Ciro Pabón wrote:I don't know if this long story will revive this thread, but it's juicy.
checkered, on Nov 10, 2007 wrote:It's a bit funny and a bit sad to see how much some people (even journalists) still smart over the McLaren spy decisions and thus are willing to jump to equally ill adviced conclusions, processes and solutions out of spite for the precedent! There's just little to no logic there and not judging the Renault case by its own merits will only harm the sport further. If the "original" spy case wasn't handled wisely (and there are too many opinions about this for me to specify here why and how I agree or disagree with that blanket statement, see the original thread if interested) are we not to learn from those mistakes to get a form of revenge on the whole sport collectively?
Some are also quick to say that this is an entirely comparable case. We know too little of this to date to say that. Heck, we know too little of the "original" case to know that (and you can read something into my opinions in that statement alone).
checkered, on Nov 12, 2007 wrote:I'd rather not see people trying to make it appear that tying all these events together in order to rewrite history is in the best interest of the sport. Nor trying to portray the Renault case in terms solely aimed at a potential revision of a separate case. It's not only the FIA that has taken decisions that are problematic, to say the least, considering the future of F1. The teams that are directly involved have overplayed their hands in a glaring manner, and they're doing no services to anyone.
checkered, on Dec 06, 2007 wrote:Two inaccuracies, a misinterpretation,
an error and an issue warranting clarification. I don't quite understand what McLaren's leadership and legal representation is trying to get at with all this, since what has undeniably (by Renault's own admission alone) happened clearly merits a WMDC hearing and in light of the recent precedent, also some sort of action seems overwhelmingly likely. In a position of some strategic strength, they have seemingly managed to invent weaknesses that didn't have to exist in the first place.
The corrections provide some further insight into the infringement of the sporting code and to the McLaren IP improperly transferred to the Renault premises. I found it surprising to begin when it was first suggested that 11 floppy disks could've accommodated 780 drawings, given the file sizes of such drawings generated by the most common programs intended for design purposes. There's little point in saying those drawings could be printed on 762 pages; what's the size of those pages, what's the scale? I could print a drawing onto as many pages as I want, regardless of the information within. There were 18 separate individual drawings (of unspecified file types) among 33 separate files within that material, plus (an indefinite, but apparently not significant enough a number to specify) hard copies (apparently of McLaren's damper design) taken and emails sent from an unspecified location to an unspecified destination, either containing the same, or different information.
Rather than containing the "entire technical blueprint of the 2006 and 2007 McLaren car", the content turns out to be a set of drawings and a confidential MP4-22 specification document (in writing?) together "constituting a technical definition of the fundamental layout of the 2007 McLaren car and the technical details of its innovative and performance enhancing systems." Now, I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I expect McLaren has made sure that the FIA will find that definition technically acceptable to describe the content accurately. Try describing a wingnut, for example, in drawings and in writing in such a way that put together what you have produced defines a fundamental layout and details specifying its innovative and performance enhancing features. There are simpler ways to go about describing things.
checkered wrote:As for P_O_L's criticism of certain media people, I think you're somewhat missing the point. If you think you perceive the particular standpoint of any one journalist for example, no matter how disagreeable he/she might be to your sensibilities, there's no greater value than reading him/her. Why? Because then you can "underess" the content of any possible bias and arrive at very educated approximations about the true state of things. I tend to follow certain journalists very closely and get to "know" them for this very purpose. If your temperament allows for this without adverse effects, I can recommend trying out the "tuning out the noise" approach. In fact, I have to admit to doing that to some of your posts as well.
Project Four wrote:I do believe that any news you read if you ar not careful, you can read it from your own perspective and from your judgements.
If we come to a story believing that Mclaren (for example) are corrupt, liars, low-life, cheats, then within any story we will find elements to support our case. If the stories are written by people whom take a similar side, or point of view as ours, then these are the facts that substantiate our case. But, if however we read a story that does not support our case and takes the other sides case, then here we can also support our case as here this is propaganda spread by the other side, and not someone else’s opinions or point-of-view, or take on the event.
Of course there also will be some UK bias within the UK F1 press as they will come at any news from an Anglo-centric point-of-view. They would have ready / better access to the UK guys involved in F1, and no doubt have formed close bonds with these people. And this would be same for the German press, the French press, and for the Italian press, you only have to look at which drivers the different press rate as the best in the world.
I have always rated Nigel Roebuck as an exceptional writer along with Mark Hughes.
If you do read any of Roebuck’s articles you will know of his love for F1 and for the Ferrari, he does though, I agree, criticise Ferrari, but this is on the basis of how Ferrari operate, the FIA preferential treatment / favouritism taken towards Ferrari and to its drivers, how and when they used team-orders, the behaviour and actions of their drivers, etc.
Conceptual wrote:I read alot of crying, but not alot of substance...
Am I alone in thinking that about this thread?
Users browsing this forum: AddThis [Crawler] and 2 guests