I don't know about it where you live, but around here we don't 'produce' children. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
Printable View
I don't know about it where you live, but around here we don't 'produce' children. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
:pQuote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Juan Manuel Fangio was injured badly in a non-championship race at Monza at the start of 1952 and missed the rest of the year. He returned for 1953 with a Maserati that was clear second best to the Ferraris, but won the last championship race that year, also at Monza, before rattling off four championships on the trot from 1954-57.
But in terms of both speed of recovery relative to the injuries, and immediate competitiveness once back, I can't think of anything in F1 that can top Lauda's recovery. To be given the last rites, return to the cockpit within a matter of weeks, come within a point of holding on to the title and to then win it the following year really is remarkable.
Also about Moss, I was reading a book of his once, where he said that he felt he made his "comeback" test too early. He felt his ability had deserted him, but later on this wasn't the case. I can't remember why he decided against a comeback later in the 60s, whether it was down to being out of the cockpit for so long, or age (although he is 3 years younger than Jack Brabham who raced, competitively, until 1970).
Not forgetting Michael Schumacher either in '99, who came back seemingly completely unaffected by his leg break other than the fact it buggered up his championship challenge and left him "returning the favour" to Irvine at the end of the year.
EDIT: D'oh, just seen Arrows' post about Sir Stirling's "too early" comeback. IIRC the book I saw he mentioned it in was "My Cars My Career" or something similar, if anyone has it knocking about.
I don't think that we can compare an accident where the consequences are rather aesthetic with one where the consequences mean that the driver loses his acuity and reflexes due to his brain being damaged.Quote:
Originally Posted by V12
It's quite a common turn of phrase in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
That's sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
Why? You seem to be attaching negative connotations to it that aren't really there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
There are aspects of all languages which appear strange when translated literally. There are some standard phrases in French for example, which when directly translated to English would seem rude at best.
Because a woman does not produce a child, it gives birth.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
Why's that? Because she isn't some kind of child production factory, she's a human being. And saying that women produce children is highly dis-considering for any woman.
This is my POV about this matter.
I'd say referring to a woman as 'it' was even more dis-considering (sic), but ignore me, English is just my native language.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan