Max Mosley opens a can of worms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Take your time and search before slagging others.
You seem to live in a fairy tale where you are the king who married and lived happily ever after. :p :
Time to wake up:



Link:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A96F948260

So, next time do your homework before you decide to attack me using certain adjectives. :rolleyes:

---

Sorry, this has nick all to do with F1, but your quote from the university bod only confirms one thing to me, that moral fibre is lacking in todays society.

Marriage is no longer looked on as the union between two people it once was. Divorce has become far too easy and acceptable. Respect is a diminishing phenomenon.

So my wife and I, bringing our kids up, teaching them respect, manners, ethics and morals, we are the exception to the rule? If that's the case, why chuffing bother?

In fact, I should leave my wife, care nothing for my kids and refuse to pay maintenenace, encourage my ex-wife to let my kids drink alcohol to excess, carry knives, join a gang........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Sorry, this has nick all to do with F1, but your quote from the university bod only confirms one thing to me, that moral fibre is lacking in todays society.

Marriage is no longer looked on as the union between two people it once was. Divorce has become far too easy and acceptable. Respect is a diminishing phenomenon.

So my wife and I, bringing our kids up, teaching them respect, manners, ethics and morals, we are the exception to the rule? If that's the case, why chuffing bother?

In fact, I should leave my wife, care nothing for my kids and refuse to pay maintenenace, encourage my ex-wife to let my kids drink alcohol to excess, carry knives, join a gang........

---

It's not about lack of morals or ethics, it's just that the society evolves, and the moral/ethic standards change.

This doesn't mean that one can't have a happy marriage as it was before, only that there is a higher chance to hit troubles at one time or the other.

Also not all the people who cheat on their wife/husband are doing it because they want to quit them.

So, don't be upset, live your life at your best! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

It's not about lack of morals or ethics, it's just that the society evolves, and the moral/ethic standards change.

This doesn't mean that one can't have a happy marriage as it was before, only that there is a higher chance to hit troubles at one time or the other.

Also not all the people who cheat on their wife/husband are doing it because they want to quit them.

So, don't be upset, live your life at your best! ;)

---

I'm not getting upset, I just have strong feelings on this. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Take your time and search before slagging others.
You seem to live in a fairy tale where you are the king who married and lived happily ever after. :p :

---

I live in the world where ethics still count and people have a certain amount of respect for themselves and others. I know those beliefs are getting less and less important every day, but I will not descend along with that decadence.

Quote:

---

Time to wake up:

---

1) I stand by what I said regarding my opinion on people who cheat on their spouses 100%. Most people I know agree with my view.

2) When you say "most", it implies a far higher degree than 50% of all married people cheating on their spouses. Even the idiotic "research" you quoted didn`t show such numbers. Before throwing around stuff that is embarrassing to read, think first act later.

Quote:

---

Link:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A96F948260

So, next time do your homework before you decide to attack me using certain adjectives. :rolleyes:

---

Do not worry for me, I have done my homework, as I am about to show you.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...g-spouses.html

Quote:

---

In 1994, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago upended the conventional thought of general licentiousness (generated in large part by sex study pioneer Michael Kinsey). It showed 15 to 18 percent of "ever-married people have had a sexual partner other than their spouse while married." And just 3 to 4 percent have cheated on their spouse in any given year. In 2000, another team of researchers, led by Judith Treas, a sociologist at the University of California-Irvine, concluded that 11 percent of adults have cheated on their spouse or cohabitating partner. "There isn't any evidence of an infidelity epidemic," she says.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The problem is that nowadays Max is less willing to accommodate Bernie and this irritated the later. I would like to know the reasons for all this happening.

---

We can go back and forth with this indefinately, but let me just say I don't agree with your view that Bernie is at the root of everything that is wrong with F1. His job is to protect and promote the commercial interests of the sport, whereas the FIA President's role is as head of the rulemaking body. That in itself can create a conflict of interests, particularly given the fact that Max 'n' Bernie's history as a "team" goes waaaaay back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

2) When you say "most", it implies a far higher degree than 50% of all married people cheating on their spouses.

---

50,1% is already most of them, in case you didn't follow maths before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Even the idiotic "research" you quoted didn`t show such numbers. Before throwing around stuff that is embarrassing to read, think first act later.

---

:laugh:
You are calling a study performed at the Stanford University idiotic just because it didn't support your POV! And you talk about ethics?! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Do not worry for me, I have done my homework, as I am about to show you.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...g-spouses.html

---

Well, I did show you where I found that more than 50% of the people cheat on their spouse, you found one where it says it's less.
Still doesn't give you the right to call others and their opinions idiotic.
Consider the way you express yourself next time you reply to one of my posts and try to be civilized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Yeah sure Max changed the rules, but why? Who was losing out because the WDC was decided in July during the 2002 season?! Bernie comes to mind again.

Mind you the qualy system was also changed by Max, because only the FIA can change it, but it was in the best interest of Bernie.

The problem is that nowadays Max is less willing to accommodate Bernie and this irritated the later. I would like to know the reasons for all this happening.

---

Yeah!! sounds like a sore point there. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

2) When you say "most", it implies a far higher degree than 50% of all married people cheating on their spouses.

---

Most = majority= over 50%.

Quote:

---

Even the idiotic "research" you quoted didn`t show such numbers. Before throwing around stuff that is embarrassing to read, think first act later.

---

Practice what you preach ;)




I get the feeling, somehow, that Max will be standing for re-election at the end of his reign. Firstly because he's power hungry and secondly, for all the talk of Max stepping down, there hasn't been any talk or suggestions about who would replace him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

We can go back and forth with this indefinately, but let me just say I don't agree with your view that Bernie is at the root of everything that is wrong with F1. His job is to protect and promote the commercial interests of the sport, whereas the FIA President's role is as head of the rulemaking body. That in itself can create a conflict of interests, particularly given the fact that Max 'n' Bernie's history as a "team" goes waaaaay back.

---

I won't say that Bernie is at the root of everything that is wrong with F1 - only the money side. If he is less greedy and spread the money around so the teams don't have to scrape to survive, we'd have a better F1.

Let's face it, Bernie is greedy to the detriment of F1. I would love to see Bernie get stuck in a lift with Max - I'd switch off the power and go on a ski holiday!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Yeah it suggests that Bernie would do anything to ensure his money flow while Max will do what it takes to keep the correctness.
It clear that they pull in different direction. However in my view Bernie is the one pulling in the wrong direction.

---

Earlier in this thread, Arrows linked to a thread from last year in which you accused both Max and Bernie of both being in it for the money. Why, I must ask again, has your view of Max changed since then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

I thought I`d never hear that from you

---

I like to surprise!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Yeah, that was not a very intelligent comment. I have always thought of Max has an extremely intelligent and cunning guy, but he let his emotions get the better of him there. That said, I admire his guts to say what he thinks.

---

Yes, but as you suggest, there are limits. He's also on thin ice referring to the long-past actions of German car manufacturers given his own family past, but there's no need to go back over that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

LOL. Bernie is many things, but a coward? Please. This guy is a foot shorter than me, many decades older and probably 100 pounds lighter, but I would think twice about confronting him.

---

Absolutely right. He is also, possibly, a fairer negotiator than he may be given credit for - at least these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

I think Bernie and Max are on much friendlier terms than it might appear to us.
Richard Williams who wrote an interesting article on that.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/20..._remain_p.html

---

Again, I agree. The way Bernie seemed to suddenly 'turn' on Max struck me as rather odd and a little implausible. Do we believe that they are now no longer on speaking terms, or similar? That would be a natural thing to happen in such circumstances, yet I can't imagine it. Mind you, let's not forget Max's sudden attempt at a matey reconciliation with Jackie Stewart recently, so he's not immune from such impromptu 'mood swings'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

But look at the changes to the points system, made (many said) to stop Ferrari's dominance. It was Max who pushed that through.

If people are pulling in different directions, when supposedly working for the same thing (in this case F1), the end result is damaging.

---

Absolutely right. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Sorry, this has nick all to do with F1, but your quote from the university bod only confirms one thing to me, that moral fibre is lacking in todays society.

Marriage is no longer looked on as the union between two people it once was. Divorce has become far too easy and acceptable. Respect is a diminishing phenomenon.

So my wife and I, bringing our kids up, teaching them respect, manners, ethics and morals, we are the exception to the rule? If that's the case, why chuffing bother?

In fact, I should leave my wife, care nothing for my kids and refuse to pay maintenenace, encourage my ex-wife to let my kids drink alcohol to excess, carry knives, join a gang........

---

I don't buy into your view of society today as being dreadful. Personally, I just don't see it, and am grateful for the way society has advanced and become more tolerant of people of different lifestyles. Yes, there are problems, but there always have been.

Anyway, the Mosley situation is a bit different because, for whatever reason, he felt the need to get something a bit different in order to enjoy himself and be satisfied. Hardly a modern phenomenon, and I don't think he's in the vanguard of some sort of moral decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

It's not about lack of morals or ethics, it's just that the society evolves, and the moral/ethic standards change.

This doesn't mean that one can't have a happy marriage as it was before, only that there is a higher chance to hit troubles at one time or the other.

