On 23/02/2022 9:59 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 21:11:56 -0000 (UTC), "Bigbird"
> <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> Not having the person who fucked him over in a position where he could
>> do it again at least acknowledges the wrongdoing and addresses the lack
>> of trust there would be in the culprit.
>
> I don't think Masi *fucked him over* in any deliberate sense; he made
> a bad decision in the heat of the moment which shows he isn't up to
> the job and was rightly removed from it.

Agreed. Herbie Bash said that a red flag should have been thrown (which was also my instinct as
soon as the safety car came out - I was "What??? No red flag?"). At that stage of that race a red
flag was really the only fair and equitable call - other than finishing under the SC which would
have, although consistent with the previous application of the rules, been an anticlimax.

Under a red the lapped cars would still have been unlapped but at least there would have been tyre
parity between Max and Lewis and a race for a few laps. It would have been a riveting end to a very
close season.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

Alan wrote:

> 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.
>

LOL. You have rarely said anything so stupid... and you say a lot of
stupid things.

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

Don't be mealy mouthed. Elaborate, giving all the context you have.

> >
> > > 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.
>

That is yet another falsehood. The entirety of everything that has been
published suggests he was solely responsible for his decisions.

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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?

I am unfamiliar with the way you attempt to use/abuse it.

>
> >
> > 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?
>

"ALL" available evidence.

Are you unfamiliar with English.

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

Why not remind us of exactly what the words and context of that
statement is with emphasis on the bit where he says he will disregard
the regulations and the teams all agree.

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

Everything of relevance that has been published.

Which is very different from the "NOTHING" that you admit you have.

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

~misfit~ wrote:

> On 23/02/2022 9:59 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 21:11:56 -0000 (UTC), "Bigbird"
> ><bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Not having the person who fucked him over in a position where he
> > > could do it again at least acknowledges the wrongdoing and
> > > addresses the lack of trust there would be in the culprit.
> >
> > I don't think Masi *fucked him over* in any deliberate sense; he
> > made a bad decision in the heat of the moment which shows he isn't
> > up to the job and was rightly removed from it.
>
> Agreed. Herbie Bash said that a red flag should have been thrown
> (which was also my instinct as soon as the safety car came out - I
> was "What??? No red flag?"). At that stage of that race a red flag
> was really the only fair and equitable call - other than finishing
> under the SC which would have, although consistent with the previous
> application of the rules, been an anticlimax.
>
> Under a red the lapped cars would still have been unlapped but at
> least there would have been tyre parity between Max and Lewis and a
> race for a few laps. It would have been a riveting end to a very
> close season.

While appealing in hindsight it wasn't justified under the
regulations... and at that point Masi had not decided to ignore them.

At the time of the crash the predicted outcome would have been to get
the race underway, without ignoring any regulations, with a lap or two
to run.

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

On 2022-02-24 3:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> LOL. You have rarely said anything so stupid... and you say a lot of
> stupid things.
>
>> The fact that he told them that especially means something was up.
>>
>
> Don't be mealy mouthed. Elaborate, giving all the context you have.
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> That is yet another falsehood. The entirety of everything that has been
> published suggests he was solely responsible for his decisions.

Ummmmm.... ...nope.

And we know there is information that HAS not been published.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>
> I am unfamiliar with the way you attempt to use/abuse it.

You really didn't know what I meant by "backing" in this context?

>
>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>
> "ALL" available evidence.

OK. Give an example.

>
> Are you unfamiliar with English.
>
>> The special briefing with the team is evidence that other factors
>> were involved.
>>
>
> Why not remind us of exactly what the words and context of that
> statement is with emphasis on the bit where he says he will disregard
> the regulations and the teams all agree.

It isn't necessary.

Do you acknowledge that such a discussion took place?

Yes or no.

>
>> What's YOUR evidence that Masi "alone" made the decision.
>
> Everything of relevance that has been published.

Give an example.

>
> Which is very different from the "NOTHING" that you admit you have.
>

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-24 3:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > LOL. You have rarely said anything so stupid... and you say a lot of
> > stupid things.
> >
> > > The fact that he told them that especially means something was up.
> > >
> >
> > Don't be mealy mouthed. Elaborate, giving all the context you have.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > That is yet another falsehood. The entirety of everything that has
> > been published suggests he was solely responsible for his decisions.
>
> Ummmmm.... ...nope.
>

LIAR. You have admitted you have no evidence to the contrary.

