segedunum wrote:Giblet wrote:So he says it had no bearing on his driving, and you say it does. Check. You fully understand the meaning of the word excuse, but still say he used it as one. Check.
That's reverse phsychology for you Giblet. Look it up.All I am getting at is he says one thing, but you automatically disregard what he says and insert your own beliefs instead.
No. When somebody says something they say it for a reason, especially in Formula 1, and Mark Webber and PR people know exactly how something that is said will be perceived. You don't even need to be a PR person. It's as obvious a piece of reverse psychology as you'll get.
I seem to remember you having trouble with this whole concept in the past. What people say isn't quite what they mean in the world of PR and media. I can see that's coming as quite a shock to your logic circuits.
I understand what reverse psychology is, doesn't mean that I have to accept that you think he is using it.
You have been wrong in the past about things you were 100% sure on, as have I. Nobody can 'know' for sure, and I am one of those people.
I see it exactly has Webber has stated it:
Mark Webber wrote:
"I didn't sit down after the season had finished with hindsight goggles on and pick and choose what went into it. We did it at the time after each race. It [the injury] is something that happened to me, it was part of my journey this season, so that's why it's in there."