given* another position in the
> > > organisation.
> > >
> > > Not to split hairs .....
> > >
> >
> > *"is to be offered"
> >
> > ;-)
> >
>
> Isn't it funny how you normally hang on every word Hamilton says:

Liar.

>
>
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-10538695/F1-Lewis-Hamilton-says-able-FIAs-report-Michael-Masi-firing.html>

If you have a point feel free to attempt to make it. I am not about to
read every report of "the sacking of Michael Masi" to try to work out
what your latest conspiracy theory is.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-18 1:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
> > > > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
> > > > >
> > > > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move
> > > > > Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says
> > > > > Masi will be offered another FIA role, but whether the
> > > > > Australian wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains
> > > > > to be seen. This is not a good precedent for the federation
> > > > > but obviously Ben Sulayem felt that a change would be a good
> > > > > thing."
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW
> > > > > DLM
> > > >
> > > > Was inevitable.
> > >
> > > Yup.
> > >
> > > The FIA needed a scapegoat.
> > >
> >
> > No, they didn't.
>
> Yes... ...they really did.

Oh well, if an intransigent, habitual liar insists then it must be true
/s

So why did they need a scapegoat?

Try not to rely too heavily on your lack of evidence or wild conspiracy
theories.

>
> >
> > If they could have supported Masi's decisions... and those of the
> > stewards... they would have done so and by doing so saved face and
> > their integrity would have remained intact.
>
> They did that by not overturning the results.

No, they really didn't. There is no protocol or precedent for
overturning the results.

On 2022-02-23 4:11 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-18 1:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move
>>>>>> Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says
>>>>>> Masi will be offered another FIA role, but whether the
>>>>>> Australian wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains
>>>>>> to be seen. This is not a good precedent for the federation
>>>>>> but obviously Ben Sulayem felt that a change would be a good
>>>>>> thing."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>
>>>>> Was inevitable.
>>>>
>>>> Yup.
>>>>
>>>> The FIA needed a scapegoat.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, they didn't.
>>
>> Yes... ...they really did.
>
> Oh well, if an intransigent, habitual liar insists then it must be true
> /s
>
> So why did they need a scapegoat?

Because it's obvious to anyone who actually learned and remembered
everything that went on (including Masi's special instructions to the
teams before the race that any safety car period near the end of the
race would be ended as quickly as possible), that Masi did not act
solely of his own accord.

He acted with the influence and pressure from those above, who above all
did not want this season to end under a yellow flag.

>
> Try not to rely too heavily on your lack of evidence or wild conspiracy
> theories.

So don't act like you, who without any backing declares that this was
solely Masi?

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:47:23 -0800, Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-20 1:49 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:47:06 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-02-17 12:16 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>> On 18/02/2022 7:15 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-17 10:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi
>>>>>>>>>> will be offered another FIA role, but whether the Australian
>>>>>>>>>> wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains to be seen.
>>>>>>>>>> This is not a good precedent for the federation but obviously
>>>>>>>>>> Ben Sulayem felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FWIW DLM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Called it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure you did. LOL!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly
>>>>>>>> "promote"
>>>>>>>>   him)?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, sacked as RD as several of us said; notably not YOU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 'or possibly "promote" him'...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...or could you just not read those words?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's sum up:
>>>>>
>>>>> Masi is not being fired: he is being offered a different FIA
>>>>> position.
>>>>>
>>>>> The FIA won't disclose what their inquiry discovered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you can't read the words that I actually wrote, there's no
>>>>> chance that YOU can read between the lines...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but I bet there are those that can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me:
>>>>>
>>>>> When a company finds someone has committed major misconduct...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...do they typically offer that person a different position in the
>>>>> company?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is someone "sacked" when he's actually offered a different position?
>>>>
>>>> Sacked 'from a position' and given another is not misuse of the term.
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Show an example of it being used in that manner.
>>>
>>> You've got the entire internet to choose from.
>>
>> Happens regularly in politics e.g. Dominic Rab was sacked as Foreign
>> Secretary and moved to Justice Secretary
>
> Look up "rhetorical language".
>
> A cabinet shuffle is not a sacking.

When it is a demotion it might as well be

--
Non-sequiturs make me eat lampshades.

