Stoner critical of Hayden

BarryMachine · Jun 18, 2011

No wonder Neighbours sold so well!! ......... is there an episode in all this?

BarryMachine · Jun 18, 2011

Kropotkin said:
All those Australian fans hoping for the dream team of Burgess and Stoner getting together at Honda can forget about it, it really isn't going to happen.

I think Many are glad that never happened in the end.

He's fiercely protective of his crew -

I started a post about his crew ....... hoping this would become apparent. One has to remember that all of them have been in some way responsible for the most wins since they became a team/crew

stiefel · Jun 18, 2011

michaelm said:
Stoner's attitude to this is entirely consistent, if overblown as david is saying. Whilst I am sure having nice laps ruined annoys him and is part of what underlies his attitude, and that his attitude was also partly formed because he got fined for accidentally blocking dani pedrosa's line when he (stoner ) was a nobody in 2006 when no other rider has to my knowledge been fined since, I am sure he genuinely thinks he is on a safety crusade. This is after all what he says when asked as david reports, and he is famous for saying what he thinks.

He also seems to have a scale for such things, with deliberately rather than accidentally being on the race line a worse offence, and riders seldom deliberately dawdle on the racing line in races, perhaps something to do with the rules

. In a race if there is something wrong with your bike you immediately have to get off the racing line, and if you continue particularly if dropping oil or debris are blackflagged. I unfortunately (or fortunately depending on pov) don't remember back to when there were enough bikes and/or a sufficient performance differential for bikes to be lapped in this class, but in most forms of motorsport in this circumstance when riders/bikes are merely slow rather than disabled blue flags are waved to require them to get out of the way. I am not aware that practice kilometres per hour are in any way slower or less dangerous than race kmh either.

Not necessarily in your case, but from my biased stoner fan perspective this is mostly about there being few remaining avenues of attack on stoner, as illustrated by hawkdriver construing me pointing out that rossi had said something about being impeded by a slower rider in the warm-up at silverstone as an attack on valentino rather than an example that stoner's concern about the issue is not solitary. I didn't watch the warm-up but I think the incident may have resulted in valentino putting the bike down, which I would have thought rather makes stoner's point.

As far as the clear track thing, it seems pretty obvious now that the ducati needs clear track to be gotten through corners in any way fast, with valentino testifying that the thing just won't turn, so getting to the lead quickly and attempting to skeedaddle was stoner's only winning tactic on that bike, and winning seems to me to be what he is not unreasonably about. Now that he is on a bike that allows for mutiple tactical approaches he is relaxed about not being in the lead early, and sometimes bides his time for at least few laps before making clean, precise and decisive passes, often on corners and against identically equipped riders (seeing these are mainly the ones up with him

) rather disproving previous contentions about his ability to pass as he is disproving so many other things.

Alzheimers setting in early, Michael? Last race....

(just messing with you)

Bunyip · Jun 18, 2011

Jumkie said:
This is by far one of your worst posts. Casey's words were not measured what so ever, and left nothing to interpretation as you say. Despite you and others trying to speak for him, and tell us what he really meant, I think Casey was perfectly clear. He totally ...... up, and you trying to gloss it over and spin it is just nonsense. It takes more of a man to just say he ...... up. The guy is human, and makes mistakes. You remind me of of some who on many occasions have tried to spin Rossi’s comments, when the comments conspicuously speak for themselves. Casey said a very stupid thing to the media about a particular competitor he had no business of indicting. Your false analogy is not even cute at best. Along with the other fallacies you employ here. Ironically, it’s these that you have argued against when debating others when the topic has turned to Stoner. I suppose using them yourself was easy enough, since you’ve had your fair share of deflecting them. Take your pick:

Denying the correlative…

Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy)…

Red herring: a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic …

False analogy: an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited…

Ad hominem…

All of it, Non sequitur.

"FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU TAKE ANYTHING I SAY ABOUT RACING TOO SERIOUSLY, THAT'S CLEARLY YOUR FAULT! If I get a rise out of you, know that I'm laughing my ... off.

SECOND, I'm only right 50% of the time, "

so says Jumkie,s postscript. So what is real and what is designed to get a rise.......?

