<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Aug 16 2008, 10:34 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And there is tracks where they dont. First of all, consider that Brno is a lot longer than LC.
Then check out Mugello, Catalunya, China portugal.... and you won't find any of those doing anything near 12-13 laps (adjusted to Brno track legth)
In fact Rossi has a maximum of 10 laps including in and out lap and had that twice but both were on much shorter tracks. That would transfer to 7-8 laps at Brno. Rossi did a 7 lap stint.
Lets get some more numbers: Average
maximum length stint in FP2 between Rossi and Stoner this year are 7.8 That is not adjusted for the legth of Bruno that should easily bring it down to about 6-7 laps adjusted for Brno. You might now realize that Rossi's 7 laps are spot on or above average maximum length during FP2.
You use Stoners mega 15 lap stint at LC as "proof" while you should have observed that he had two stints before that without any fast-laps at all, wasting lots of time and despite his long stint had the fewest laps by a margine. Add to that, you won't find anyting even close to that from stoner on any other track. I'd call that unusuall. in statistics that's a typical anomality that you would exclude to get a more reliable result as it is way outside the norm.
In other words there is absolutly no hold what so ever in your wild theory based on stint legth as it is perfectly NORMAL.
I had no disliking towards you until now. NOW you forced me to look into the numbers to actually prove my point with indisputable facts and going through all the results take a lot of time. Wasted time as I was right from the start. So now I dislike you for being a stubborn ....... that CAN NOT COUNT and or are using more than a little speculative number to "prove" your point. Either you are so dumb that you can't see the difference betweeen a long and a short track or you are willing to overloock that fact that your numbers just arn't comparable. Take your pick.
Your Aussi/Casey thing is spreading as a common problem amoug your fellow nationals. Blame it on casey. Jeezz that is just so incredably pathetic.
I'll leave that to others to decide.
I think your numbers talk as clearly as only numbers can, but in the right perspective that is.
So to sum it up it looks like that was pure speculations based on anything BUT facts.
I looked back and "dip sampled" and came up with 8.2 laps as the average longest fp2 stint. Still closer to 10 than 4, so was your 7.8 or whatever.
I never said my theory was good; I have no problem with that. It was an off the cuff remark and instead of saying, “the riders are sick, that that is why they are doing short stints” or something to that effect you decided to take the argument to me – that accounts for my reaction. Arguments to the person are responded to the person. I found about the illnesses after (I had a surf in the morning and didn’t catch up on some of the news)
Also, I love being a pathetic Australian. I’m nuts over it. It’s wintertime here on the Gold Coast and the sun is shining and I’m going to the beach again, then I’ll eat prawns and drink beer watching the race tonight and turn up to work late tomorrow – this is part of national identity and I couldn’t care what you think of it – I don’t need to defend “perfect” (tongue in cheek for any literal types)).
I’m really sorry my numbers add up better than yours. I didn’t use Casey’s 14 lap stint at LC as proof of an argument, but it supported my argument, I never go for proof - just support – there are few absolutes in the universe (not Zen – empirical again). It was not so dramatically outside some of the other stints I saw that it would affect overall results and I understand the concept of “n-1” in statistics accounting for anomalous scores. So you account for anomalies and come up with 7.8 and I don’t and get 8.2 - these are pretty much the same number of laps (8). Now your colouring evidence to account for this – Watergate has been added to your moniker.
This left open an illusory correlation argument (post hoc propter ergo hoc) but you didn’t want to argue that, you were more concerned about some personal facet of mine. Now you have the post hoc argument it becomes post hoc ad hoc (shutting the gate after the horse has bolted)
I’m glad you are sticking to your guns and saying there is something sooo inexplicably abstract there I just don’t understand to make your argument. You truly are a reiki master and a purveyor of fine snake oil.
Your summation that it was speculative is entirely correct, I NEVER SAID IT WASN”T – I CONCEDED THIS FROM THE FIRST INSTANT BUT YOUR ARGUMENT WAS A COMMENTARY ON ME NOT MY ARGUMENT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IS THE BASIS OF MY REPONSE?
I provided you an easy follow the bouncing ball answer that I prompted you towards 3 times after conceding my argument was no good but you still took the argument to the person. That is why I just think you’re dumb. Like Forrest Gump dumb. I like Forrest however and when he says in that movie that he may not be a clever man but knows what love is, I sniffle. You could make me sniffle fish, just say something sentimental….
And now you don’t like me. That’s too bad, I have no feelings one way of the other towards you and to be perfectly honest I share a passion (motorcycle racing) with every person on this forum and I like all of you to some degree based on commonality. If you destroy my argument I’ll concede very quickly. If you have a crack at me I’ll always come out swinging.
And Babel indicates you may be Jewish in which case I do like you.
So much so I’m not going to reply again to this and give you the last word and a free shot. Go your red-hot hardest.
Shalom Babel Zen watergate big brother reiki master fish.