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-23 4:11 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-18 1:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
> > > > > > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
> > > > > > > (joeblogsf1):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to
> > > > > > > move Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director.
> > > > > > > He says Masi will be offered another FIA role, but
> > > > > > > whether the Australian wants to accept whatever role is
> > > > > > > on offer remains to be seen. This is not a good
> > > > > > > precedent for the federation but obviously Ben Sulayem
> > > > > > > felt that a change would be a good thing."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > FWIW
> > > > > > > DLM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Was inevitable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup.
> > > > >
> > > > > The FIA needed a scapegoat.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, they didn't.
> > >
> > > Yes... ...they really did.
> >
> > Oh well, if an intransigent, habitual liar insists then it must be
> > true /s
> >
> > So why did they need a scapegoat?
>
> Because it's obvious to anyone who actually learned and remembered
> everything that went on
> (including Masi's special instructions to the
> teams before the race that any safety car period near the end of the
> race would be ended as quickly as possible),

Quote the part where he says "with total disregard for the regulations
or fairness"

> that Masi did not act
> solely of his own accord.
>

No, that is yet another falsehood.

> He acted with the influence and pressure from those above, who above
> all did not want this season to end under a yellow flag.

You have already admitted you have no evidence whatsoever to support
such a conspiracy theory.

>
> >
> > Try not to rely too heavily on your lack of evidence or wild
> > conspiracy theories.
>
> So don't act like you, who without any backing declares that this was
> solely Masi?

"backing"?

WTF are you on about.

ALL OF THE EVIDENCE suggests that Masi alone made the decisions to
ignore the regulations and do what he did.

> > > They did that by not overturning the results.

> > No, they really didn't. There is no protocol or precedent for
> > overturning the results.

No argument there then.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2022-02-23 12:30 p.m., alister wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:47:23 -0800, Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-20 1:49 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:47:06 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-17 12:16 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 18/02/2022 7:15 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 10:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi
>>>>>>>>>>> will be offered another FIA role, but whether the Australian
>>>>>>>>>>> wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains to be seen.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a good precedent for the federation but obviously
>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Sulayem felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW DLM
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Called it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure you did. LOL!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly
>>>>>>>>> "promote"
>>>>>>>>>   him)?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed, sacked as RD as several of us said; notably not YOU.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'or possibly "promote" him'...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...or could you just not read those words?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's sum up:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Masi is not being fired: he is being offered a different FIA
>>>>>> position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FIA won't disclose what their inquiry discovered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you can't read the words that I actually wrote, there's no
>>>>>> chance that YOU can read between the lines...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but I bet there are those that can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a company finds someone has committed major misconduct...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...do they typically offer that person a different position in the
>>>>>> company?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is someone "sacked" when he's actually offered a different position?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sacked 'from a position' and given another is not misuse of the term.
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Show an example of it being used in that manner.
>>>>
>>>> You've got the entire internet to choose from.
>>>
>>> Happens regularly in politics e.g. Dominic Rab was sacked as Foreign
>>> Secretary and moved to Justice Secretary
>>
>> Look up "rhetorical language".
>>
>> A cabinet shuffle is not a sacking.
>
>
> When it is a demotion it might as well be
>
>
>

Politics is a very different game than in private organizations

On 2022-02-23 12:37 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-23 4:11 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-18 1:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
>>>>>>>> (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to
>>>>>>>> move Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director.
>>>>>>>> He says Masi will be offered another FIA role, but
>>>>>>>> whether the Australian wants to accept whatever role is
>>>>>>>> on offer remains to be seen. This is not a good
>>>>>>>> precedent for the federation but obviously Ben Sulayem
>>>>>>>> felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was inevitable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FIA needed a scapegoat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they didn't.
>>>>
>>>> Yes... ...they really did.
>>>
>>> Oh well, if an intransigent, habitual liar insists then it must be
>>> true /s
>>>
>>> So why did they need a scapegoat?
>>
>> Because it's obvious to anyone who actually learned and remembered
>> everything that went on
>> (including Masi's special instructions to the
>> teams before the race that any safety car period near the end of the
>> race would be ended as quickly as possible),
>
> Quote the part where he says "with total disregard for the regulations
> or fairness"

Why? It isn't relevant.

The fact that he told them that especially means something was up.

>
>> that Masi did not act
>> solely of his own accord.
>>
>
> No, that is yet another falsehood.
>
>> He acted with the influence and pressure from those above, who above
>> all did not want this season to end under a yellow flag.
>
> You have already admitted you have no evidence whatsoever to support
> such a conspiracy theory.

And you've admitted you have none to support your claim he acted on his
own intiative only.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Try not to rely too heavily on your lack of evidence or wild
>>> conspiracy theories.
>>
>> So don't act like you, who without any backing declares that this was
>> solely Masi?
>
> "backing"?

Are you unfamiliar with English?

>
> WTF are you on about.
>
> ALL OF THE EVIDENCE suggests that Masi alone made the decisions to
> ignore the regulations and do what he did.

What EVIDENCE is that?

The special briefing with the team is evidence that other factors were
involved.

What's YOUR evidence that Masi "alone" made the decision.