> And we know there is information that HAS not been published.
>

Sure, maybe it says you are an ignorant cunt. You certainly can't prove
otherwise.

> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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?
> >
> > I am unfamiliar with the way you attempt to use/abuse it.
>
> You really didn't know what I meant by "backing" in this context?
>

No. For someone who has previously demonstrated a hypocritical pedantry
it makes no sense whatsoever.

Would you like to elaborate?

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> >
> > "ALL" available evidence.
>
> OK. Give an example.
>

Every single article that discussed the decisions taken in Abu Dhabi.

https://www.google.com/search?q=masis+abu+dhabi+decisions

A good few hundred here I would think.

Do you have a single one to the contrary?

You have certainly FAILED to declare even one in the last few months.

> >
> > Are you unfamiliar with English.
> >
> > > The special briefing with the team is evidence that other factors
> > > were involved.
> > >
> >
> > Why not remind us of exactly what the words and context of that
> > statement is with emphasis on the bit where he says he will
> > disregard the regulations and the teams all agree.
>
> It isn't necessary.
>

Not if you admit you really don't know what was said except in the
loosest terms that do not support your assertions in the slightest.

> Do you acknowledge that such a discussion took place?
>
> Yes or no.
>

No, Clearly no discussion that would support your claim that Masi was
given the authority to ignore the regulations.

Why not remind us of exactly what the words and context of that
statement is with emphasis on the bit where he says he will
disregard the regulations and the teams all agree

Do you admit you cannot do that (because you are dishonest and are
attempting to misrepresent an undocumented discussion)?

YES or NO.

> >
> > > What's YOUR evidence that Masi "alone" made the decision.
> >
> > Everything of relevance that has been published.
>
> Give an example.
>

See above.

> >
> > Which is very different from the "NOTHING" that you admit you have.
> >

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

On 2022-02-24 10:31 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-24 3:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL. You have rarely said anything so stupid... and you say a lot of
>>> stupid things.
>>>
>>>> The fact that he told them that especially means something was up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't be mealy mouthed. Elaborate, giving all the context you have.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is yet another falsehood. The entirety of everything that has
>>> been published suggests he was solely responsible for his decisions.
>>
>> Ummmmm.... ...nope.
>>
>
> LIAR. You have admitted you have no evidence to the contrary.

You've presented no evidence he acted solely on his own.

None.

>
>> And we know there is information that HAS not been published.
>>
>
> Sure, maybe it says you are an ignorant cunt. You certainly can't prove
> otherwise.

Do you acknowledge that the FIA held an inquiry and then declined to
make the findings of that inquiry available?

Yes or no.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> I am unfamiliar with the way you attempt to use/abuse it.
>>
>> You really didn't know what I meant by "backing" in this context?
>>
>
> No. For someone who has previously demonstrated a hypocritical pedantry
> it makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> Would you like to elaborate?

"backing": a colloquialism for "support" in the sense of "support for a
position held".

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> "ALL" available evidence.
>>
>> OK. Give an example.
>>
>
> Every single article that discussed the decisions taken in Abu Dhabi.

Sorry. Saying "every single article" is a cop-out.

>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=masis+abu+dhabi+decisions
>
> A good few hundred here I would think.
>
> Do you have a single one to the contrary?
>
> You have certainly FAILED to declare even one in the last few months.

You've yet to present one that supports your position.

And I've declared the acknowledged-to-be-unusual-at-the-time
announcement by Masi before the race that any safety car period towards
the end of that race would be ended as quickly as possible.

Do you acknowledge that that was told to the teams prior to the race?

Yes or no.

>
>>>
>>> Are you unfamiliar with English.
>>>
>>>> The special briefing with the team is evidence that other factors
>>>> were involved.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why not remind us of exactly what the words and context of that
>>> statement is with emphasis on the bit where he says he will
>>> disregard the regulations and the teams all agree.
>>
>> It isn't necessary.
>>
>
> Not if you admit you really don't know what was said except in the
> loosest terms that do not support your assertions in the slightest.
>
>> Do you acknowledge that such a discussion took place?
>>
>> Yes or no.
>>
>
> No, Clearly no discussion that would support your claim that Masi was
> given the authority to ignore the regulations.

