Re: New leak: Alonso knew nothing of plans for Piquet's accident

On Sep 17, 11:55 am, addr...@xxxxxx (ric zito) wrote:
Bob Dubery <megap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 17, 10:50 am, addr...@xxxxxx (ric zito) wrote:

He wasn't trying to cover up. Au contraire, he figured he'd better throw
himself at Max's mercy, because, and here's the kicker - he knew full
well the extent to which the info had inflitrated the team (see my other
post to Mark and Brendan). He also realised that if it came from Alonso
it would make Ron look very bad indeed, given that he had lied and
covered up prior to that (and got away with it).

Ìt was a desperate, panic-driven attempt at damage limitation.

A less honest reaction by a man who was trying to cover up would be to
reason that Alonso couldn't blow the whistle without revealing his own
complicity in the affair and simply keep quiet.

Indeed. Although in this case it was honesty forced upon him by panic,

Well you seem to have an advantage over me.

Have you been talking to my wife again? :-)

In that case, as in the more current mess involving Renault, all I can
do, (poor me, humble me, pitiful me, knows my place ta very much,
Guv'nor, and can I lick your boots for you whilst I'm down here) is
think how this looks to me as an outside observer based on what I
know.

You, on the other hand, can read Ron's mind.

C'mon Bob - you can see how the facts stacked up. It isn't exactly
Sherlock Holmes. You're welcome to try another interpretation though.

All I'm doing is interpreting "how it looks to me as an outside observer
based on what I know". And what I know is what was written at the time,
what has been said by the various parties involved.
It looks to me like you've decided that Ron was the mastermind behind
the espionage and then worked backwards from that point. You've
certainly prejudged his motives, saying that his approach to Mosley
was made because he was in a state of... what was the term again? ....
ah yes "pant-shitting panic". You're not dealing in facts and what is
known, you're dealing in motives. Now how do you know what Ron's state
of mind was at the time?

Your argument hangs on things that cannot be known. I suppose one
might argue that they also cannot be disproven, but generally it's
incumbent on the person making the allegation to provide proof.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is State Vector Reduction a Process?
    ... >> of the Copenhagen interpretation when viewed as a fundamental ... >acquisition is a branch of psychology, not of physics. ... >I doubt whether any observer updates his or her knowledge according ... of measurements. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Dawkins gives incorrect answer
    ... In the absence of an observer, who is going to say what ... need to separate the theory of interpretation from the theory of structural ... > increasingly acute perception of strings of external stimuli and the evolution ... Should the probability of certain symbol strings be high, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Original Sin
    ... This 'allowing' is evidence ... to me of a human observer interacting with the electron, ... experimenter to make a certain measurement (or if you prefer not to ... interpretation is wrong. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Off Message (NDC)
    ... interpretation of his motives, I'll not assign one to him. ... He's a politician, assigning cynical motives to him is the prudent course of ... what tells us that he no longer supports the policies he used to ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Many-Worlds and the Origin of Life in the Universe
    ... The attack on Copenhagen Interpretation is a bit of a strawman. ... "When exactly does the wavefunction collapse? ... observation by a conscious observer is responsible for the ...
    (sci.physics)