Who deserved to be champion?

Of course there is a romanticism surrounding a racer who races hard no matter what, even if he risks crashing and losing the title. However, the rider doesn't do it alone. What about Nicky's crew? Should Nicky have raced for the win anyway and risk a crash, and possibly losing the title? Racing hard would have made Nicky look cool, but his crew would not have benefitted. Nicky's caution in preserving his title hopes was considerate to his crew's hard work (whether he was actually thinking about that or not). They want a championship too, you know.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sb248 @ Oct 30 2006, 11:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>its just the american way of celibrating ..... me right off, so over the top and loud, i hate to go about vale but at least he comes up with sommething original when he wins something,
i vote valentino rossi N.O. 1

Hi sb248,

I think Rossi is known for his charismatic (this means “over the top and loud”) celebrations. But of course his celebrations wouldn’t “f.. you right off”. That’s because it seems that you don’t like anybody else, other than Rossi getting to celebrate. When you think about what Hayden had to overcome to win this championship, I would think his celebration was mild in comparison to some that I have seen by Rossi. Your bias is blatantly obvious. You mention Hayden as the rightful champ but them you qualify it as if not being a gracious champ. I can probably think of 10 outrageous celebrations by Rossi so well documented in all the highlight films of MotoGP; and some of these were for race wins, let alone a championship title.

I guess we just can’t give the guy his props, unless we qualify it. Rossi got beat, and Rossi beat himself, deal with it.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. Shupe @ Oct 30 2006, 05:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Of course there is a romanticism surrounding a racer who races hard no matter what, even if he risks crashing and losing the title. However, the rider doesn't do it alone. What about Nicky's crew? Should Nicky have raced for the win anyway and risk a crash, and possibly losing the title? Racing hard would have made Nicky look cool, but his crew would not have benefitted. Nicky's caution in preserving his title hopes was considerate to his crew's hard work (whether he was actually thinking about that or not). They want a championship too, you know.

Hi Mr. Shupe,

You have articulated your point excellently. Do you have a blog?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Oct 30 2006, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>its not the first time theres been a caretaker champion because of a true champions bad luck, im not taking anything away from nicky

But you see Roger-m you are "taking" something away. Because you continue to qualify your remarks with condescension. You describe the new champion as a “caretaker” title holder. You imply that Hayden is not deserving; moreover, you further diminish it by implying that he is simply a transient earner of the title. We are talking about a person who has dedicated their entire life to a goal (that I assume as a member of this site you would appreciate) and that was to win the pinnacle of motorcycle racing. And he did. I would think he would be welcomed with more acceptance. But after reading many responses today, that hasn’t been the case. It seems to me a bit foolish.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Best Man @ Oct 30 2006, 05:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i think roger-m was just commenting on the basis of your response by saying you were a bit harsh by posting that to a young girl who has just joined the forum and is trying to actively join in discussions! and i agree with him.

So you think it was ok as a point of discussion to look at who my rider was as a basis of a mild discredit to what I said?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Oct 31 2006, 01:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So you think it was ok as a point of discussion to look at who my rider was as a basis of a mild discredit to what I said?

did i say that anywhere? no i think you'll find i didnt even mention roger commenting on your choice of favourite rider. you often ask people to read threads more closely so i suggest you go back and do the same with mine

I think (Note: I said, "I think") that what louzi was trying to say is that in a theoretical point of view, regardless of the points, who do you think, or at least who do you want to become the champion... (Correct me if I'm wrong louzi, this is my take on your topic)

...so, no need to be harsh or anything to anyone on the forum, okay?...

and to answer the question, if I could have that time-travel thingy, I would want rossi to win the championship simply because he proved me wrong when I thought he couldn't claw back the 51-point deficit he had back then.

Of course the man with the most championship points deserves to win! Nicky was the most consistent racer this entire season. I do agree with something that was said above about if Rossi was on a RC211V the championship would be in the bag for him but unfortunately he isn't.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Best Man @ Oct 30 2006, 05:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i think roger-m was just commenting on the basis of your response by saying you were a bit harsh by posting that to a young girl who has just joined the forum and is trying to actively join in discussions! and i agree with him.

You said" and I agree with him." So you agree with his post. Now you try to narrow your response to say it was only one part of his post that you agree with? Ok.

I think you may want to re-read his entire post before you go agreeing with it. Or at least say, I agree with this part but this other part, not so much.

I just joined too. (two weeks ago), and do you know how old/young I am? And do you know my gender also? Are girl's any less accountable? What exactly does this have to do with the relevance of what we say as posters?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Oct 30 2006, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You have articulated your point excellently. Do you have a blog?

Thanks for the kind words Racejumkie, and no, i do not have a blog. I might consider if I knew more about bike racing. This was my first full year following Moto GP, although I have been a sports car guy for years. I followed the last 5 or 6 races of last year, including the US GP. A hell of a first year, huh? I am convinced that Moto GP is the best road racing championship on the planet, bar none.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Oct 31 2006, 02:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You said" and I agree with him." So you agree with his post. Now you try to narrow your response to say it was only one part of his post that you agree with? Ok.

I think you may want to re-read his entire post before you go agreeing with it. Or at least say, I agree with this part but this other part, not so much.

I just joined too. (two weeks ago), and do you know how old/young I am? And do you know my gender also? Are girl's any less accountable? What exactly does this have to do with the relevance of what we say as posters?

i'm sorry did my not saying that i agreed with roger that you were being harsh not 'narrow my response'?? i guess i shall have to address that in future for the purposes of you not understanding me eh?

and no i do not know how old you are/gender you are nor do i really care. but as my job of site development it has more relevance to me that someone who is new and young feels welcome to this site, if that is ok with you??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Oct 30 2006, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>and the likes of hayden will have to prove them selves.

