rec.autos.simulators

... and it's called "evasion"

Just as I suspected would happen, as soon as you're called to account
for one of your many blatant misstatements of "fact," suddenly "we have
more than exhausted this topic." You have based your two-week stentorian
bombast on statements of utter untruth like this gem:

...and you don't even have the cojones to admit you made this up out of
whole cloth. Now I KNOW, without a shred of reasonable doubt, that
you're a lawyer.

It's truly sad to discover that one of the few at least literate voices
in the NG is a bare-faced liar. Another one for the killfile...

Bart

Whilst there have been hundreds of "it's so because *I* say it's so"
opinions expressed in these NGs over the FIA's measurement regulations
and methods and how those regs affected Ferrari's appeal ruling
post-Malaysia, here's the Official Word from the FIA itself, if anyone
here still cares about the truth...which seems to apply to very few
among the congregation, sad to say:

FIA Explains the Tolerance Regulations
October 28, 1999

http://www.atlasf1.com/news/1754a.htm

No, the point was that you continued to insist that those particular
views you expressed on UseNet WERE factually correct, and then based
much of the rest of your spurious argument on those factually incorrect
views. In so doing, you projected, for the use of your personal
opinions, an authority grounded in "facts" that were simply untrue,
rendering the rest of your arguments unsupportable. You can't build a
temple on a foundation of quicksand.

I find it infinitely more sad when an individual, bereft of of a factual
basis for the arguments his personal opinions compel him to make,
decides to throw truth out the window, and make up out of whole cloth
the "facts" required to support the "arguments" his biases WANT to be
true.

I tried the argument -- many a time and oft -- that you were mistaken,
your response to which was more chest-thumping and insistence that
"your" version of the "truth" was sans reproche, even after I included
the necessary links to the statements in question (not the opinions, the
statements), and suggested a thorough reading of the FIA rules book
would further reveal the actual scope and limitations of the FIA appeals
hearing process. To these arguments and suggestions you were vocally and
forcefully immune, and proceeded to publish more of your unfortunate
inaccuracies to further bolster your original inaccuracies. Even in this
latest post, you insist:

"...according to another, earlier, poster, I was indeed correct about
the other arguments from the other teams."

Setting aside the hearsay quality of "according to another...poster," if
you take the time to examine the referenced links (see my previous reply
to that "earlier poster"), you will apprehend that your contention that
you were "indeed correct about the other arguments from the other teams"
is NOT supported by the two links provided by the "earlier poster." The
links are to the FIA's press guidelines regarding the terminology and
methodology used in the appeals hearing -- they are NOT the full report
of the appeals hearing. As I replied in a previous posting:
------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, actually, it doesn't even say that, more's the pity. The FIA COULD
have made a clear statement, but instead said merely:
"Having heard the parties and examined the evidence, the International
Court of Appeal has established that..."

And McLaren doesn't help clear up matters any when they say:

"Our purpose in attending was to point out these and other matters, and
to seek a consistent application of the rules as established in the past
in similar circumstances."

That may well have been their *purpose,* but what did they ACTUALLY do?
According to FIA rules, they could have asked for a hearing, but the
fact is, they did not.

------------------------------------------------------------------

As for personal abuse: when someone repeatedly and publicly insists,
with all the hauteur and self-righteousness of the incorruptible and
pure in heart, that what he's saying is Truth in its Purest Form -- when
it quite verifiably is not -- what term can one use to characterize such
behavior? If you can think of a more gentle phraseology describing
someone who repeatedly puts forth untruth as truth, by all means,
enlighten me, and I'll add it to my meager vocabulary.

I'm no saint, I'm no genius, and I'm (thank God!) no lawyer -- I make as
many mistakes as anyone, probably more. When I make a mistake in public
-- as I often have -- I admit it. When I make a mistake in private -- as
I constantly do -- I at least admit it to myself.

Bart Brown

Hey Bart, remember you wrote about going to the movies and smoking a
fat one as a newlywed? I think maybe its time to recapture your youth.
Relax and let this go. It doesn't matter.

If that's not an option, perhaps just stopping the crossposts to
rec.autos.simulators would be enough.

Thanks,
Tim

I think the problem is that most people shudder to think that F1 teams are,
as a reader in Autosport pointed out, making their cars to a lower build
quality than the average flat pack chest of drawers.

This is fairly obviously a case where the FIA have used the rules to excuse
behaviour of a team rather than enforce the rules as pretty much everyone
else inside F1 interpreted them.

M