Destructive Power of the Media- the end of reason.

chopperman · Jul 5, 2012

Bunyip said:
You may think it is arbitrary, but that is only your opinion.

There are two levels of behaviour by the eurocentric press and by Ezpeleta also - one for Valentino and one for the others.

Because of this, no non-Rossi rider is ever truly given any slack and is consequently always given unfairly harsh analysis. This persistent and unimpartial analysis was the main factor in Caseys departure. Its origins are directly because of the RP. The connection is obvious and easy to see for any without yellow blinkers.

Not one of your better responses. I have generally admired your contributions however.

The Neo bopper blame game

I really feel for Caseys fan's and that's the truth.

If Casey was so effected by what some euro press were saying, then why read it? I thought he was all about answering on track. Many celebs are attacked daily in the tabloids (murdock press) and twitter yet they carry on. Ignorance is bliss as they say, if your that thin skinned and effected by it ,then don't read it.

Casey made himself the bad boy of the paddock with his petulant behaviour and out spoken rants, it's not as if he tried or wanted to stay under the press radar. What did he think would happen?

Truth is Casey was never really cut out for this public life where as rossi is. Not so long ago Rossi was getting hammered in the Italian press over his tax issues and not winning races ect. Maybe he is thicker skinned or just did not bother reading the crap.

The way i see it is there is only one person to blame. You reap what you sow.

mad mick · Jul 5, 2012

chopperman said:
The Neo bopper blame game

I really feel for Caseys fan's and that's the truth.

If Casey was so effected by what some euro press were saying, then why read it? I thought he was all about answering on track. Many celebs are attacked daily in the tabloids (murdock press) and twitter yet they carry on. Ignorance is bliss as they say, if your that thin skinned and effected by it ,then don't read it.

Casey made himself the bad boy of the paddock with his petulant behaviour and out spoken rants, it's not as if he tried or wanted to stay under the press radar. What did he think would happen?

Truth is Casey was never really cut out for this public life where as rossi is. Not so long ago Rossi was getting hammered in the Italian press over his tax issues and not winning races ect. Maybe he is thicker skinned or just did not bother reading the crap.

The way i see it is there is only one person to blame. You reap what you sow.

You're a hard man, Chopp. Not too many people wouldn't be affected by getting trashed in the media, week in, week out. He's just a simple kid that happens to be able to ride a bike really well. It must have been a big shock to the guy after winning the championship in 2007 and then realising that most fans and the media were pissed-off with him because he spoiled the Valentino Rossi Variety Show. Not everyone is cunning and thrives on the toxicity of negative press.

#22 · Jul 5, 2012

Noodles Romanoff said:
Oh to be Darryl Beattie and be able to slip out with " I used to love turning up to ride the bike, now I find due to all the politics and ........, I don't even want to be at the track."

No in depth explanations given, or needed, to justify his decision.

Stoner, from the interview he gave with Beattie is in just about the same frame of mind as Beattie was then.........only Stoner has to respond to comments from Dorna/Ezpeleta.......and just about every man, his dog and it's fleas.

Or to be Nicky Lauda...........

"I quit"

"What do you mean, you quit !!??"

" I QUIT !!...I'm sick of driving 'round in circles like a ....... ..... !"

I agree. The guy could have just said he was leaving without quite as much of the negative comments, but the guy doesnt want to be part of the circus anymore. You can't blame him for that. He'd stick around if it was the racing, but he's decided he would rather not race than face the continued (if some was self inflicted) criticisms from the media. Some may say he should be thicker skinned but thats just the way he is. As someone said, VR thrives on being in the spotlight, CS doesnt. It doesn't make one any better than that other.

I'm the same in some respects, I stopped pursuing a professional career because I was told that you had to be a good marketing man as well as a good racer and I am not, and I got fed up with spouting ........ for hours on end in some prick's office begging them for money. It wore me down and I stopped enjoying racing and my life, and I suspenct Casey is at that stage too. I also puzzled for years over why some are seen more favourably than others and to me, its unfortunately just the way it is. I;ve kicked ... in some of the series and events i've raced in and even now I don't feel 'part of the family', some people are just liked and sucked up to more than others. Why? I no longer care....

