Re: AMA Pro Racing Rules

Howard Kveck wrote:
Mark N wrote:

"Simple" as in retarded, maybe. But the facts of the situation simply don't allow for your application of simplicity.

(Snip of a whole bunch of stuff that still doesn't take into account that people sometimes make mistakes.) Hmm, I guess that says all that needs to be said about that.

By the way, this has already been beaten to death once; you apparently want to do it again. I pointed out that maybe your "he lied" angle was not the most obvious explanation then - that remains. You getting jiggy with throwing another few billion words at it doesn't alter that. And that does sort of sum up your "discussion" techinique: with varied phrasing, say the same thing over and over, ad infinitum, until the other person gets tired of responding. Then: WINNAH!

Oh, Howard, you are such a shithead. Yes, Tom made a mistake - he lied,
and in a manner in which it could be fully deduced that he lied. Big
mistake. You, on the other hand, claim that Tom just made a mistake, but
an honest one. I then display in a detailed manner that essentially he
couldn't have, because the circumstances simply don't permit it. In
other words, I explain in detail how I came to the conclusion that he
was lying, so everyone knows the care I took before flinging such
accusations about.

I then try to get you to detail a circumstance, any circumstance, in
which he could have made an honest mistake, and you come up with none.
Now you desperately try to stay general, go into no details at all, and
start your attack on me, I'm being too detailed, I'm using too many
words, I'm the problem and not your chicken*** evasiveness. Right.

You claim that the most obvious explanation is one that doesn't involve
him lying, and all I have been asking for is one detailed scenario given
the facts of the matter wherein Tom could have honestly thought he saw
Pedrosa at that time, one that passes the smell test, doesn't even have
to be your "most obvious" one. Hell, I'd have dearly liked to see Tom
come up with one, just for laughs. But I don't expect you will respond
with one, rather you'll bail on the premise that you have gotten "tired
of responding". Put up or shut up, scumbag.

[Btw, do feel free to pummel me for name-calling, obviously a sin worse
than lying to you]

Hmm, so I "simply refuse to say here what you really believe regarding that incident." What have I been doing, Mark, other than saying what I really believe regarding that incident?
Lying through your teeth? You tell me, but I simply do not believe that you believe that Tom just made an honest mistake.

I don't agree with your assesment of what happened so that makes me a liar, huh. That, old sport, is bordering on the moronic.

No, what makes you a liar is that you're obviously a pretty smart guy,
and you must understand what I've been saying, you know it's just about
impossible to come up with any scenario wherein Tom doesn't come off as
a liar, a fool, or both. But you won't admit to that, so you decide to
lie, to play out your game to the bitter end. Because you're not here to
debate the merits and facts of what happened, you're going after me
because you don't like me and the way I conduct myself in this group.
And the facts of the matter don't seem to matter at all to you, in fact
perhaps you see it as somehow beneficial that your position comes off as
so absurd.

I have no particular interest in discrediting you in general. I think it's obvious that you're a Nusbaum attack dog, a really significant percentage of your posts seem intended for that purpose only.

"A Nusbaum attack dog." Heh - that's pretty funny stuff. I comment on some of your posts because I daon't care fro the way you go at it in here: you aren't in this for a discussion; for you, it's all about being the WINNAH! no matter what. The proof of that was when I finally got you to admit that you like to see things people say in here "jammed back down their throat" if they don't meet your expectations.

I think some people deserve it, yes. Tom deserved it, which is why I
finally threw his Pedrosa lie back in his face, a shining example of his
more general behavior in this group. I didn't do it for a long time,
because I knew it was like hitting the nuclear button, but at some point
his personal attacks and fabrications got to a point where that simply
didn't matter. So sue me.

You brought up your personal relationships with a minority woman and used it to bolster your position that you can't be a bigot.
No, that's not a very accurate claim.

Yes, it is.

"...to bolster your position that you can't be a bigot". I have never claimed that I "can't" be, I readily admit that I could be a bigot and still do that, that just because I have romantic relationships outside of my race doesn't entirely eliminate the possibility that I could still be bigoted.

Curious, then, that when people have commented on your apparent bigotry, you get quite huffy about it, rather than simply agreeing with them.

I didn't say I was a bigot, I said that this particular matter doesn't
absolutely prove that I'm not. I think almost everyone is bigoted to one
extent or other, considering the dictionary definition of the word. But,
for instance, you make that claim about me because of the things I've
said about the pro-Spanish favoritism in GP - instead of admitting to
that or discussing that issue with that aspect as a given (it's pretty
hard to claim it doesn't exist, but I suppose you might try that
approach anyway), you choose to attack me as a bigot, to undermine my
arguments which you cannot assail on their merits. Very T3-like
behavior, and understandable that I'd resent that, I think.

Again: see Strom Thurmond. Anyway, I don't think you're a racist - I think
you regularly make comments about other nationalities that lead the reader to one conclusion: "bigot."

Maybe to someone whose world view and structure of social interaction is so closely tied to the notion of political correctness.

Nope. Noting your constant bashing of the Spanish or Italians, combined with your snarling use of the word "***" hardly falls into the category of being PC.