Also not all the people who cheat on their wife/husband are doing it because they want to quit them.

---

Agreed. It's a bit more complex than that. It's very sad, but not a lot can be done to stop it. People, famous or otherwise, have been doing what Max did for years and years.

That research you quoted earlier seemed highly suspect to me, though. The numbers were awfully high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

I won't say that Bernie is at the root of everything that is wrong with F1 - only the money side. If he is less greedy and spread the money around so the teams don't have to scrape to survive, we'd have a better F1.

---

But F1 will never be some sort of socialist motorsport paradise in which there is even distribution of wealth amongst everyone. As in life, there will be haves and have-nots. Some teams will succeed because they perform well, and others will fail because they don't.

The problem is surely not the distribution of F1's money, but the fact that the basic sums are so high in the first place. A variety of people are at fault for this.

Benies the boss of F1 so if anything is wrong with F1 then the buck must stop there, same with Max, if the FIA is failing in any way as the boss he is responsible.

As a side note, extensive research has been conducted by Relate and other marriage guidance services into the effects of human behaviour, and often men in high powered jobs are often the ones that prefer a dominatrix style of arousal.

Also Ioan changed his mind on Max because he helped Ferrari win the championship last year.

Valve Bounce should be banned because he is too funny.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MAX_THRUST

Benies the boss of F1 so if anything is wrong with F1 then the buck must stop there, same with Max, if the FIA is failing in any way as the boss he is responsible.

As a side note, extensive research has been conducted by Relate and other marriage guidance services into the effects of human behaviour, and often men in high powered jobs are often the ones that prefer a dominatrix style of arousal.

Also Ioan changed his mind on Max because he helped Ferrari win the championship last year.

Valve Bounce should be banned because he is too funny.........

---

Is your user name in any way related to the current scandal? ;)

Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

That research you quoted earlier seemed highly suspect to me, though. The numbers were awfully high.

---

It all depends on the sample size and the type of people that you survey, though. And since its only a small percent of the population that are surveyed, its extremely unlikely to get percentages that all other surveys agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theugsquirrel

It all depends on the sample size and the type of people that you survey, though. And since its only a small percent of the population that are surveyed, its extremely unlikely to get percentages that all other surveys agree with.

---

Of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

That research you quoted earlier seemed highly suspect to me, though. The numbers were awfully high.

---

Yes they are high, but I wasn't very surprised by the numbers.
When you think that in some European countries 70% of young people marriages end only 7 years after the debut, it is no surprise that so many people cheat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Earlier in this thread, Arrows linked to a thread from last year in which you accused both Max and Bernie of both being in it for the money. Why, I must ask again, has your view of Max changed since then?

---

It has something to do with him disagreeing with Bernie about certain things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

But F1 will never be some sort of socialist motorsport paradise in which there is even distribution of wealth amongst everyone. As in life, there will be haves and have-nots. Some teams will succeed because they perform well, and others will fail because they don't.

The problem is surely not the distribution of F1's money, but the fact that the basic sums are so high in the first place. A variety of people are at fault for this.

---

You seem to disregard the amount of money Bernie is stuffing in his own pocket and making the different countries pay to host the races which make him money, and not giving enough back to the teams.

There does not need to be "some sort of socialist motorsport paradise in which there is even distribution of wealth amongst everyone" as you put it. I don't think anyone expects that in any sporting series. But there needs to be more money put back into the teams, and more into the bottom teams too. How can it be justified that the last team gets no money?

Well, yeah!! I have to agree with you that:"The problem is surely not the distribution of F1's money,"; The problem is the bugger who is not distributing the money in an equitable manner back to the teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theugsquirrel

It all depends on the sample size and the type of people that you survey, though. And since its only a small percent of the population that are surveyed, its extremely unlikely to get percentages that all other surveys agree with.

---

It is a statistical fact that 76.34% of all statistics are made up!!! :laugh:

Less inane bickering of irrelevant marriege stats and more insanely stupid bickering about the actual subject.

OK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

Less inane bickering of irrelevant marriege stats and more insanely stupid bickering about the actual subject.

OK?

---

Sorry, what was that, I was too busy filling in the divorce forms..... ;)

You want more of - Max is silly because he is using a bottle opener to open the can of worms.......?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

Less inane bickering of irrelevant marriege stats and more insanely stupid bickering about the actual subject.

OK?

---

:laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

Less inane bickering of irrelevant marriege stats and more insanely stupid bickering about the actual subject.

OK?

---

At last, something we can do well... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

Less inane bickering of irrelevant marriege stats and more insanely stupid bickering about the actual subject.

OK?

---

I have not engaged in this aspect of this discussion , but I see direct relevence to the subject at hand .

It is our societal behavior that gives us the morals with which we judge such issues .

That you find this aspect of the subject to be "inane" , and "bickering" is "irrelevant" .
It is related .

I also find it distasteful for you , to call this debate "insanely stupid bickering" .
Sorry , Janneppi , but that was insulting , and the kind of comment that regularly incites behavior that gets good debates such as this , closed down .


The morality of extra-marital activities , in this issue , was key to the success of the "sting" .
Max's success in defeating those who wanted to smear his name had the idea that the scandal itself would be enough to be worse in the public eye , than the idea of the "sting" , itself .
The addition of the uniforms gave it more weight , in terms of headlines , but served only to underline the issue that it was a man's personal life at it's most private .

Apart from implanting the thought of one's privacy being compromised , and the guilt involved with exposure , nobody gains here .
Perhaps some of the rich set have taken extra steps to keep things more private , and employed more people to staff video surveillance camera banks .

That they would go so far as to start talks of going without the FIA speaks reams about how this wasn't anything to do with morals in the first place .

Bernie said Max should go before the vote .
After the vote he said he was glad he didn't go .
Now , he sits to discuss the idea of going on without Max and the rest of the FIA .

As a member of the CAA , I am someone who was represented by my country's organization at the vote . It did not represent my views .

I would never dream of having extra-marital activity in my life , and do not condone such , but , my right to privacy relates to theft of something mine .
Theft involves loss of trust , and trust is most important of all .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

You seem to disregard the amount of money Bernie is stuffing in his own pocket and making the different countries pay to host the races which make him money, and not giving enough back to the teams.

There does not need to be "some sort of socialist motorsport paradise in which there is even distribution of wealth amongst everyone" as you put it. I don't think anyone expects that in any sporting series. But there needs to be more money put back into the teams, and more into the bottom teams too. How can it be justified that the last team gets no money?

Well, yeah!! I have to agree with you that:"The problem is surely not the distribution of F1's money,"; The problem is the bugger who is not distributing the money in an equitable manner back to the teams.

---

Exactly.
You seem to be getting better! Keep it up! :up: ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I have not engaged in this aspect of this discussion , but I see direct relevence to the subject at hand .

It is our societal behavior that gives us the morals with which we judge such issues .

That you find this aspect of the subject to be "inane" , and "bickering" is "irrelevant" .
It is related .

I also find it distasteful for you , to call this debate "insanely stupid bickering" .
Sorry , Janneppi , but that was insulting , and the kind of comment that regularly incites behavior that gets good debates such as this , closed down .


The morality of extra-marital activities , in this issue , was key to the success of the "sting" .
Max's success in defeating those who wanted to smear his name had the idea that the scandal itself would be enough to be worse in the public eye , than the idea of the "sting" , itself .
The addition of the uniforms gave it more weight , in terms of headlines , but served only to underline the issue that it was a man's personal life at it's most private .

Apart from implanting the thought of one's privacy being compromised , and the guilt involved with exposure , nobody gains here .
Perhaps some of the rich set have taken extra steps to keep things more private , and employed more people to staff video surveillance camera banks .

That they would go so far as to start talks of going without the FIA speaks reams about how this wasn't anything to do with morals in the first place .

Bernie said Max should go before the vote .
After the vote he said he was glad he didn't go .
Now , he sits to discuss the idea of going on without Max and the rest of the FIA .

As a member of the CAA , I am someone who was represented by my country's organization at the vote . It did not represent my views .

I would never dream of having extra-marital activity in my life , and do not condone such , but , my right to privacy relates to theft of something mine .
Theft involves loss of trust , and trust is most important of all .

---

Fully agree with Bagwan's view on this matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

Less inane bickering of irrelevant marriege stats and more insanely stupid bickering about the actual subject.

OK?

---

Ok
MaX read the prince, and followed it once again.

Per the prince, MaX succeeded in creating the appearance of a crisis, in a sufficient manner to "win" a certain vote, sued the villain (NOTW), warned them only he could defeat the truly evil one (Bernie) as well as appealling (or "influencing") to certain elements within the FIA, thereby justifying his continuance in the office through this charade of a vote.

In the process he followed the numerous examples of others similarly situated, such as Bill Clinton ("what sex, what woman...that is not sex...") where the stufff rolls off just like water off a duck's back, or as someone once said, never let them see you sweat.....

In the process, he may have created the justification for manufacturers behind the scenes, to breakaway from the FIA and bernie or for bernie to breakaway from the fia...................and not the comments of germany and so forth, about their leaving the FIA, and some of the smaller clubs getting money and so forth, http://msn.foxsports.com/motor/story...-of-confidence )

of course if ferrari will not go, then that will not happen except as a threat to try to drive bernie off his demands (hence the reason Ioan has taken the perch that he has taken, given his position for ferrari)

pretty simple actually for a skilled practioneer of the prince

Ball game over.

:beer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I also find it distasteful for you , to call this debate "insanely stupid bickering" .
Sorry , Janneppi , but that was insulting , and the kind of comment that regularly incites behavior that gets good debates such as this , closed down .

---

I disagree on that very much, few years on this forum have taught me that after 26 pages on the same subject begins to wear down people as they have been going over and over again the same old arguments several time already.
They sure as hell don't need my comments as an excuse to get on each others throat as is evident of the post deleted from this discussion.
For many, it's not about the discussion anymore, but seems to be the same old pissing contest(be it civilised or lowbrow) that surfaces time and time again, and that frustrates the hell out of me.

Personally, I view big parts of this thread insaly stupid, therefore I have mostly stayed away from discussing on it and will do so in the future.
You may find my comments insulting, so be it, I can't please everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

I disagree on that very much, few years on this forum have taught me that after 26 pages on the same subject begins to wear down people as they have been going over and over again the same old arguments several time already.
They sure as hell don't need my comments as an excuse to get on each others throat as is evident of the post deleted from this discussion.
For many, it's not about the discussion anymore, but seems to be the same old pissing contest(be it civilised or lowbrow) that surfaces time and time again, and that frustrates the hell out of me.

Personally, I view big parts of this thread insaly stupid, therefore I have mostly stayed away from discussing on it and will do so in the future.
You may find my comments insulting, so be it, I can't please everyone.

---

How moderate of you .

You can't please everyone , but you can please me by not insulting everyone .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

Personally, I view big parts of this thread insaly stupid,...

---

Not the comment expected from a good moderator. :s
Whom should I report this now?! :p :

I see no problem with deleting posts that are being rude, uncivilized and so on. But calling others opinions and comments insanely stupid is not a good showing.

Just my 2c.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Not the comment expected from a good moderator. :s
Whom should I report this now?! :p :

I see no problem with deleting posts that are being rude, uncivilized and so on. But calling others opinions and comments insanely stupid is not a good showing.

Just my 2c.

---

Hummm....ban the moderator for a couple of weeks??

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Not the comment expected from a good moderator. :s

---

Well, what would you call counteless vulgar references to Mosleys private life, provacative personal comments about peoples ethics and moral, unpleasant xenophobic comments, and of course the normal off topic bickering which has little to do with the actual subject?
Just to name some things on the top of my head. I'd call those pretty stupid. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

Well, what would you call counteless vulgar references to Mosleys private life, provacative personal comments about peoples ethics and moral, unpleasant xenophobic comments, and of course the normal off topic bickering which has little to do with the actual subject?
Just to name some things on the top of my head. I'd call those pretty stupid. ;)

---

We all might find some posts more or less perfect, however I learned not pass judgement on them anymore as it is offensive.

This thread went on all the possible directions since it's start however it didn't develop as badly as others did in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

Well, what would you call counteless vulgar references to Mosleys private life, provacative personal comments about peoples ethics and moral, unpleasant xenophobic comments, and of course the normal off topic bickering which has little to do with the actual subject?
Just to name some things on the top of my head. I'd call those pretty stupid. ;)

---

It's called 'defferent strokes for different folks'. Just shows you how peoples opinions differ. I like a debate that stirs the brain, and I thought we had quite a civilised one going on here.

Sometimes what you may see as banaal, insane cobblers, is not what is seen by others. Human nature that is.

You can see why people can rightly fail to understand sometimes the acts of the moderators, who clearly are using their opinions to moderate, rather than a specific and fixed set of criteria..........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

Well, what would you call counteless vulgar references to Mosleys private life, provacative personal comments about peoples ethics and moral, unpleasant xenophobic comments, and of course the normal off topic bickering which has little to do with the actual subject?
Just to name some things on the top of my head. I'd call those pretty stupid. ;)

---

I'd call it trying to change the subject .
It was your post that was called into question .

Conduct unbecoming , it could be called .

Unrepentent , you could be called .

The difference between this issue and Max's , in this sense , is only that his issue has nothing to do with his job .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I'd call it trying to change the subject .

---

Actually, it's you among others who are changing the subject commenting on my post. I was instructing members to stay on topic, albeit it was a rather frustrated comment, but it's you who are continuing with this issue instead of talking about Mosley and CO.

Perhaps a sign of a thread loosing it's momentum a bit? ;)