Pigeon said:
ITW with Stoner at Assen. "Riders are now puppets. We have to race for the fans, for the sponsors... Nothing for ourselves."

As Mad Mick said. I think CS will be the winner in the long run. He may come back, he may not, but I personally think he wont. He's not like VR in that he will miss thr spotlight even if he misses the racing. He's retiring at 27, will never have to 'work' another day in his life and can do anything he wants, and most importantly, will hopefully leave the career in good health. I;m sure he won't be worrying about people that demand he stay so they have a hate figure when he's back on the farm.

That said, i'm not a Boner. The kid can ride, but I agree his attitude isnt the best. My brother said to me that "Stoner might be right in principle, but is still taking the cash (both salary and that required to run prototypes) thats ruining professional racing. So .... him"

J4rn0 · Jul 5, 2012

Bunyip said:
You may think it is arbitrary, but that is only your opinion.

There are two levels of behaviour by the eurocentric press and by Ezpeleta also - one for Valentino and one for the others.

Because of this, no non-Rossi rider is ever truly given any slack and is consequently always given unfairly harsh analysis. This persistent and unimpartial analysis was the main factor in Caseys departure. Its origins are directly because of the RP. The connection is obvious and easy to see for any without yellow blinkers.

Not one of your better responses. I have generally admired your contributions however.

I have never bought into the theory that Valentino Rossi has been bad for MotoGP, why should I buy into this one, that is just an appendix to that theory ("Casey Stoner retires because Valentino Rossi has ruined MotoGP"). If mine is an opinion, so is yours; but the difference is that my opinion is not fabricating any arbitrary links (i.e. based merely on personal perception, likes and dislikes) between events.

yamaka46 · Jul 5, 2012

Bunyip said:
yamaka, the moguls have you exactly where they want you. They win, you lose.

Do a google search refined by "scholar" and all the crap shall be weeded out and then you will know the truth.

On the taskbar near top of page at right end, click on "more" for more search options, then click on "even more", then on "scholar". This refines you search to articles from experts in that field, not radio personalities or puppets of big business.

You wont bother. Didn,t think so.

Don,t reply unless you can be bothered.

Do you go to your local shock-jock for a major medical procedure, plans for construction of a new bridge, programming for the next generation computer software? Nope. Much the same. Listen to the experts. Those that have qualifications in that specific field. Those that have any publications peer reviewed to verify their veracity.

Even if 5% of climate scientists thought that catastrophic global warming will result in temperatures rising by 3-4 degrees C within a century and consequent reduction of food prouction to the level that only 1 billion or so people can live, not to mention the rise of tropical disease and wars over declining essentials for life (food), we should be fairly concerned. BUT WHAT IF 98% of them thought that that was the likely outcome. Well thats how it is buddy. Every profession has 2 % nutters, so it is staggering that we should choose to ignore the projections.

Currently the human race is behaving like lemmings, happily leaping off the cliff. Absolutely gobsmackingly stupid as it is, thats exactly what is happening. We need to act immediately as it is almost too late to reduce the rise in temps by even 2 C, which is the most optimistic outcome we can expect by 2100. Doesn,t sound like much hey, but it will still mean reduced farming country, alower sustainable population and much positioning for remaining keenly sought resources. Most people can,t believe it is true; its never happened before so how could it be true?. But the world is finite, it is a closed system, and its massive reserve capacity has all been used up. The .... starts to hit the wall very soon, if not already. Don,t forget that extreme weather ( incuding cold spells) are part of the fallout of climate change.

Is any or all of this beyond you? Currently it is for much of the population. They live in ignorance, fed the ........ by the media outlets run by the greedy moguls, who sustain their positions of privilege through this strategy. If you want to be a little mushroom growing in the dark, just keep listeneing to what you are apparently happy to hear. Mushroom.........

Sorry to keep this OT, but how patronising can you be?

If you don't want to look outside the information you currently believe with a passion to be true, then I'm not sure you understand the concept of science.

However, one small point about your bolded section, here is the info about where the "97% of climate scientist agree" came from:

These were the questions asked :

https://en.wikipedia...bal_Warming.svg

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature

90% of participants (10,257 Earth scientists asked, 3146 replied) answered “risen” to question 1.

82% (10,257 Earth scientists asked, 3146 replied) answered 'yes' to question 2.

Of those with "expertise" in climate science (notice how few were chosen to get the 97% figure):

96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1.

97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

This is not the same as "CO2 will cause runaway global warming due to positive feedbacks" and those feedbacks have, BTW, not been seen in the real world.

I agree with question 1 – we are coming out of an ice age, so yes temps have increased, particularly since the LIA

I also agree with question 2, but not due to CO2 where human output is even now about 5% of the natural emissions of the planet. Also note that the question didn't mention CO2. Some of the contributing factors of human activity are things such a deforestation, particularly in rainforests, change of use of land (same thing in some ways) for more houses, roads, motorways etc.

So if I were to be honest I'd have answered these questions in the same way as the 97% of “climate scientists” because, like many surveys, the questions are rigged. Yes the planet has warmed since the last ice age, but is this A. primarily due to manmade CO2? B. is it likely to be catastrophic? Neither question was asked...

Regarding scientists in general on this, more than 31,000 scientists signed a petition in 2008 denying that man is responsible for global warming. which at the very least calls into question the "concensus" on the subject.

http://www.telegraph...al-warming.html

Plus, if you know anything at all about science, it is not done by consensus. Research Gallileo if you don't understand the reference - I can be patronising too

.

I don't trust "scientists" who appeal to authority, circumvent FOI requests, "lose" the raw data, adjust the historical data after the fact, engage in "pal review", etc, etc, any more than I trust "radio personalities or puppets of big business". I am an engineer, I research the facts, look at the scientific papers being produced on both sides and make my own mind up. The media outlets you refer to that I am allegedly getting my info from - where do you live? All the mainstream media in the UK & in Oz spout the AGW line, regardless of the fact that temperatures have not risen for 15+ years and that CO2 is plant food, so (on it's own, assuming temps do do not drop) will help in food production.

Take this statement of yours:

"Don,t forget that extreme weather ( incuding cold spells) are part of the fallout of climate change."

What research (looking into the subject, reading papers etc) have you done to make you believe this is true? And make no pretense, belief is what it is. There are no hard facts about extreme weather getting worse as temperature has increased. That is the problem for me - this is not science, it's religion and the converted sneer at those who try to look at the facts and suggest that others might like to do the same.

And you call me a mushroom....

Goatboy · Jul 5, 2012

J4rn0 said:
I have never bought into the theory that Valentino Rossi has been bad for MotoGP

Well, some people get confused between what is bad for Moto GP & what is bad for their own personal enjoyment of Moto GP.

Bunyip · Jul 5, 2012

yamaka46 said:
Sorry to keep this OT, but how patronising can you be?

If you don't want to look outside the information you currently believe with a passion to be true, then I'm not sure you understand the concept of science.

However, one small point about your bolded section, here is the info about where the "97% of climate scientist agree" came from:

These were the questions asked :

https://en.wikipedia...bal_Warming.svg

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature

90% of participants (10,257 Earth scientists asked, 3146 replied) answered “risen” to question 1.

82% (10,257 Earth scientists asked, 3146 replied) answered 'yes' to question 2.

Of those with "expertise" in climate science (notice how few were chosen to get the 97% figure):

96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1.

97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

This is not the same as "CO2 will cause runaway global warming due to positive feedbacks" and those feedbacks have, BTW, not been seen in the real world.

I agree with question 1 – we are coming out of an ice age, so yes temps have increased, particularly since the LIA

I also agree with question 2, but not due to CO2 where human output is even now about 5% of the natural emissions of the planet. Also note that the question didn't mention CO2. Some of the contributing factors of human activity are things such a deforestation, particularly in rainforests, change of use of land (same thing in some ways) for more houses, roads, motorways etc.