Is this a serious thread, because if you set the precedence of ambiguity of intent , then it can backfire badly...................

I admittedly used irony rather poorly, but as a best short term attempted antitode to confected rage.

False analogy........cute?

Well, to tell you the truth I WAS highly offended by that comment and my interpretation is valid. It equally equates to the tiresome and self-important reprise of the god-bothering victor proclaiming devine intervention on their part for their victory, inadvertently implying that the vanquished were somehow unworthy of victory. These kind of statements may appear innocuous, but are deeply offensive to secular observers. You appear so blinded by your worship of one N. Hayden, that you appear incapable of impartiality with matters pertaining to this particular personage.

I will however give you due credit for your tireless efforts in revealing the true situation regarding Caseys true abilities and helping to debunk the many myths, even though, I fear, such proclomations appear to be heading for oblivion. I agree that Casey has overeached with his reactions, but I am also trying , through admittedly sub-standard irony, been attempting to steer you away from psychotic role- reversal.

Which Jumkie is the real Jumkie- funny pissed Jumkie

- Jumkie on a crusade, willing to beat down all adversaries through sheer weight of sentences, or

-balanced, wise , forgiving Jumkie

Your own response will indelibly mark your future. Be careful what you wish for..........................

stiefel · Jun 18, 2011

#Warning! May contain strong language!#

Somehow, I have this feeling that there are a few Powersliders (not naming names) that blew there loads reading this thread. Which is probably a good thing, because recent race results probably did not provide great ....... material for them and they were stuck posting on this board with blue balls. Well, that would be a good explanations for the quality of some of their posts, anyway.

Joking aside, it's a bit like listening to multiple Chris Crockers here: "Leave Nicky alone!", "Leave Casey alone!", "Leave Valentino alone!"....But that's fine, that's passion for the sport and passion for the riders. And that's why I feel you guys should give Jumkie a bit of break here. He's always said that he is first and foremost a supporter of Hayden and I even recall one particular post where he mentioned that, should there ever occur a rift between Stoner and Hayden, he'd side firmly with Nicky. I think (and I hope Jumkie will forgive me for making this presumption) that a good part of of Jumkie's love for the sport is intertwined with his support for #69. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. For me, it's the same thing with Stoner. For the past years, a great deal of my enthusiasm for Motogp was linked to me supporting him. I loved this sport before Stoner was in it, and I will still be into it after he leaves. But right now, that's where I am at, and I suspect that even though not everyone is willing to own up to that, it is like that for a lot of us no matter what rider we support.

As far as the actual matter is concerned, there's nothing much for me to add that hasn't already said by the usual suspects, michalm, Gaz, Krop and a few others. I wish these guys wouldn't post so much, I never get a chance to voice an original opinion here.

Austin · Jun 18, 2011

Talpa said:
Then less than 12 months later we had 'Tummygate'...........2 broken ankles- no sympathy needed there at all, but a tummyache! now that's a different story! Then the ensuing fishing trip on Ducati's Visa card-its a wonder the bike is still Farcked!

Are you suggesting Stoner's summer sabbatical two years ago is to blame for Ducati's inability to develop a motorcycle to this day? Even with JB and Rossi at the helm?

Kropotkin said:
My job is to try and make sense of what happens and what people say, and run it past the filter of other knowledge and inputs, such as body language. The key is to pick out what counts, and discard what is irrelevant. That is a matter of judgement, and others may feel my judgement is at fault. That is their prerogative.

Keep up the good work, man.

Bunyip said:
Well, to tell you the truth I WAS highly offended by that comment and my interpretation is valid. It equally equates to the tiresome and self-important reprise of the god-bothering victor proclaiming devine intervention on their part for their victory, inadvertently implying that the vanquished were somehow unworthy of victory. These kind of statements may appear innocuous, but are deeply offensive to secular observers.

Organized religion plays no part in my life. That said, I don't understand what secular and believer has to do with it. Does Nicky's ramblings about being blessed grow tiresome? Absolutely. However, I will say I prefer it to over-the-top arrogance in one's self. But to take offense to that comment assumes that because Nicky perceives himself as a good person, that he perceives all others to be bad. It also excludes all the good things that have happened to all those riders before and since.

michaelm · Jun 18, 2011

Jumkie said:
Kropo, not only do you have a fantastic site, but you may also have a future as Casey’s spokesman. With all do respect, telling us what Stoner may have been “thinking” as a deviation of his actual words is actually not uncommon, but it is curious when one considers the source quote is so declarative.

