The Untouchables

Keshav said:

You're the first one to resort to ad hominem attacks. So noted.

Click to expand...

Actually I called your character into question as it pertains to your ability to truthfully answer, read, and acknowledge things in a debate.

I debunked your arguments as bogus.

Try again.

Dr No said:

?
Eh?
I'm on the fence about this?
Oh, I understand. Unless I'm frothing at the mouth in confected outrage, I'm a fence sitter?
Thank you for your role as Arbitrator of Acceptable Responses. Your tireless work is much appreciated.

Click to expand...

JPSLotus said:

Actually I called your character into question as it pertains to your ability to truthfully answer, read, and acknowledge things in a debate.

I debunked your arguments as bogus.

Try again.

Click to expand...

As I said, I don't recognize you as having any moral authority to make judgement calls about my person.

Or as we used to say in school, You're not the boss of me.

You JP - are just another punter on the interweb like the rest of us.

Jarno. My apologies for initially insulting you for starting this thread. I was dead wrong thinking the topic had been beaten to death.
Apparently, there was quite a bit more beating to do. It has been highly entertaining and enlightening seeing you guys defend Jorges title and exposing the weasel nature of his detractor. Carry on gang

Keshav said:

I've said nothing derogatory about Lorenzo.

Nobody can prove

I haven't read anything where Rossi made accusations about MM at Valencia. The only accusations by him that I am aware of were pertaining to PI and Sepang. So I am not in fact supporting any allegation made by Rossi. It was a personal observation.

.

Click to expand...

........, ........, and more ......... if you have read this and other threads since the end of the season, which you have, you know damn good and well Rossi made inflammatory comments after Valencia regarding MM protecting Lorenzo. You are the backstrock champion of the world my man.

Keshav said:

As I said, I don't recognize you as having any moral authority to make judgement calls about my person.

Or as we used to say in school, You're not the boss of me.

You JP - are just another punter on the interweb like the rest of us.

Click to expand...

I don't need moral authority.

Your behavior is the evidence that dictates the assessment of a lack of character that you possess.

Let me know how that line of thought holds up if you ever find yourself in a court room. Tell the judge that you don't recognize him as having any moral authority to make judgment calls about your character. You'll get laughed out of the court and found guilty when the evidence shows you are guilty.

JPSLotus said:

I don't need moral authority.

Your behavior is the evidence that dictates the assessment of a lack of character that you possess.

Let me know how that line of thought holds up if you ever find yourself in a court room. Tell the judge that you don't recognize him as having any moral authority to make judgment calls about your character. You'll get laughed out of the court and found guilty when the evidence shows you are guilty.

Click to expand...

If this was a court of law, it would have been the shortest trial in history of mankind. Mr Kesh, present your evidence. Uh uh your honor, i dont actually have any evidence, just an opinion based on what someone else said. MR Kesh, you case is dismissed.

Dr No said:

?
Eh?
I'm on the fence about this?
Oh, I understand. Unless I'm frothing at the mouth in confected outrage, I'm a fence sitter?
Thank you for your role as Arbitrator of Acceptable Responses. Your tireless work is much appreciated.

Click to expand...

May I use your words?

In your effort to refute me, you completely missed my point, Dr. No. Perhaps read my post again?

There were only two sentences in my post which you overreacted to, lets examine them.

1. "Except you buddy". Me acknowledging you have resisted arguing the debate.

It was a compliment. But now I take it back seeing your 'intent' that you clarified in your haste to 'refute' me. So it appears your intention was to chime in on your high horse then. We are so weak to carry on this debate in a virtual space designed to do just that. Given that we've had both sides willing to present and defend their position.

2. "The Great Docapocalypse has not affected fence riders." Back up a bit, You had just offered a rare compliment to a post of mine, clearly I'm aware you are on my side of the debate. So my first sentence (#1) was an attempt to return the favor of your compliment. By acknowledging, you have resisted, while me, I have not been as wise. But as I said, now that I see you meant to take a dig, well then f'- you buddy. However, the second sentence (#2) was to respond to your point that the Docapocalypse has separated the two sides in a titanic struggle, 'except fence riders' they (not you) are enjoying relative freedom from the debate.

How will you respond? Will you say, oh crap Jum, I miss read it, my bad. Or will you say, nah I don't 'believe' you, I (Dr.No) had made up my mind what you (Jum) meant. Which is actually fascinating, because this is exactly what is at the core of this debate. People are looking at Marc's race at Valencia, and had beforehand decided what his intent was (apparently not good faith) despite his reasonable explination. Its why preconceived notions can have a profound affect on our interpretation of what's in front of us.

Also, let me add Doc, by you describing responses in this debate as frothing, you're doubling down on your preconceived notion. Which is why you also illicited a response by others (which ironically you felt was a misinterpretation).