Uhm, I think he did. He was written off by most, and came back to win the championship against the odds, the one Rossi lost when he crashed out under pressure. I think what you mean is: Rossi "will have to prove" himself again.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Oct 31 2006, 10:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You said" and I agree with him." So you agree with his post. Now you try to narrow your response to say it was only one part of his post that you agree with? Ok.

I think you may want to re-read his entire post before you go agreeing with it. Or at least say, I agree with this part but this other part, not so much.

I just joined too. (two weeks ago), and do you know how old/young I am? And do you know my gender also? Are girl's any less accountable? What exactly does this have to do with the relevance of what we say as posters?

I think what best man said was utterly clear. He was reacting to the part where roger defended the girl, not necessarily everything in that particular post. You might want to go back and re-read his post before you go reacting to it.

Girl or boy, in whatever language/age and stuffs like that, we want everyone to feel welcomed to the site. And if we think that is not the case, then we'll do what we can do about it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Best Man @ Oct 30 2006, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>but as my job of site development it has more relevance to me that someone who is new and young feels welcome to this site, if that is ok with you??

I'll take that as you wanting to make me "feel welcome to this site." eh.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Oct 31 2006, 03:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'll take that as you wanting to make me "feel welcome to this site." eh.

check janes response jumkie. we like everyone to be welcome here. you never know.. we might become best 'forum buddies'

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (somedamnwriter @ Oct 30 2006, 06:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think what best man said was utterly clear. He was reacting to the part where roger defended the girl, not necessarily everything in that particular post. You might want to go back and re-read his post before you go reacting to it.

Girl or boy, in whatever language/age and stuffs like that, we wnat everyone to feel welcomed to the site. And if we think that is not the case, then we'll do what we can do about it.

May have been clear to you but not to me. I did read the post plenty of times. That is why I responded. He said he agreed with roger-m, I didn't, so I responded. That is called debate.

"we wnat everyone to feel welcomed to the site. And if we think that is not the case, then we'll do what we can do about it."

Does that include me being welcomed or is this statement a veiled attempt at censorship? Does this include posts that you don't particularly agree with? Does your site encourage debate? Does your site encourage disagreement? Are you saying that, by calling someone on a weak element of their view or post, that we may not hold that person accountable? I think I joined a site about MotoGP (as the namesake implies). The creators of it put a mechanism to respond to other posters. No vulgarity has been exchanged. Some agree and some disagree; hence a forum.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Best Man @ Oct 30 2006, 07:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>check janes response jumkie. we like everyone to be welcome here. you never know.. we might become best 'forum buddies'

I think so too cuz if you're like me (in the sense that we are a bit crazy about motorcycle racing) then I think you're right.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Best Man @ Oct 30 2006, 07:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>check janes response jumkie. we like everyone to be welcome here. you never know.. we might become best 'forum buddies'

Best Man, I think I missed something, who is ""janes"?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Oct 31 2006, 11:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>May have been clear to you but not to me. I did read the post plenty of times. That is why I responded. He said he agreed with roger-m, I didn't, so I responded. That is called debate.

"we wnat everyone to feel welcomed to the site. And if we think that is not the case, then we'll do what we can do about it."

Does that include me being welcomed or is this statement a veiled attempt at censorship? Does this include posts that you don't particularly agree with? Does your site encourage debate? Does your site encourage disagreement? Are you saying that, by calling someone on a weak element of their view or post, that we may not hold that person accountable? I think I joined a site about MotoGP (as the namesake implies). The creators of it put a mechanism to respond to other posters. No vulgarity has been exchanged. Some agree and some disagree; hence a forum.

I'm Jane.

1. I know what a debate is.

2. I don't have any right to censor posts.

3. What I have is the right to react to a post, in a respectful way, as everyone else in the forum has, be it a post I agree or disagree with.

4. Our site encourages constructive and friendly debates.

5. Holding someone accountable can be done in a fashion that still maintains respect for the poster and his/her views.

6. If someone would to disrespect you or intimidate you, or anything that would let you feel unwelcomed to this forum, I for one, would do the same thing that I did for louzi.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Oct 31 2006, 03:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think so too cuz if you're like me (in the sense that we are a bit crazy about motorcycle racing) then I think you're right.
Best Man, I think I missed something, who is ""janes"?

well being crazy about motorbike racing i can relate to

jane is somedamnwriter, my partner in crime

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (somedamnwriter @ Oct 30 2006, 07:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm Jane.

1. I know what a debate is.

2. I don't have any right to censor posts.

3. What I have is the right to react to a post, in a respectful way, as everyone else in the forum has, be it a post I agree or disagree with.

4. Our site encourages constructive and friendly debates.

5. Holding someone accountable can be done in a fashion that still maintains respect for the poster and his/her views.

6. If someone would to disrespect you or intimidate you, or anything that would let you feel unwelcomed to this forum, I for one, would do the same thing that I did for louzi.


Hi Jane,

That makes two of us I think. You say tomato, I say tomato. Wait, that doesn't come out right while posting. (get it?

^ sorry, I don't. Care to elaborate more?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (somedamnwriter @ Oct 30 2006, 08:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>^ sorry, I don't. Care to elaborate more?

There are two ways to pronounce the word "tomato" One sounds like ‘toe-may-toe’ the other sounds like‘toe-mau-toe”. But we are talking about the same thing, ‘tomato’ . This is to say that we are in agreement, in essence of out discussion, we just arrived their differently. Get it?

^ ahh..you were referring to the pronunciations. Ben, we should start installing audio systems in the site...err, kidding...

Anyway, I get it now.