We are still talking about the following quote right?

Stoner said. "It is frustrating as hell. I could understand if he accidentally got in my way but that was blatantly on purpose and that frustrated me a fair bit coming from a rider like Nicky, who I had a fair bit of respect for, so it's disappointing." Casey Stoner

Thanks for attempting to tell us what ‘you think’ Casey ‘may’ have been thinking (honestly, I do that often too), however, if you are right, it quite a deviation from what he actually said. Can we agree on that? You seem so surprised that one would conclude Stoner’s statement questioned ‘integrity’? When Stoner’s indictment here is fairly clear, and qualified it twice, first saying he could understand if it was “accidental” then, just in case somebody might want to tell us what he ‘really thought’ he left no more room for interpretation by saying it was “blatantly on purpose”. Still, it seems that wasn’t enough. Poor Stoner, even when he’s trying to be perfectly clear, with no uncertain terms, there’s still somebody ready to tell us what he ‘really’ thinks.

Kropo, based on your superb ability to transform expository writing into eloquent poetry, I think you might appreciate that words matter. Casey’s regard for Nicky wasn’t imagined, as he has stated several times he liked and respected Nicky and, particularly important, counted him as a friend. So coming out so harshly is what I find noteworthy, hence my take. Even when one of your friends ‘screws up’ (and we haven’t even debated the merit on this specific alleged balking, which for the record I think barely has standing, but not much, certainly not of the Randy Depuniet variety) you don’t go hammering him with a sledge hammer, in public no less. For the most part, when you think a friend has screwed up, one’s response is understandably measured…because he’s your friend. Stoner’s words were not measured in the least, quite decidedly the opposite. Was it not? Or was he ‘thinking it’ but just allowing his mouth to conduct a verbal outburst?

Here was Nicky response

"But I was on an out lap, and with these bikes on cold tires it's not easy. It's a laugh -- he carried on for a whole lap.” Nicky Hayden

See that second sentence? So Casey didn’t let it go with a “get your head out of your ...” wave. Which, I don’t have a problem with, heat of the moment type stuff. I observed Stoner wave at Nicky in real time. Then I watched on the track screen Stoner toy with Nicky letting him pass, then overtake, and giving him the helmet stare version of the evil eye. If safety was the concern, he forgot about it as he was ‘seeing red.’ One might say something similar to ‘not thinking clearly on the track’ (ironically, what he’s agree about). It’s was still a hot track, his antics were by his own standards, inappropriate. But I suppose this would best be a conversation for Stoner, as I don’t think you’re particularly making an argument of what constitutes proper track behavior.

Wait, was Casey Stoner accusing Nicky of trying to get a “tow”? Are you familiar with denying the correlative? I understand from his quote that he was upset at the “blatant on purpose” ‘balking’, because he was on a fast lap. To me, Casey seemed upset that his fast lap was screwed up, not so much that anybody was looking for a tow or a concern for safety. When he complained about Randy, he was clearly talking about safety, as he mentioned the speed differential was scary, this incident wasn’t of that variety, but rather of the variety that he met up with Nicky while he was on a fast lap and the lap was spoiled. Its here on this thread and the ether of the post-spectator-perspective raising the concern that he was harsh because of “safety” though, its a deviation from his quote.

Fair enough jumkie, you make a strong (impregnable actually) case as is your wont, with details both of the incident (which I haven't seen) and nicky's response of which I was unaware. I take you at your word both that stoner's behaviour was indefensible on this occasion, and that nicky was seriously pissed off , and justifiably so.

Stoner definitely should apologise to nicky then, and needs to get over himself on this issue, and at the very least restrict his attention to incidents actually involving danger.