So if I were to be honest I'd have answered these questions in the same way as the 97% of “climate scientists” because, like many surveys, the questions are rigged. Yes the planet has warmed since the last ice age, but is this A. primarily due to manmade CO2? B. is it likely to be catastrophic? Neither question was asked...

Regarding scientists in general on this, more than 31,000 scientists signed a petition in 2008 denying that man is responsible for global warming. which at the very least calls into question the "concensus" on the subject.

http://www.telegraph...al-warming.html

Plus, if you know anything at all about science, it is not done by consensus. Research Gallileo if you don't understand the reference - I can be patronising too

.

I don't trust "scientists" who appeal to authority, circumvent FOI requests, "lose" the raw data, adjust the historical data after the fact, engage in "pal review", etc, etc, any more than I trust "radio personalities or puppets of big business". I am an engineer, I research the facts, look at the scientific papers being produced on both sides and make my own mind up. The media outlets you refer to that I am allegedly getting my info from - where do you live? All the mainstream media in the UK & in Oz spout the AGW line, regardless of the fact that temperatures have not risen for 15+ years and that CO2 is plant food, so (on it's own, assuming temps do do not drop) will help in food production.

Take this statement of yours:

"Don,t forget that extreme weather ( incuding cold spells) are part of the fallout of climate change."

What research (looking into the subject, reading papers etc) have you done to make you believe this is true? And make no pretense, belief is what it is. There are no hard facts about extreme weather getting worse as temperature has increased. That is the problem for me - this is not science, it's religion and the converted sneer at those who try to look at the facts and suggest that others might like to do the same.

And you call me a mushroom....

Perhaps I have been condescending, but it is difficult not to be when people such as youself speak utter nonsence when they should know better. Particularly people like yourself......and people like Ian Plimer.

Starting at the beginning of your response , "If you don't want to look outside the information you currently believe with a passion to be true, then I'm not sure you understand the concept of science".

Well I am a scientist ( the word science appears in my degree), so this statement is a bit rich. As a scientist, do I have any expertese in the field of climate science? Well no, no more than you, apart from the fact that it appears that I do understand the scientific process, whereas It appears that you are the one that cannot. As an engineer, you cannot be stupid, but you are not trying hard enough here. (more condescention!

) I have as much expertese here as yourself, Joe Bloggs, Ian Plimer etc, BUT the difference is that I know my limitations and trust the experts. So 31,000 scientists signed a petition. Big deal! That would represent perhaps 1% or less of total scientists and would only be relevant if any of them were climate scientists. The point that I make here is very important. As Clint Eastwood once said......"You gotta know your limitations". By this, I mean , even if you are a professional, even if you are a scientist, even if you are Ian Plimer a famous geologist, unless you have expertese in that specific field , your opinion is meaningless. Its just the same as believing expert advice on say heart transplants from your dentist. From time to time I see brilliant posts on the intricacies of sound analysis from Geonard, or engineering discussions from someone who apparently isn,t Lex , and other engineers. It goes over my head. I sit back in awe and leave it to the experts. The experts.

If you had done what I had suggested, then you would have read articles by the experts, where you would have seen around 98% of them agree that RAPID climate change is real, has been measured, is significantly been influenced by human activity, and will lead to global temp rises of around 4 degrees C or more by 2100, if no action is taken. An interesting point......sure there have been significant long term temperature fluctuations over the millenia, but they have occurred over thousands or millions of years. The dinosaur extinction ocurred not only because of the Yucatan meteorite, but also because the worlds temperature rose by 3 degrees C over 3 million years. And you are unconcerned by a greater rise over less than 100 years??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Species can adapt over long periods with many generations. This will not be possible in our current short time frame. There will be mass extinctions, there will be massive loss of food producing land, and there will be a rise of tropical diseases. This is serious stuff, but while people choose to ingnore this or are misled by the media as you have, then we are in big trouble. Humans as lemmings. You underestimate the power of the media. It took 2-4 years before the majority of motogp fans understood that Stoner really was a special talent. Why? Because the majority of motogp journlalists, bloggers and fans perpetuated the story of the Ducati advantage. If we had taken more notice of the experts (people like Krop who knew they were seeing something special) , who were on the inside, who really knew what was happening, could speak directly to all the riders, and who were unbiased enough to see that CS was significantly outperforming his team-mates, .....................then we would have known the truth from the beginning. The same thing with climate change. The big rich guys have kept clouding the issue, trying to discredit the messengers, when they didn,t like the message. For instance the whole "climategate" nonsense. A few typographical errors were blown up into a full-on absurd conspiracy theory. Despite the internet providing many useful purposes, one of its biggest downsides is the fact that anybody can post their misguided crap out there, and for any non-vigilant observer the crap appears to carry as much weight as the utterances of the experts. It is easy to be deceived and you appear to be one of these. A sign of intelligence is adaptability. If you are truly intelligent, then get out of your comfort zone, stop re-reading all the stuff that comes out of your familiar information sources , and do some real reasearch. Read what the experts say. I cant repeat this often enough. Do the "scholar" search, and the truth will be revealed. When you have done that come back and kick all the condescention out of me!

(I will enjoy the pain)

Bunyip · Jul 5, 2012

J4rn0 said:
I have never bought into the theory that Valentino Rossi has been bad for MotoGP, why should I buy into this one, that is just an appendix to that theory ("Casey Stoner retires because Valentino Rossi has ruined MotoGP"). If mine is an opinion, so is yours; but the difference is that my opinion is not fabricating any arbitrary links (i.e. based merely on personal perception, likes and dislikes) between events.

Valentino has been very good for the sport, but at the same time, it has made things difficult for his competitors. Anybody that dared to beat him. Ask Max, ask Sete, ask Jorge, ask Casey. Is Casey too thin-skinned ? Maybe. But imagine if you were the one that won a world championionship, beating your idol, but still being told that your title had an asterisk after it, as Nicky had also. To say that it was only because the anointed one had bad luck or a slower bike. And then when you were sick, to say that you were really mentally fragile, not sick at all, and couldn,t cope with fighting with Vale?? Cvasey had a chip on his shoulder and it never went away. I thought that after a new title in 2012, when the majority of his detractors had to finally admit that they had got it wrong, he would feel that chip melt away. It apparently didn,t. Thats Casey , for the good or the bad, thats how it is.

Is it appropriate to criticise him for this? Maybe. I don,t think he cares any more. As Lex/Arab said, Casey doesn,t react the way the other riders do. Although a shame to see him leave , we shold rejoice that he is different. Too many sheeep......

My opinion. Surely is.......

JohnnyKnockdown · Jul 5, 2012

Bunyip said:
From time to time I see brilliant posts on the intricacies of sound analysis from Geonard, or engineering discussions from Lex(?) and other engineers. It goes over my head. I sit back in awe and leave it to the experts. The experts.

Lex is an accountant Bunyip

Bunyip · Jul 5, 2012

JohnnyKnockdown said:
Lex is an accountant Bunyip

Well ok. I forgot who it was. haha

Lex still posts alot of good stuff though.

You know what I mean, you,re just being pedantic!

.........and I,ve just corrected it. Hope you,re telling me the truth.......

Bunyip · Jul 5, 2012

And........how does he account for himself?

JohnnyKnockdown · Jul 5, 2012

Bunyip said:
You know what I mean, you,re just being pedantic!

.....

Of course (lol emoticon) f ing ipad. No emoticons

Holy .... wtf does pedantic even mean.( another imaginary lol emo here)

michaelm · Jul 5, 2012

Bunyip said:
Perhaps I have been condescending, but it is difficult not to be when people such as youself speak utter nonsence when they should know better. Particularly people like yourself......and people like Ian Plimer.

Starting at the beginning of your response , "If you don't want to look outside the information you currently believe with a passion to be true, then I'm not sure you understand the concept of science".

Well I am a scientist ( the word science appears in my degree), so this statement is a bit rich. As a scientist, do I have any expertese in the field of climate science? Well no, no more than you, apart from the fact that it appears that I do understand the scientific process, whereas It appears that you are the one that cannot. As an engineer, you cannot be stupid, but you are not trying hard enough here. (more condescention!

) I have as much expertese here as yourself, Joe Bloggs, Ian Plimer etc, BUT the difference is that I know my limitations and trust the experts. So 31,000 scientists signed a petition. Big deal! That would represent perhaps 1% or less of total scientists and would only be relevant if any of them were climate scientists. The point that I make here is very important. As Clint Eastwood once said......"You gotta know your limitations". By this, I mean , even if you are a professional, even if you are a scientist, even if you are Ian Plimer a famous geologist, unless you have expertese in that specific field , your opinion is meaningless. Its just the same as believing expert advice on say heart transplants from your dentist. From time to time I see brilliant posts on the intricacies of sound analysis from Geonard, or engineering discussions from Lex(?) and other engineers. It goes over my head. I sit back in awe and leave it to the experts. The experts.

If you had done what I had suggested, then you would have read articles by the experts, where you would have seen around 98% of them agree that RAPID climate change is real, has been measured, is significantly been influenced by human activity, and will lead to global temp rises of around 4 degrees C or more by 2100, if no action is taken. An interesting point......sure there have been significant long term temperature fluctuations over the millenia, but they have occurred over thousands or millions of years. The dinosaur extinction ocurred not only because of the Yucatan meteorite, but also because the worlds temperature rose by 3 degrees C over 3 million years. And you are unconcerned by a greater rise over less than 100 years??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Species can adapt over long periods with many generations. This will not be possible in our current short time frame. There will be mass extinctions, there will be massive loss of food producing land, and there will be a rise of tropical diseases. This is serious stuff, but while people choose to ingnore this or are misled by the media as you have, then we are in big trouble. Humans as lemmings. You underestimate the power of the media. It took 2-4 years before the majority of motogp fans understood that Stoner really was a special talent. Why? Because the majority of motogp journlalists, bloggers and fans perpetuated the story of the Ducati advantage. If we had taken more notice of the experts, who were on the inside, who really knew what was happening, could speak directly to all the riders, and who were unbiased enough to see that CS was significantly outperforming his team-mates, .....................then we would have known the truth from the beginning. The same thing with climate change. The big rich guys have kept clouding the issue, trying to discredit the messangers, when they didn,t like the message. For instance the whole "climategate" nonsense. A few typographical errors were blown up into a full-on absurd conspiracy theory. Despite the internet providing many useful purposes, one of its biggest downsides is the fact that anybody can post their misguided crap out there, and for any non-vigilant observer the crap appears to carry as much weight as the utterances of the experts. It is easy to be deceived and you appear to be one of these. A sign of intelligence is adaptability. If you are truly intelligent, then get out of your comfort zone, stop re-reading all the stuff that comes out of your familiar information sources , and do some real reasearch. Read what the experts say. I cant repeat this often enough. Do the "scholar" search, and the truth will be revealed. When you have done that come back and kick all the condescention out of me!

As you know I was more sceptical than I am now, on the basis that as yamaka says the climate has changed drastically without human aid in the past, including a sea level rise of several hundred feet since the peak of the last age, Greenland being warmer in the middle ages which was unlikely to be due to peat fires etc. My concern now from a similar background in the biological sciences is the same as yours, that if the temperature rises very rapidly giving insufficient time for adaptation the earth will abide as it has in the past but numerous species may not; I read an article about how lichen in NSW had adapted in the last ice age and there are now different but related species spread across different microclimates; as you say such adaptation cannot occur in 50 to 100 years. A decrease in the pH of the sea of -0.1 in the last century is also rather concerning biologically if true, and I know of scientists sceptical of climate change who are concerned about this.

Yamaka is correct that scientific concensus has been often incorrect in the past, the aforementioned galileo and copernicus and heliocentrism, the microbial theory of infection, and peptic ulcers being due to a bacteria called helicobacter among the examples, with the initial advocates of all these things being decried, but the people who were correct eventually proved that they were correct and the scientific establishment was incorrect scientifically, rather than just saying they disagreed. I am somewhat sceptical of modelling though (I hope climate change modelling is more accurate than economic modelling), but as you say proving the modelling is incorrect rather than saying it must be would seem the way to go, particularly if the people saying it is incorrect are liable to have their own biases, either from political agendas or being geologists employed by mining companies themselves.

What is reasonable to mention, and I would always take yamaka, one of the most honest and sensible posters on here, at his word is the actual amount of human produced CO2 in relation to other sources. If burning fossil fuels is only 5% of total CO2 production, then it would seem likely on first principles that other things are more important, and we should address cutting down forests, farming cattle etc; If you check some of the things that the luminaries of the australian murdoch press say they often end up being totally incorrect though.

digger · Jul 5, 2012

climate change hey....

digger · Jul 5, 2012

something im surprised no one has bought up (shouldnt be really...) is that one of the reasons VR left italy was because of the effect that fame had started to have on his life. Apparently it was really hard for him to even leave the house for being mobbed everywhere by crazy fans. Now, all things being equal, he probably has the same issues in the UK

Ive also heard he has also had his fair share of the media kicking the .... out of him. Im guessing in 2006 and 2007 his name would have been dragged through the mud quite a bit in the Italian press. Maybe J4rno can shed some light on this one?

I suppose everything has its good and bad points, good being shitloads of cash, ride fast bikes for a living. Bad, media issues and anything resembling a normal life dissapearing. Just remember its not just CS that cops ...., im sure most of the top riders in the world go through it at some point, Casey just got the worst of it.

michaelm · Jul 6, 2012

digger said:
something im surprised no one has bought up (shouldnt be really...) is that one of the reasons VR left italy was because of the effect that fame had started to have on his life. Apparently it was really hard for him to even leave the house for being mobbed everywhere by crazy fans. Now, all things being equal, he probably has the same issues in the UK

Ive also heard he has also had his fair share of the media kicking the .... out of him. Im guessing in 2006 and 2007 his name would have been dragged through the mud quite a bit in the Italian press. Maybe J4rno can shed some light on this one?

I suppose everything has its good and bad points, good being shitloads of cash, ride fast bikes for a living. Bad, media issues and anything resembling a normal life dissapearing. Just remember its not just CS that cops ...., im sure most of the top riders in the world go through it at some point, Casey just got the worst of it.

Is he still mainly in the UK? I am sure over the top fans are a problem even for someone who doesn't particularly mind the limelight, but I believe an incompetent accountant is said to have caused him the most significant problems including poor advice on his residential status.

thedeal · Jul 6, 2012

CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!!I

love these debates they will be telling us to stay offline soon to save energy,well mr scientist and mr engineer here is a FACT for you, we cant do anything about it,if we turned of the UK for one year, no cars,lights,farts not one solitary drop of energy consumed and not one emission put out it would make no difference as China produce our years worth in 3 weeks so turning that light of means nothing.

#22 · Jul 6, 2012

As Tim Robbins said:

"And the corporations are being all corporationy......and they make money!"

frizzle · Jul 6, 2012

JohnnyKnockdown said:
Of course (lol emoticon) f ing ipad. No emoticons

Holy .... wtf does pedantic even mean.( another imaginary lol emo here)

It does have emoticons. Get an app called Emoji free. Probably still no good for forums though.

Gaz · Jul 6, 2012

Frizzle said:
It does have emoticons. Get an app called Emoji free. Probably still no good for forums though.

...., where is my bloody mind.

I read that as EMJOY

Search

Search

Destructive Power of the Media- the end of reason.

chopperman

mad mick

#22

J4rn0

yamaka46

Goatboy

Bunyip

Bunyip

JohnnyKnockdown

Bunyip

Bunyip

JohnnyKnockdown

michaelm

digger

digger

michaelm

thedeal

#22

frizzle

Gaz

Similar threads

Recent Discussions