Max Mosley opens a can of worms.

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.