"Constant bashing of the Italians"? Is that because I don't sprout wood
at the mere mention of Rossi's name? And "snarling use of the word
'***'"? I used that word once here, I believe, and it was in a rather
breezy manner, as I recall. But go ahead and misrepresent that (lie),
it's what you do. Or did you just make an honest "mistake"?

[Btw, I know why you won't let go of this bigot business (you brought it
into this discussion, let's recall), you're shouting out to everyone,
"Hey, this guy may or may not be a racist, but he's certainly an
anti-European bigot! Remember that, all you Euros!" Also, the "old
sport" thing reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for the
longest time - are you an ex-pat?]

Someone who thinks word selection is like DNA, an irrefutable piece of evidence, that what one states is infinitely more important than what they think, and context doesn't matter, it's the individual words that really count.

Oh, but the context is exactly where this comes from. Otherwise...
And you are clearly betrayed regarding your personal vendetta by never having accused Tom of being a bigot.

... I would case on Tom for it too. I don't because, while his use of "nips" or "Japs" is annoying, it doesn't come across in the context as being *intended* as insulting or demeaning.

Let's see, he blames the Japanese OEMs for many of the problems in the
AMA series and wants them driven out, or at least subjugated to the
point where they contribute nothing but their money. He displays
romantic love for the Frances and their NASCAR business model, which for
the most part has excluded the Japanese. And he's sarcastically called
them "most honorable motherfuckers". But there's obviously no intent
there at all, none...

First, I really didn't drag you into anything, I just told Tom to "say "hi" for me to Mike and Carl and Howard and the rest...", which was pure speculation on who might have been involved in Tom's extracurricular activities.

Here's another shining example of Mark in the midst of his "Who, me?," wide-eyed innocence routine. You may try to claim it as being "pure speculation," but, based on my reading of your posts for however many years, I think you really meant it.

Meant what? I don't know anything about the particulars of such off-line discussions, other than that they exist (based on others' comments). So all I can do is guess at who might have been involved, but there is at least some basis for such guesses.

"Meant what?" Conspiring - that was the word you used. The reason I think you meant that people are "conspiring" against you is based on many things you've posted but the whole "mob" concept cemented it. You posted this quote [1]:
_____________
"In the book MOBBING: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace, the authors claim that mobbing is typically found in work environments that have poorly organized production and/or working methods and incapable or inattentive management and that mobbing victims are usually "exceptional individuals who demonstrated intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication"."
_____________

From that quote, it looks like you consider yourself the person who has "intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication" and everyone else is, well, the opposite. The levels of egomania, self pity and victimhood combine to be an unholy trinity of biblical proportions.

And you are once again distorting something beyond all reason to beat me
over the head with it. Mobbing behavior doesn't require some sort of
off-line communication to tactics or whatever, that can just form on its
own without some undercover "conspiracy". And the point of including
that last part was to show that mobs aren't always fair, they don't
serve to attack or exclude people who aren't contributing or aren't
correct. In fact, I think it's more likely the opposite, that people act
within the mob because they want cover, they know what they're doing
isn't justified, and in the end is out of weakness.

I do acknowledge that sometimes sarcasm doesn't come off online and this was apparently one of them. Read the entire sentence again with that in mind.

You mean this part? "Anyway, I have to comment on this "conspiring" thing you have going here. Sometimes people in these groups have offline conversations - it's part of human nature. Any mention of you in them is more of a "WTF?" nature. That you choose to think there is "conspiring" going on says you have a pretty suspicious nature." Oh, that's the rest of the paragraph, not the rest of the sentence, I guess it doesn't count...

Oh noes! A sentence of sarcastic humor in a paragraph of seriousness! That's agin' the law, isn't it?

Kind of betrays the cover you claim your sarcasm was supposed to give
you, though...

But you've taken that and run with it, just as your prior post seemed to take
Tom's "peace offering" as genuine and put my response in a somewhat negative light ("he blew it off").

Why wouldn't you think it was genuine? And you did blow it off. Perhaps if you didn't assume that his offer was genuine and took it as such, it wouldn't look so much like you were busy holding a grudge.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think it was genuine, the very notion of that seems laughable to me.

And we all know that if you think something is or isn't genuine, that makes it the fact. Because you have, after all, demonstrated intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication, and, therefore, are the final arbiter of another person's intentions.

Don't be a ***, Howard. My determination was based on years of dealing
with Tom and his methods, and his absolute and immovable opinions on the
people running our series. I would ask you to make a statement that you
though his fig leaf was genuine and why, and what conditions it might
contain and what concessions he might be making. but of course that
would be a total waste of time...

Maybe you didn't mean it that way, maybe you did, I'll never know. But I have to do what you always claim to do, take the whole of our interactions and draw what conclusions I can from that.

Oh, I do mean it when I say that I think you believe that people are "conspiring against you."

But you don't admit that it might be true, right? And likewise I accept as genuine your statement that you don't much like me, and assume that has an impact on what you do.

As I've said, I can let go of these things - at least until the next time it starts up. You? Not so much.

And the next time "it starts up" is when I write something, anything
that gets your blood up, and you swoop in from the shadows and go on
the attack. Hell, at least it won't remotely be a surprise...




.

Loading