I'm not asking whether you agree it supports my claim.

I'm asking if you acknowledge that in an unusual move, Masi informed the
teams especially for the final GP that any safety car period near the
end of the race would be ended as quickly as possible.

Do you acknowledge that that statement was made to the teams?

Yes or no.

>
> Why not remind us of exactly what the words and context of that
> statement is with emphasis on the bit where he says he will
> disregard the regulations and the teams all agree
>
> Do you admit you cannot do that (because you are dishonest and are
> attempting to misrepresent an undocumented discussion)?
>
> YES or NO.

Until you honestly answer my question, I will defer answering yours.

>
>>>
>>>> What's YOUR evidence that Masi "alone" made the decision.
>>>
>>> Everything of relevance that has been published.
>>
>> Give an example.
>>
>
> See above.

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 11:42:53 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Got it.

you aint got fuck all
except a girly street car
you fucking pussy

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-24 10:31 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-24 3:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > LOL. You have rarely said anything so stupid... and you say a
> > > > lot of stupid things.
> > > >
> > > > > The fact that he told them that especially means something
> > > > > was up.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't be mealy mouthed. Elaborate, giving all the context you
> > > > have.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is yet another falsehood. The entirety of everything that
> > > > has been published suggests he was solely responsible for his
> > > > decisions.
> > >
> > > Ummmmm.... ...nope.
> > >
> >
> > LIAR. You have admitted you have no evidence to the contrary.
>
> You've presented no evidence he acted solely on his own.
>
> None.
>
> >
> > > And we know there is information that HAS not been published.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, maybe it says you are an ignorant cunt. You certainly can't
> > prove otherwise.
>
> Do you acknowledge that the FIA held an inquiry and then declined to
> make the findings of that inquiry available?
>
> Yes or no.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > I am unfamiliar with the way you attempt to use/abuse it.
> > >
> > > You really didn't know what I meant by "backing" in this context?
> > >
> >
> > No. For someone who has previously demonstrated a hypocritical
> > pedantry it makes no sense whatsoever.
> >
> > Would you like to elaborate?
>
> "backing": a colloquialism for "support" in the sense of "support for
> a position held".
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > "ALL" available evidence.
> > >
> > > OK. Give an example.
> > >
> >
> > Every single article that discussed the decisions taken in Abu
> > Dhabi.
>
> Sorry. Saying "every single article" is a cop-out.
>

No it's not. I have provided hundreds of examples.

You exactly NONE.

> >
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=masis+abu+dhabi+decisions
> >
> > A good few hundred here I would think.
> >
> > Do you have a single one to the contrary?
> >
> > You have certainly FAILED to declare even one in the last few
> > months.
>
> You've yet to present one that supports your position.

LIAR.

>
> And I've declared the acknowledged-to-be-unusual-at-the-time
> announcement by Masi before the race that any safety car period
> towards the end of that race would be ended as quickly as possible.
>
> Do you acknowledge that that was told to the teams prior to the race?
>
> Yes or no.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Are you unfamiliar with English.
> > > >
> > > > > The special briefing with the team is evidence that other
> > > > > factors were involved.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why not remind us of exactly what the words and context of that
> > > > statement is with emphasis on the bit where he says he will
> > > > disregard the regulations and the teams all agree.
> > >
> > > It isn't necessary.
> > >
> >
> > Not if you admit you really don't know what was said except in the
> > loosest terms that do not support your assertions in the slightest.
> >
> > > Do you acknowledge that such a discussion took place?
> > >
> > > Yes or no.
> > >
> >
> > No, Clearly no discussion that would support your claim that Masi
> > was given the authority to ignore the regulations.
>
> I'm not asking whether you agree it supports my claim.
>
> I'm asking if you acknowledge that in an unusual move, Masi informed
> the teams especially for the final GP that any safety car period near
> the end of the race would be ended as quickly as possible.
>
> Do you acknowledge that that statement was made to the teams?
>
> Yes or no.
>
> >
> > Why not remind us of exactly what the words and context of that
> > statement is with emphasis on the bit where he says he will
> > disregard the regulations and the teams all agree
> >
> > Do you admit you cannot do that (because you are dishonest and are
> > attempting to misrepresent an undocumented discussion)?
> >
> > YES or NO.
>
> Until you honestly answer my question, I will defer answering yours.
>