JohnnyKnockdown said:

Jarno. My apologies for initially insulting you for starting this thread. I was dead wrong thinking the topic had been beaten to death.
Apparently, there was quite a bit more beating to do. It has been highly entertaining and enlightening seeing you guys defend Jorges title and exposing the weasel nature of his detractor. Carry on gang

Click to expand...

Well - so much for the alleged truce and promises of no insulting or inflammatory behavior.

povol said:

........, ........, and more ......... if you have read this and other threads since the end of the season, which you have, you know damn good and well Rossi made inflammatory comments after Valencia regarding MM protecting Lorenzo. You are the backstrock champion of the world my man.

Click to expand...

Wow Pov, that was so eloquently put and of course you can back it up. Naturally you know what I have and have not read. You are omniscient right? That's how you know I'm a secret Muslim as well I expect.

Jumkie said:

May I use your words?

In your effort to refute me, you completely missed my point, Dr. No. Perhaps read my post again?

There were only two sentences in my post which you overreacted to, lets examine them.

1. "Except you buddy". Me acknowledging you have resisted arguing the debate.

It was a compliment. But now I take it back seeing your 'intent' that you clarified in your haste to 'refute' me. So it appears your intention was to chime in on your high horse then. We are so weak to carry on this debate in a virtual space designed to do just that. Given that we've had both sides willing to present and defend their position.

2. "The Great Docapocalypse has not affected fence riders." Back up a bit, You had just offered a rare compliment to a post of mine, clearly I'm aware you are on my side of the debate. So my first sentence (#1) was an attempt to return the favor of your compliment. By acknowledging, you have resisted, while me, I have not been as wise. But as I said, now that I see you meant to take a dig, well then f'- you buddy. However, the second sentence (#2) was to respond to your point that the Docapocalypse has separated the two sides in a titanic struggle, 'except fence riders' they (not you) are enjoying relative freedom from the debate.

How will you respond? Will you say, oh crap Jum, I miss read it, my bad. Or will you say, nah I don't 'believe' you, I (Dr.No) had made up my mind what you (Jum) meant. Which is actually fascinating, because this is exactly what is at the core of this debate. People are looking at Marc's race at Valencia, and had beforehand decided what his intent was (apparently not good faith) despite his reasonable explination. Its why preconceived notions can have a profound affect on our interpretation of what's in front of us.

Also, let me add Doc, by you describing responses in this debate as frothing, you're doubling down on your preconceived notion. Which is why you also illicited a response by others (which ironically you felt was a misinterpretation).

Click to expand...

How will I respond? With neither of your suggestions.

Your tiresome screeds, full of prolixity and hyperbole, are not sufficiently entertaining to me as I sit here bored on a grey Detroit afternoon waiting for a mate to come and pick me up from my ........ hotel.
I even missed the ....... streaming of the Superprestigio.
Ichiban Kirin time, methinks

Dr No said:

How will I respond? With neither of your suggestions.

Your tiresome screeds, full of prolixity and hyperbole, are not sufficiently entertaining to me as I sit here bored on a grey Detroit afternoon waiting for a mate to come and pick me up from my ........ hotel.
I even missed the ....... streaming of the Superprestigio.
Ichiban Kirin time, methinks

Click to expand...

Takes a special kinda man to admit he was wrong. Now I know what side of the ledger to place you in.

Keshav said:

Well - so much for the alleged truce and promises of no insulting or inflammatory behavior.

Click to expand...

Trying to make this worse are you? He just stated his opinion. Is this what we missed out on when we were gone? Is this is the harmonic forum you always talk about? Now excuse me I have some popcorn to finish eating.

JPSLotus said:

I don't need moral authority.

Your behavior is the evidence that dictates the assessment of a lack of character that you possess.

Let me know how that line of thought holds up if you ever find yourself in a court room. Tell the judge that you don't recognize him as having any moral authority to make judgment calls about your character. You'll get laughed out of the court and found guilty when the evidence shows you are guilty.

Click to expand...

povol said:

If this was a court of law, it would have been the shortest trial in history of mankind. Mr Kesh, present your evidence. Uh uh your honor, i dont actually have any evidence, just an opinion based on what someone else said. MR Kesh, you case is dismissed.

Click to expand...

Buy this is not a court of law. In a court of law one is entitled to a jury of ones peers. And neither of you qualify as that.

You two are just two punters on the internet. You can make all the arch pronouncements you want, and all I do is laugh at you because it's all just empty talk. You really should learn to not take yourselves so seriously. I certainly don't.

Jumkie said:

Ah yes, you know it well. You wrote the book. I'm sure you'll recall the chapter titled: J4rn0's Logical Fallacies. I bought the book to suss out the ......... Its been a great read buddy. I see many of your favorite fallacies being used: appeal to sympathy, strawman, appeal to pity, deflection, appeal to authority, etc.

Click to expand...

I bow to the BS expert! :giggle:

Keshav said:

Well - so much for the alleged truce and promises of no insulting or inflammatory behavior.

Click to expand...

Dear Sir.
I have asked you more than once to refrain from any sort of contact with me. That includes quoting, responding or PMing. You have broken this agreement multiple times now. My feelings regarding your character are well established.
I can only sumrise that you think my comments that you quoted were directed at you. My comments were about Rossi and how his weasling manner has attempted to detract from Jorges championship. Maybe it's because you and Rossi share the same qualities that you became confused.
Hopefully this is the last missive I ever have to direct at you. Kindly put me on ignore.
Thank you sir

You're not fooling anyone.

Keshav said:

Buy this is not a court of law. In a court of law one is entitled to a jury of ones peers. And neither of you qualify as that.

You two are just two punters on the internet. You can make all the arch pronouncements you want, and all I do is laugh at you because it's all just empty talk. You really should learn to not take yourselves so seriously. I certainly don't.

Click to expand...

Irony is you calling us punters in spite of exhibiting on numerous occasions how little you actually know about motor racing at large.

Anyway, this is another Kesh tactic, say something equally moronic to the position in the debate he runs away from, he gets called on it, and then he turns around and tries to attack every one as being "nobodies" or some variation thereof of this.

But let's not lose sight of what really matters here, Kesh was once again proven wrong when it came to the nature of the Ricardo Tormo Circuit. Instead of being a man and just admitting he got it wrong, Kesh still is trying to engage in subterfuge.

Guys, I was thinking of borrowing a page out of Kesh's playbook.

I've got a fridge FILLED with beer, and plenty of hard liquor to chase it down with.

I figure I can get rip-roaring ....-faced drunk, go out driving, and see if I get pulled over for the inevitable DWI. Now once I wind up in court, I'm going to stand up in front of the court in front of the judge and present my defense. I think the judge should be willing to cut me a break. I'm going to tell him that I was merely "advancing an idea" that I could successfully drive while intoxicated, and not cause any accidents, serious injuries, and/or even death. That I stand here before the court is EVIDENCE that my hypothesis was successfully advanced from idea to reality. THEREFORE, it is nothing more than a scientific experiment that has been successfully proven.

Surely this has to work, right?

After all, Kesh thinks saying "advancing an idea" is a proper defense to use regardless of whatever the overwhelming evidence may indicate to the contrary.

So I see no reason why this can't be successful.

My brothers and I did that one night on our farm. Drank more and more alcohol to see how shitfaced we had to get before we physically couldn't drive an old car around our fields....

Keshav said:

A. Not like you to be so bloody-minded Michael. Respectfully - I have to wonder, do you plan to verbally pound me into submission?

B. I personally don't think anyone here, not even you, have anything new to add to this topic - so I think I'll beg off. I think it's run it race as it were.

C. I am not at all persuaded by internet nonsense. I came to the conclusion as and when I was watching the race live. If anything, you will recall, I almost always agree with your take on things. I'm not a person who admires contrarians.

D. I have always held you in high regard and meant no offence to you in particular, but I do find it comical the way some people switch allegiances at will - when it conveniently fits their latest narrative.

E. Regarding what you're pretty sure of. If I were to make use of that sentence to refute anything in a debate with Mr Lotus, he would come in guns blazing, demanding absolute documented proof and he would no doubt mock me for such a watery bit of excogitation. No doubt he would accept nothing less than court affidavits to uphold this supposition.

Click to expand...

My equanimity can fray at 2 am in the morning.

Just to be clear, this is an issue in regard to which I have strong convictions, independent of your particular stance, and involves the entire integrity of the sport imo. The problem is not you or any other individual poster speculating on a motogp forum, that happens all the time obviously and is a large part of the nature of forums/fora , and hence why I haven't blamed Rossi previously for the diminishment of championship wins by his rivals.

Birdman said something perceptive as is his wont in a post a couple of years ago, that Rossi actually uses his fan base as a weapon against his rivals, a conclusion he had drawn back when he was an (obviously rare) Max Biaggi fan, which in all honesty hadn't occurred to me; I had purely blamed the crazy element among his fans for the persecution of Stoner for instance.

The problem is that it is Rossi who has made what is at best speculation but which he has made out to be fact, very publicly including in an official press conference in the case of the allegations concerning the PI race, and deliberately mobilised his fan base against MM imo, and in the full knowledge that whatever happened in the last 2 races it was unlikely Jorge would be credited with having fairly won the championship, as (again imo) he actually did.

I consider his behaviour to be unethical and to have brought the sport into disrepute. In fact, the word "chickenshit" which has been applied by others is apposite in my view.

Again, Rossi could have subverted any potential conspiracy by being fast enough to beat Lorenzo in particular, or MM for that matter, in the last 3 races. I agree with Povol that not being fast enough to do this, which he seems to have realised in advance, was his real problem. No shame in him not being as fast at age 36 as riders as good as MM (whom he still beat in the championship of course) and JL, in their prime and both with their acts together late season, remarkable that he got so close and it could very legitimately have been speculated imo that things would have been different against a 25 year old Rossi even in terms of raw pace, before Rossi poisoned the well.