I speak from a position of ignorance obviously, but I am fluent in both australian and stonerese, and from this point of view I suspect david's interpretation is correct ie that stoner was being a .... about this issue as is his habit, rather than doubting nicky's integrity in general or suspecting nicky of having sinister intent towards him in general, and was referring to nicky's presence on the racing line not being accidental rather than anything else, although from what you say he was incorrect even in this contention.

michaelm · Jun 18, 2011

Jumkie said:
With all due respect Mike, your take reminded me of J4rno telling me what Rossi really meant. I'll admit, you're in a much better position to detect the nuances of a fellow Aussie, but I think Casey didn't leave much to the imagination. It seems he was most annoyed with getting a fast lap screwed up, not the "dawdling" on the race line, as its been turned into. If Stoner is the standard of raceline speed, then EVERBODY is dawdling on the race line. If Stoner pronounces some dawdling or balking during practice, is it always true? So pretty much every time he passes somebody, the rider being overtaken is then "dawdling". Randy clearly put Casey in danger, he had a point, and ironically he was fined while Randy got off scandalously easy. When Rossi tried getting a tow, no balking happened, thought Stoner was equally annoyed. My friend, every rider has an out lap, so are they now supposed to be relegated off the line? You mention it several times as if Nicky actually put Stoner in danger and giving Stoner's claim legitimacy as its a "safety" concern, reminds me of the TSA agents at the airport using “security” to advance their petty bullying. There’s got to be a point where we say, yo, nobody is balking you, they’re just slower than you. Not trying to e funny here, maybe they should fix a red light on all the bikes and riders should be required to turn it on while on an out lap, something similar to the flashing red light in F1. Or all out lap riders should be required to deploy a mirror until their tires warm up? The last one was me trying to be funny. I suppose it’s a very fine line, but if the guy keeps calling everybody out, at what point do we say, hey man its not them, its you.

See my previous reply which was before I read this, as I said I acknowledge your argument is both correct and just.

michaelm · Jun 18, 2011

stiefel said:
Alzheimers setting in early, Michael? Last race....

(just messing with you)

I hadn't forgotten this, but (perhaps fortunately for the sake of my line of argument

) didn't notice whether blue flags were waved or not.

Keshav · Jun 18, 2011

Talpa said:
right so, the only rider to have been fined for dangerous behaviour recently is..........you guessed it!

Get a grip mate.....you would be genuinly mortified to hear most racing professionals comments on your hero. Even some of his greatest supporters here are changing their tune on his ....... behaviour, seems it will take older dogs longer to learn new tricks whilst continuing to look rather stoopid.

Kindly tell us all what precisely is your source for this alleged antipathy in the paddock towards Stoner.

Your constant pretense at having this inside knowledge is really wearisome. If you can't satisfactorily

document this - then you need to stop promoting this drivel.

Re: this whole tempest in a tea cup, I would point out that even best friends in heated moments will bad-mouth each other, and frequently, a short time later, put it in the past. The pressure that these riders experience doubtless expresses itself in a variety of ways. Some play head games like Rossi, some like Pedrosa and Lorenzo crawl into their shell, get very quiet and avoid looking at the camera, some suppress their real feelings getting all, "aw shucks" and some say what they mean, and yes... even mis-speak on occasion in the heat of the moment.

I don't imagine Nicky is hanging onto any big resentment over this. He knows what it's like to be under the magnifying glass of the press and what a huge pain in the ... it is to constantly have to be statesman-like. Honestly - I have thought for the longest time that Nicky has seemed depressed; not simply because his circumstances and results warrant it (and they do) but because he's been brought up to be a polite Southern Gentleman - which precludes his honestly expressing the anger he feels over various slings and arrows he's suffered since the end of 2006. For my part, I'd like to see Nicky put aside all the politeness and channel his inner-redneck competitiveness.

Personally - I feel that Casey is emotionally healthier for his being able to honestly express what he feels rather than making some ........ pretense at being as placid as some swami in a cave. It's a lot more honest than Rossi with all his clownish shucking and jiving and pretending in essence that everything is under control. It ain't.

michaelm · Jun 18, 2011

Austin said:
Are you suggesting Stoner's summer sabbatical two years ago is to blame for Ducati's inability to develop a motorcycle to this day? Even with JB and Rossi at the helm?

Yes, and ducati specifically tried to develop a bike to suit rossi, and it is hard to see that stoner could have or would have been asked to advise them in this matter. Rossi could equally be accused of not helping yamaha to develop this year's bike for lorenzo, perhaps more so since he very likely knows what suits lorenzo, perhaps more than lorenzo does on current evidence. I wouldn't have developed it for lorenzo if I was him though

.

If nicky is a god-botherer I have never noticed it, and hence good luck to him as he is obviously not unduly strident about it.

BarryMachine · Jun 18, 2011

Keshav said:
Kindly tell us all what precisely is your source for this alleged antipathy in the paddock towards Stoner.

Your constant pretense at having this inside knowledge is really wearisome. If you can't satisfactorily

document this - then you need to stop promoting this .........

But thats Talpa's whole agenda!!

One thing we can be sure of is that everything Talpa says is 200% incorrect, ie. it could be more arse-about

povol · Jun 18, 2011

Personally, i think the boppers need to try again. Stoner boners just doesnt seem to upset Stoner fans like bopper does a Rossi fan. I think the reason is, a phallus has always been the symbol of male power and virility, whereas bopper signifies a squealing prepubescent fan girl. Try coming up with something that is truly insulting that doesnt rhyme.

chopperman · Jun 18, 2011

michaelm said:
Yes, and ducati specifically tried to develop a bike to suit rossi, and it is hard to see that stoner could have or would have been asked to advise them in this matter. Rossi could equally be accused of not helping yamaha to develop this year's bike for lorenzo, perhaps more so since he very likely knows what suits lorenzo, perhaps more so than lorenzo on current evidence. I wouldn't have developed it for lorenzo if I was him though

.

If nicky is a god-botherer I have never noticed it, and hence good luck to him as he is obviously not unduly strident about it.

Ive not noticed nicky being a god botherer either but you know what these southern yanks are like

Now gibbers, he was one creepy god botherer

BarryMachine · Jun 18, 2011

povol said:
Personally, i think the boppers need to try again. Stoner boners just doesnt seem to upset Stoner fans like bopper does a Rossi fan. I think the reason is, a phallus has always been the symbol of male power and virility, whereas bopper signifies a squealing prepubescent fan girl. Try coming up with something that is truly insulting that doesnt rhyme.

AAAWWWW! way to give up the game Pov.!!!

Goatboy · Jun 18, 2011

povol said:
Personally, i think the boppers need to try again. Stoner boners just doesnt seem to upset Stoner fans like bopper does a Rossi fan. I think the reason is, a phallus has always been the symbol of male power and virility, whereas bopper signifies a squealing prepubescent fan girl. Try coming up with something that is truly insulting that doesnt rhyme.

Or it's that they all want to .... Stoner so they don't see it as an insult.

Tom · Jun 18, 2011

Jumkie said:
However, that was NOT the premise of my post, now was it? I had put in bold the part that Casey accuses Nicky of “intentionally” getting in his way, that is, calling into question his integrity.

Well put yourself in Casey's shoes: A well experienced and respected rider is cruising the track, sees you coming and blocks you. Casey isn't realistically going to think that Nicky (a world champion) has just made an error of judgement/isn't smart enough to know what to do, so the only other possibility is that Nicky has just chosen to not bother getting out of the way, i.e. getting in the way on purpose.

If i was you i wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Casey has questioned Hayden's integrity as a man and so on. Imagine this, say one of your mates gets on your nerves one evening at the pub, you might say to him the following week 'you were being an ....... on friday night' but he's still your friend, while you might say of someone else that you do not respect 'oh that Josh is an .......'. There is a big difference.

Jumkie · Jun 18, 2011

Kropo, thanks for your well thought out reply.

Steifel, I think you're incorrect in attributing my particular take as mere tribalism. May I direct you to my reply to Bunny below. You can skip to the part where I mention how it has nothing to do with tribalism, right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of who you root for.

Michaelm, thanks, excellent post, we are on the same page, though I don't think were on different ones to begin with. I suppose there's many way to skin a chicken.

Jumkie · Jun 18, 2011

Bunyip said:
"FIRST OF ALL…

SECOND, I'm only right 50% of the time, "

so says Jumkie,s postscript. So what is real and what is designed to get a rise.......?

It seems you’ve covered all your bases, as you should have asked your question in a mirror. If you are proposing that your original post where you make the false analogy was simply intended to get a rise, then it seems the rest of your post trying to support it deviates from your intention. So I’ll response in kind. If your post was meant to simply get a rise, then it failed, because my response was measured and unemotional. I simply called out your false analogy, and here you've admitted below you didn't intend it get a reaction but were genuinely "offended" at Nicky's suggestion that everybody else was a "bad" person. Btw, I wonder how much support you would get with you suggestion that Nicky saying "good things happen to good people" mean everybody else was "bad". <Cue up crickets churping> Most of the time when you get a rise out of somebody they go into an insulting tirade. My reply to you was to simply point out that, it deployed an array of fallacies. And I listed them for you.

Bunyip said:
Is this a serious thread, because if you set the precedence of ambiguity of intent , then it can backfire badly...................

I think your previous post demonstrated this…though you say it was intended for banter. Perhaps I need to refine my banter detector.

Bunyip said:
I admittedly used irony rather poorly, but as a best short term attempted antitode to confected rage.

False analogy........cute?

Wait, you admit you deployed irony poorly; but, according the start of this post, your intention was to get a rise out of me? That is to deploy irony poorly in hopes of getting a reaction? Oops, so which is it Bunny, you intended to get a rise or you didn’t? so what was you point in highlighting my signature? You're either asking us to take you serious or not. Your web is getting mighty tricky to keep straight. I personally think you didn’t intend to get a rise, I think you deployed a false analogy, in hope of making a point to justify Casey’s comments, and you admitted to it below. Once you didn’t get traction, you turned to the ‘I’m just messing with you’ card.

Bunyip said:
Well, to tell you the truth I WAS highly offended by that comment and my interpretation is valid. It equally equates to the tiresome and self-important reprise of the god-bothering victor proclaiming devine intervention on their part for their victory, inadvertently implying that the vanquished were somehow unworthy of victory. These kind of statements may appear innocuous, but are deeply offensive to secular observers.

Your admission betrays you. So now you’ve abandoned the idea that you were just trying to get a rise, and have admitted your post was actually read correctly, you did make a false analogy. All in one post you go from, oh I was just meadding with you to get a reaction...to...no, I was serious. So then I was right, not only were you denying the correlative (that's a fallacy), but went on to use the fallacy of quoting out of context (as you admit you were somehow offended by Nicky, to suggest it was a relevant analogy to Stoner's ridiculous outburst on Hayden). Which as a whole attempted to distract the audience by deviating from the topic, this is called Red herring Bunny. Much of it amounting to classical, Non sequitur. Red herring: a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic.

Bunyip said:
You appear so blinded by your worship of one N. Hayden, that you appear incapable of impartiality with matters pertaining to this particular personage.

I see you’d like to continue with Ad Hominem (insult). You attack me as “blind”, that is a fallacy, the least sophisticate of all of them. You’ve also incorrectly assigned it to mere tribalism (that is, rooting for your side). Casey’s comments and my reaction is not a question of who supports who, it’s a question of whether his comments were becoming & suitable on their own merit. I’ve already made the distinction, saying he felt Nicky had screwed up his lap was well enough, saying he had “blatantly done it on purpose” (keep in mind his previous sentence leaving no room for interpretation and concluded it with his change in respect for Nicky). That is preposterous, and backstabbing, and totally unnecessarily harsh attack on a friend. Those who have friends understand the idea of how loathsome it is to backstab or rack a friend through the coals in public. Who respects that/ Who here thinks that is part of the catalog of "straight talk"? So no, it’s not a matter of tribalism here; it’s a matter of what is principled and generally accepted measure given to an ally.

Though your reply here is actually in keeping with Casey’s disregard for such a principle. Nobody likes people like that, regardless of whom they root for; it’s a human principle of amity and goodwill. Casey was not measured what so ever, that is plainly repugnant to most socially apt people. It has nothing to do with who roots or doesn’t root for him. It has all to do with civility and camaraderie toward a fellow. Simply put, you don't talk .... about a buddy like you would talk about an enemy. You don't go saying something is intentionally deceitful, when "intent" in this case is hardly provable. its bad form and in bad taste. Very similar to your response to me actually.

Bunyip said:
I will however give you due credit for your tireless efforts in revealing the true situation regarding Caseys true abilities and helping to debunk the many myths, even though, I fear, such proclomations appear to be heading for oblivion. I agree that Casey has overeached with his reactions, but I am also trying , through admittedly sub-standard irony, been attempting to steer you away from psychotic role- reversal.

Again, you’re incorrect in assigning this as tribalism. It NOT a matter of rooting for somebody, it is a matter of what is right and wrong. Those “myths” you speak of, they were not debated by me because I root for Stoner, but because they were simply myths. Do you see the distinction? I don’t need to root for somebody to ascertain what is right and wrong, as the arguments stand on their own merit. It seems ridiculous that one would have to root for somebody to debunk obvious myths. You don’t need to “steer” me one way or the other, this changes nothing about how I’ve perceived racing, it does however affect how I perceived Stoner’s mind set. But as I said, we all make mistakes when speaking. It’s understandable that our words will betray in an unguarded moment. I also know that we are apt to letting slip thoughts which reflect our heart in a heat of a moment too, which can sometimes blunder out an ugly side of us.

Bunyip' timestamp='1308399002' post='283252 said:
Which Jumkie is the real Jumkie- funny pissed Jumkie

- Jumkie on a crusade, willing to beat down all adversaries through sheer weight of sentences, or

-balanced, wise , forgiving Jumkie

Your own response will indelibly mark your future. Be careful what you wish for..........................

Your suggestion, doesn’t seem very honest, it smacks of Ad Hominem (attacking the poster); you see, I can speculate on "intent" too. I am all of these facets of my character, I’m sometimes funny, pissed, crusading, and hope sometimes I’m balanced, wise and forgiving. I am all of the Jumkies you mention and many more, some worse and some not so bad.

This topic was easy enough to discuss, but nothing on Powerslide is that way, and its what I like about it. I think it was Bigbang that quipped; “Ten pages?” He had me laughing. Yes, of course. I would direct you to Frizzle’s response, which in my estimation is the best of all baring none. He basically said Stoner’s comments were ridiculous and made himself look like a ......... And that he should probably apologize and learn from it. That’s really the essence of it, nothing more. Who among us hasn’t said something dumb? I raise my hand in guilt. The problem comes when we don’t recognize it. As you and a few others have tried to gloss it over, then when called on it, spin a web and continuing digging. Even if we were to chalk it up to Casey being Casey, can you see that’s actually a bad thing?

I’ll conclude my rant with the following; these debates are of no consequence. It’s not important. It’s only a vehicle to pass the time. Its Saturday morning, and I had ample of it. We come on here to talk and debate, praise, insult, learn, exchange, banter and all of the rest. Nobody should take anything to heart, as you pointed out from my signature. It’s nothing more than a pastime. However, it has produced some of the best friendships I’ve been fortunate enough be a part of, and this is the real value here. You don't screw your friends with unmeasured reactions. Its easy to say something out of line losing sight of what's important and what actually matters. This should be the come away, as life can quickly put things into perspective if we lose sight of this fact.

stiefel · Jun 18, 2011

Jumkie said:
Kropo, thanks for your well thought out reply.

Steifel, I think you're incorrect in attributing my particular take as mere tribalism. May I direct you to my reply to Bunny below. You can skip to the part where I mention how it has nothing to do with tribalism, right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of who you root for.

Michaelm, thanks, excellent post, we are on the same page, though I don't think were on different ones to begin with. I suppose there's many way to skin a chicken.

In that case, I once apologize for making presumptions about you. I did not intend to belittle your argument.

Edit: ...., I shouldn't post while drinking wine. The second sentence above actually read 'I intend to belittle your argument' before I edited it.

Stoner critical of Hayden

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

BarryMachine

BarryMachine

stiefel

Bunyip

stiefel

Austin

Dr. Gonzo

michaelm

michaelm

michaelm

Keshav

michaelm

BarryMachine

povol

chopperman

BarryMachine

Goatboy

The Worlds Forgotten Boy

Tom

Jumkie

Jumkie

stiefel

Similar threads

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions