@Yusri211 Raining makes it unpredictable there for giving not so great teams a chance to win and that car was designed by Adrien Newey who designed the Red Bull RB5 RB6 and RB7 and when he was at Mclaren they won a title too. He is the best designer in F1, i wish he was at Ferrari but he might in the future but we'll never know! In 2008 he designed the Toro Rosso and the current ones aren't designed by him even though Toro Rosso are owned by Red Bull and are a sister team to them.
Vettel is awesome - zee most kick driver out there to watch. I don't care about this stuff - that's part of racing. But the best part is watching Vettel fly around the track - dang quick as S***!
@Kranbone Webber, lost it on a wet curb, but also took out another competitor, and he took out Rosberg in what probably would have been his maiden win, what a dick head
@Kranbone No one purposely takes out another competitor (except maybe Senna), it's always an accident. When Vettel did it to Webber it was going to be a second place not a win, and you say under the safety car too, which implies that you think that Webber took out Rosberg under a safety car, which is not true, he did it before the safety car, and the incident caused a safety car.
And no, I will not be eating a dick, as I imagine it would not taste nice
@dan1994L Webber had a very strong shot at winning in Fuji when Vettel took him out. It's a fact that he was taken out, whilst under the safety car which is generally quite strange. I never implied Webber took Rosberg out, it was a racing incident.
@Kranbone I was saying that you were implying that their incident happened under a safety car, which you did. I just referred to it as Webber taking Rosberg out, because until now I have not come across anyone, event the biggest Webber fans, that honestly thinks that was a racing incident. A racing incident is when they both played a part in it, Rosberg had no where to go, and was taken out by Webber, it was 100% Webber's fault, and hence not a racing incident.
@dan1994L You need to read my posts carefully. Vettel took Webber out under a safety car. This is a fact. Webber did not take Rosberg out, this was a racing incident/accident. If a driver purposely takes another competitor out, it's not a racing incident and they must face the stewards. As Webber did not intend to take Rosberg out, neither drive is to blame.
When Vettel took Webber out though, that was HIS fault, 100%, don't deny this.
@Kranbone I read your post, I know what you were saying, it was just wrong.... No drivers purposely do it. I agree that Vettel took Webber out as it was HIS fault, however he did not do it purposely, no driver is stupid enough to just take themselves and another competitor out on purpose. However the Webber and Rosberg incident was 100% Webber's fault, Rosberg played no part in it, therefore it is not a racing incident, as all of the blame is on one driver.
@dan1994L No you obviously should learn to read. Whatever I said is correct, factual and thus right. YOU are wrong. Webber spun, hit a wall, He didn't aim to take Rosberg out like you implied. Rosberg was an innocent passenger just as Webber was an innocent passenger. This is called a racing incident.
There are drivers who take out other drivers, Vettel for instance losing it on a straight piece of road, or under the safety car, or even turning in to his own team mate. Vettel is to blame.
@Kranbone Your an idiot, a quote from you "Whatever I said is correct, factual and thus right". I can't believe you just think you are right. You need to learn to read, it's getting frustrating out how you keep bringing up this 'aiming at people' thing. Vettel was never aiming at anyone. By you logic, when someone is not in control of their car (even if it's their own fault that they aren't in control) and they hit someone, it is a racing incident.
@Kranbone Why do you think someone losing it on a straight and spinning into someone (whilst not in control) is them crashing into someone else, but someone spinning on a corner and spinning into another competitor is different, HOW IS THAT... WHERE IS YOUR LOGIC!!!!
@dan1994L Webbers accident involved a wet curb. He lost it, hit a wall, after that he became a passenger when he accidentally hit Rosberg. Going backwards after hitting a wall it's understandable that he should not receive blame as he was merely a passenger. Vettel lost it on a straight piece of road and slammed into Button. Where is the wall, was his car damaged prior to hitting Button?
Webbers car was damaged after hitting the wall and he was going backwards. Think, don't just post.
@Kranbone His car was damaged BECAUSE OF HIS OWN MISTAKE. Speaking of thinking, consider this; Was Mark Webber going backwards his own fault? Who was innocent in the collision? As far as I am concerned, it was Webber's fault that the collision occured, and on no part Rosberg's. Adrian Sutil hit Koboyashi that race and he was not in control of his car at the time, but he received a penalty, the only reason Webber was not penalized was to avoid interrupting the incredibly close title race.
@dan1994L His car was damaged because he hit a wall, after that he lost control going backwards and merely became a passenger. You need not put words in my mouth or get too technical here. By that aspect it makes Vettel look worse because he did not hit a wall and still collided with Button. It was his OWN fault and it was very stupid and reckless, more so than Webber.
Accept the facts and move on. Button played no part in the Vettel collision, he was innocent. Vettels fault, accept it.
@Kranbone Also, you keep randomly adding things about why you deem it a racing incident... Stewards don't just make it up on the spot, so how about you define what you believe to be a racing incident. Because from what you have said so far, you think that something is a racing incident if 'they have hit a wall and their car is damaged'. Any idiot would know that this is wrong. A racing incident is when both drivers played equal parts in a collision (i.e Hamilton and Webber in Singapore)
@dan1994L you cannot accept any facts where you are wrong or that you don't agree with. Nor will you let the argument die because you have failed. You have lost. Get over it, accept it.
Don't go off on a random tangent here. Accept and deal with the facts. There are set rules. If Mark Webber took out another competitor on purpose, he would face the stewards punishment. He hit a wall and then became a passenger and unfortunately he and Nico collided. Racing incident.
@dan1994L What I am trying to say because you are so thick, is that in Webbers crash of Rosberg, he hit the wall and became a passenger. There is on intention of taking another competitor out.
After Webber struck the wall he lost control and went backwards. Vettel on the other hand lost it on a straight and collided into another competitor. If you feel Webber is at fault, than surely Vettel must be MORE at fault in his example as he didn't hit a wall, rather Button first.
@Kranbone You constantly tell me to read posts more carefully, yet you are repeating yourself in every post. Firstly, calling me thick won't get you anywhere, especially with such appalling grammar.... I think you have difficulty with the meaning of the word intention and intentionally. If someone intends to take someone out, they SEEK to do it, they WANT to hit the other person. This is not the case in any accidents, no drivers seek to hit another competitor. Perhaps you
@dan1994L I love how you keep arguing so you get the last word. I don't mind but I won't give you the satisfaction of the last word nor double reply so I'll keep going on. I'm repeating myself and the facts which you can't hide from. You can't handle the fact that you're wrong so you keep posting a wall of text as a defense in some hope that I will go "you're right" but in reality we both know YOU ARE WRONG.
It's the internet, if you can't get over grammar and typos, eat a dick :)
@Kranbone (cont. from last message) are thinking of the word directly, Vettel directly hit Button.The only difference between the incidents was the time taken between the mistakes and the collisions. Vettel's mistake immediately caused him to hit Button, whereas Webber had a small delay between his mistake and his collision with Rosberg.The incidents are alike in that they both made a mistake, and their mistake was the sole reason another competitor was put out of the race.Both 100% responsible.
@dan1994L (cont. from last message) I will always reply so you don't get the last word because I know that's what eats away at you. The fact that you can't handle that and the fact that I am correct and you have been caught short.
FACT: Webber lost it on a web kerb, hit a wall and went out of control and hit Rosberg. Webber was at fault for hitting the wall, but not at fault for Rosberg, that's an accident.
FACT: Vettel lost it on a straight piece of road.
FACT: Vettel took Button out. Now consider this, when Webber lost it, he hit the wall and could do nothing else, as opposed to Vettel who has no excuse for taking another competitor out DIRECTLY.
FACT: Vettel is responsible for taking our Button just as much as he was for taking out Webber in Fuji and crashing into him in Turkey. This is an ugly side of Vettel's character.
We don't proclaim Webber to be the best driver just stating facts.
@Kranbone OK, It's funny you should bring this 'last word concept' up, as just before I was considering how tired this conversation has become. I don't think you are right, and I keep having to say it, but will say it again. Whether you lose it on a wet curb or on a straight does not change whether the circumstances that follow that are a racing incident or a driver taking another out. Webber lost it, and hit another driver whilst he wasn't in control.Vettel was not in control when he hit Button
@dan1994L Funny how you replied to every message I've put out and in some cases twice over. You really want the last word but can't handle the fact I won't give it to you. I'll be sure to reply to your 3 posts :)
I am right and the reason is because I'm stating the facts, plus you're always wrong anyway :)
Webber lost it of his own accord, hit the wall, then whatever happens to that is out of his control. Vettel caused himself to hit Button. Dangerous move..
@Kranbone You seem to struggle with the fact that when the stewards consider the question; racing incident or a stupid mistake on behalf of one driver. They do not take into account, was it done on a straight or a wet curb. Because all of the drivers on the track have to deal with the same conditions. Webber managed to deal with the straight, Vettel managed to deal with wet curbs, they are all in the same conditions, so if it is their own fault they lost control (which is the case for both)
@dan1994L You seem to have issues with the facts I bring up so you keep bringing on this big wall of text but it's only digging you a deeper hole. If Webber blatantly caused the accident, he would be summoned by the race stewards and held accountable.
Vettel didn't manage to stay in a straight line whilst on the road, he instead took Button out of the race. A wet curb is harder to deal with than a straight piece of road.
@Kranbone they have to accept responsibility for what follows. Also their is a difference between typos and poor sentence structure. I don't like Vettel btw, we are just using him as an example for some reason as he, like Webber, lost control of his car and hit another driver whilst he was unable to control where he was going.
@dan1994L Your sentences are poor but in all honesty, I can't be arsed going through everything nor typing everything up for you. If I bothered, I'd be perfect, but I'm better than you and it's reflected in the fact that my arguments > yours. The fact that you keep replying trying to justify yourself with a big failing wall of text and the fact that you're wrong and can't give the last word show that.
I support Sutil and Kubica, but it still doesn't change that Vettel took Button out.
@dan1994L More to the point, why can't you accept Vettel was to blame for taking out Webber under a safety car in Japan? Why can't you accept he turned into his own team mate in Turkey whilst his team mate gave him room? Why can't you accept that Vettel made very grand errors as such taking Button out while on a straight piece of road. Is it because deep down you like Vettel but either feel ashamed to admit to it because of his mistakes or can't own up to facts?
@Kranbone You really are a tool, I have been saying the whole time that Vettel is to blame for his collisions, I have been accepting that, and I have been using it as an example as realistically it is similar to Webber's incident. Let me try to make something clear, that I have been trying to make clear this whole time, whether they spun on a wet curb, or spun on a straight, does not change whether they are at fault for an accident. Perhaps you have forgotten what this discussion is about?
@dan1994L Wow you're such an IDIOT. You're a tool. I've been saying these facts the whole time and now that you can't run away from them you admit it. I'm glad you accept these facts and that you understand Vettel is to blame on each accounts and that it shows a history of inexperience and perhaps something worse.
I think personally, it's easier to spin on a wet kerb/curb than on a straight. How do you agree with that? I've always been stating the facts, shame you couldn't handle them.
@Kranbone It is about whether the incident in Korea was a racing incident or Webber's fault entirely. And we are using the Vettel incident as an example of how someone can be blamed entirely for a collision (which he deserved to be blamed) despite not having control. It was Vettel's fault he didn't have control, but he still hit someone because of his own mistake. Just like how Webber made a mistake which caused him to lose control and therefore hit Rosberg. His own fault he didn't have control.
@dan1994L Webber was at fault for hitting the wall, after that, he merely became a passenger. Hitting Rosberg was regretful, he didn't intend to do it, nor did he have control over his car. Vettel lost his car on a straight, a very rare thing to do and slammed into another competitor and took him out. Completely Vettel's fault.
Webber on the other hand lost control on a wet curb, not a straight, he hit a wall first (his fault) then hit Rosberg whilst he was out of control. He is blameless.
@dan1994L You are trying to say by Webber hitting the wall anything else after that is his fault when it's not true. Webber is at fault for hitting the wall, after he loses control of the car is merely when he becomes a passenger. Going backwards in the wet with no driver aids and a broken car is hard to blame him.
@Kranbone But the wall in between does not change the question or racing incident or one drivers fault. You have been so caught up with repeating yourself about a wall in between, that you have forgotten the fact that we are debating whether or not it was a racing incident. I keep trying to say to you, it does not matter whether it is wet or not, or whether it is a corner or a straight, a racing incident is when both drivers play a part in the collision.
@dan1994L I will reply to each one of your posts and then some to make sure I continue to one up you. It eats away at you, I know it. The wall does change the fact that it's not his fault because Webber lost control AFTER hitting the wall. It was a freak accident but you cannot blame Webber on it because he did not even intend to hit the wall in the first place.
I have had to repeat the facts so many times to demonstrate previous points which you have ignored or cannot accepted.
@dan1994L Conditions such as a damp track can play a part in an accident so they are relevant. This is an accident, a racing incident where no one is to blame, it's just that Rosberg was really unlucky. Wrong place, wrong time to hit an out of control Webber who is going backwards with a broken car after rebounding the car in the wet.
@dan1994L See, I can provide numerous replies + walls of text too.
I will now state facts to rub your nose in it.
Vettel takes Button out after losing it on a straight. The track was damp but it's a very weird incident.
In a race which had 17 laps under a safety car and delays Webber loses control on a flooded kerb and hits a wall (his fault). He rebounds off the wall without any control and his broken car is then hit by a fellow racer (not his fault, just a freak accident). Again?
@Kranbone OK, firstly I would like to clear something up, as you clearly don't have a logical train of though. If I post for example 3 comments, it does not mean that I am replying to 3 comment you have made before, the number of comments I post is related to the text limit, not what you have said. How on earth have I come across as arrogant, and the one with the big ego? You are the one who is constantly saying that you are right and everything you say is correct.
@dan1994L Firstly I would like to clear something up and that is not only can you not have the last word but you can't accept facts especially when they are against your opinion.
Sadly as my limit is running out I'll have to compress this. You have come across as arrogant as you can't accept when I am right, have valid points, and you cannot accept being wrong, nor can you accept me getting the last word.
I'm not right because I'm me, but because I state facts.
@Kranbone You call Webber a fan favourite, but out of the drivers in all of the 3 top teams, he probably has the least genuine fans. And nor is he so popular with the press, sure he gets support from those 3 idiots at ‘One HD’ who know nothing about F1, but around the world the media hate him. Perhaps it might be because he is hard to interview as he struggles to string 3 words together without saying ‘aaahhh’. People with English as a second language are more fluent than him.
@dan1994L Webbers market share is smaller, however in the paddock he is generally well liked and loved with very few enemies compared to current or previous championship. He is generally seen as everyones favourite underdog (try and deny that). His interviews are priceless due to his blunt and honest nature, a great trait if you ask me. Reminds me of the gold old days before everyone was so PC.
Maybe you should speak to Trulli or Fisi if you think he's a poor interview.
Quote from you “Rosberg was really unlucky. Wrong place, wrong time to hit an out of control Webber”. You have to be joking, Rosberg did not ‘hit Webber’, he was sandwiched between Webber and the wall, Webber rolled backwards into the side of him.
@dan1994L You must be blind, stupid and or both. If Rosberg didn't hit Webber, who did he hit? Fact is Webber spun on a curve, hit a wall and was out of control when Rosberg collected him. Unfortunate for Rosberg.
By your way of thinking it seems Webber did this on purpose "Webber rolled backwards into the side of him". I think the term, "an out of control Webber [after hitting the wall and with nowhere to go] made contact with Rosberg".
@Kranbone Rosberg did not hit anyone, watch the replay, Webber rolled into his side pod. I don't think Webber was trying to do that, but you say Rosberg hit Webber, when it was really Webber that went into Rosberg, watch the replays if you need to. You will see it was Webber that collected Rosberg. And yes, Webber did roll backwards into the side of him, he didn't mean to do it, but he did.
@dan1994L Look how I have worded this. If Rosberg did not hit anyone, how come he retired? Fact is he hit Webber whilst Webber was out of control. It's not Rosbergs fault, nor is it Webbers fault. I've watched the replay and saw an out of control Webber impacting the wall then rebounding off it.
I will never blame a driver for something that is out of their control. This is just bad luck, something Webber has a lot of in his career.
@Kranbone There is always something to blame for an incident. Rosberg was 0% to blame for that incident, so who should be accepting the blame? Frankly, I think it’s Webber that is 100% to blame for this incident, unless you would like to blame God, or some invisible ghost that might have attacked him, a story that would not be so out of place among all the other bullshit you enjoy posting on here, your going to have to accept that.
@dan1994L Formula 1 is not always clear cut. Only idiots believe this. There is not always someone to blame. Sometimes a car can fail and as such the driver can be involved in an accident where he himself is blameless. I've never blamed Rosberg, as he was innocent so don't be stupid ad put words into my mouth.
An out of control Webber who had no way of steering his car going backwards made impact with Rosberg. Neither driver is at fault, it's a racing incident.
@Kranbone I know he didn’t mean to, and he was not in control when it happened, but it was his mistake that caused the accident. Think of it like this, if Webber hadn’t have spun, would the incident still have happened? The answer is No. Now ask another question, If Rosberg had not been in the race, would Webber have smashed straight into the wall anyway (the second hit of the wall, when he was rolling)? And the answer to that is Yes.
@dan1994L It's good you can accept Webber did not meant to strike Rosberg. If Webber had not have spun, who knows what could have happened. Imagine if Rosberg wasn't funded in his junior career. Imagine if you weren't born.
Things happen, accidents happen, mistakes happen. Formula 1 is not about playing the blame game. If Webber was like you he'd be having a sook about every car that has failed on him.
@Kranbone If Webber wasn’t there, then no incident would have occurred. If Rosberg wasn’t there, an incident still would have occurred. Mark Webber was crashing by himself, and (not purposefully) collected Nico Rosberg in the process.
@dan1994L That analogy is so stupid. Formula 1 is being in the right place at the right time (sometimes that's how passes can happen, profit from a backmarker etc).
Webber made a mistake, he accepts blame, but he cannot be held responsible for when he has NO control over his car. He is completely blameless.
@Kranbone And about this whole last word thing, just before you originally brought it up, I was considering just giving up on this conversation as we are getting nowhere, but then when you posted that and I realised that if I give up, you will think that I have realized you are right and am trying to escape it, which is not the case
@dan1994L You would never consider giving up the last word because you can't handle the fact that I'm right. I've stated facts which are true. Plus whenever you have argued against me you are wrong and sprout stupid bullshit about real life.
You have lost your argument and your only shred of dignity is to get the last word.
@Kranbone Finally I would like to quote your comment about me being arrogant, it is quite funny. “You have come across as arrogant as you can't accept when I am right, have valid points, and you cannot accept being wrong”. The reason I found this to be funny is because in it, you have shown the same qualities you are arguing that I have.
@dan1994L Furthermore I would like to state your arrogance in continuing this argument. "Finally I would like to quote". You keep going on and on and on. You just can't handle the fact that I have called you out for being arrogant. No last post for you :)
@Kranbone You are saying that I cannot accept being wrong, and you are saying that I just assume I am right and have the valid points, but in that, you are showing that you always think you are right otherwise you would not assume that you have valid points that I am apparently trying to avoid.
@dan1994L You are wrong, not just because you argued against the facts but because you are you. Anything said by you should be taken like a grain of salt but it hurts not having the final post.
Your points aren't valid and your real life comparison was utterly PATHETIC. You have failed. I will gladly waste more of your time. It's your choice.
You keep saying that Webber can’t be held accountable for actions when he wasn’t in control. And I keep on trying to tell you that when most accidents happen the drivers aren’t in control, sure the time between their mistakes and collisions is a little shorter than in Korea, but they still aren’t in control. But clearly other F1 situations aren’t getting me anywhere with your level of understanding so I will use a real life scenario for you.
@dan1994L You can't always compare real life to F1 as that is very hard to do. Drivers make mistakes, for that they are accountable, but when they are unable to stop anything more, for example after hitting a wall or being pushed off by someone else, forced wide, it's not their fault, rather a racing incident.
If a driver is forced wide because of another and accidentally clips another car, who is at fault? The person who jerked suddenly to avoid first contact or the initial driver?
@dan1994L Formula 1 is not equivalent to real life so your real life scenario is very poor just like your level of understanding. You're the type of person we don't need in F1, looking to point the finger of blame for every little thing, rather than letting people race.
Let them race I say. Nannies like you don't belong.
@dan1994L You don't like to let them race, you like to play the blame game. To requote a certain loser "There is always something to blame for an incident."
Racing is racing, accidents will happen. If Rosberg was anything like you, he wouldn't be in the paddock very long. I hope Webber continues to race because we need real men like him, not nannies.
@Kranbone Firstly, I’m not even sure you understand the meaning of the word arrogance, if someone keeps ‘going on and on’ that does not make them arrogant. Another thing I am not sure you understand is when someone hits someone. By hit someone, I do not mean make contact, I mean run into someone. Whenever you watch a replay it is always clear who ran into who, Rosberg was ahead of Webber when the contact occurred, and Webber HIT the side of Rosberg. Rosberg did not HIT anyone.
@dan1994L I know what arrogance means and even in your final post you still think not only that you are correct when in fact you are WRONG but by your attitude thinking you know better when you clearly don't.
A further note, you're not listening. If Rosberg didn't hit anyone he wouldn't have retired. It was not Rosbergs fault, nor did I say it was but Rosberg made contact with Webber. Webber hit Rosberg, Rosberg hit Webber. Both drivers hit each other and thus they both retire from the race.
@Kranbone You complained of me putting words in your mouth, yet you are constantly doing that with me. In fact, in a very recent post you said “You don't like to let them race”, well, actually, I never said that, quite the contrary really as I said that I do like to let them race. And your reasoning for thinking that I don’t like to let the race is because I blame people for incidents. Yes they should race and be on the limit, but there is a reason for everything.
@dan1994L Again being caught up on a technical side there you can't accept being wrong. It doesn't matter who is to blame but matter of fact is that both Rosberg and Webber made contact, so by saying Rosberg never hit Webber makes you look like a MASSIVE idiot which isn't surprising.
I reply in the same way you have so if you have tried to put words in my mouth, I'll return fire. Annoying isn't it, but it goes to show you can't handle when things are turned against you.
@dan1994L You give a strong impression that you're a whinging/complaining overly politically correct F1 nazi/nanny. I quoted against you and you couldn't handle that either hence trying to justify it here. Not everything can be blamed or finger pointed.
You can trace events back to a starting point but it isn't always worthy of blame. Knowing you, you would blame your engineers if your engine was weak.
@Kranbone You are constantly bringing up the same things in everyone of your posts. In a majority of your last posts, you brought up my analogy, my analogy was only there to help you understand a simple concept, as you were clearly struggling with it. Obviously Nico and Mark had not been off getting smashed before the race, but it is about accepting responsibility.
@Kranbone Finally, as my ego isn’t quite as big as yours, I am going to accept that this conversation is going absolutely no where, as we are basically just paraphrasing our previous comments. Barely any new content is being added to our ‘discussion’.
@dan1994L Ego, no your ego has been repeatedly beaten and smashed into place by yours truly. Another scalp for me and a big loss for you. The conversation will go nowhere because you fail to accept facts and continue to point blame where no blame can be given.
You sound like a loser making a quick exit, but I applaud. You finally accept you're a loser and you're high-tailing it out of here.
@Kranbone And Thus, I am not going to pursue this ‘discussion’ any longer. But please just know the reason I am finishing is not because I think you are right, it is because I cannot argue with you any longer and it is wasting my time, and filling up my iPad auto notification.
So bye bye, nice talking to you (it wasn't really).
@dan1994L Even when you say you won't persue the discussion further you still do so. You just can't help but add to it. You're a loser, you know it, I know it. I am right, not only because I've stated facts and you have argued against them but because I am me, and you are you.
Me = right regardless of which point I take.
You = wrong regardless of which side you take (real reason, you're a loser).
It has been nice putting you in your place. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
@Kranbone And btw, just something extra to add, for future reference, it was extremely obvious that deep down you have desperately wanted the 'last word' all along, and you tried to disguise it by saying you only wanted it to take it away from me, but really you needed that last word, you needed it as a means of feeling good about yourself, so please take it, it's an early Christmas present from me.
@dan1994L Wanted the last word? Wow, such a loser here. You kept posting after you so desperately wanted to stop. You going on and on, like a broken record. I'm not after the last word, personally, I don't care. The only things I care about is stating facts in the hopes you argue against them, which you have and show how stupid you are.
I should also point out that you still can't give someone the last word and you're only backing out now because you realise you're a loser.
@dan1994L I appreciate the Christmas present. My present to you is this piece of advice. You're a loser now, you'll be a loser in the future. You tried to argue a point then argued against facts because you couldn't handle being proven wrong in an argument then let me get the better of yourself.
It's the internet, get over it. (BIGGEST LESSON LEARNT).
@Kranbone oh, one last thing (I know I said I would stop commenting, but this is my last one I promise), you say if Rosberg was anything like you (I assume that means if Rosberg had the same "blame game attitude" that I do), he wouldn't be in the paddock. Well he did blame Webber just like I did, quote from his twitter "I don't understand why Webber didn't hit the brakes,It was crazy to roll back across the track like that."
You're still going. Talk about a wall of text. You really wanted the last post didn't you. I almost feel bad for not giving it to you, almost. You keep going on about the fact that you would shut up and take it on the chin but I have my doubts.
Seeing as how you try to prove facts wrong, it's not surprising that you can't let an argument die down especially when you're on the losing side. Take it on the chin and leave with your tail between your legs mate.
@dan1994L In regards to Rosberg. It's natural he would feel disappointed and angry. He was driving along when suddenly an out of control Webber makes contact. Rosberg was not at fault and never will be, but there is the chance that Webber (and I believe this as a strong chance) after crashing against a wall damaged several components or was winded.
Rosberg is really unlucky, no doubt but it's not like Webber rolled into him on purpose. Wrong German ;)
@Kranbone I've just read through this lot and it's very obvious dan1994L did not give up, but just got bored of your protracted rambling. If you can think beyond your narcissitic state of mind for a moment, you will find you lost this debate.
@MrThreshold2009 I think you will find he conceded because he like you, is a massive loser. Enjoy wasting your time reading up on the debate. Only idiots like yourself ignore facts. By debating against a fact, you realise how much of a loser you are.
@Kranbone Pfffft. I wasn't on about the point of your argument, I was regarding the manner in which you were conducting yourselves. Seeing as you were behaving like a Grade A Cunt, that's why you lost. Duh?
You're boring and tediously arrogant. Have fun replying. Only vacuous twats like you would.
@MrThreshold2009 If you argue against me and not Dan then you are just as bad as he is and just as hypocritical. You are a grade A cunt yourself for picking a side and trying to start a little shit storm in a teacup. But congratulations on showing how stupid and hypocritical you are. Not only choosing to ignore facts but picking the losing side.
Eat a dick and get over yourself, loser. Calling me arrogant yet you throw the first punch, my my, someone is a bit pretentious.
@Kranbone That's complete crap and you know it. If you don't you're even more clueless than my initial appraisal.
When you are clearly as moronic as you are I do not expect you to suddenly change your viewpoint, but the fact remains you come across as a complete arsehole and you have well and truly lost the argument. Can't deal with that, can you? Hahaha. You live and learn, son, you live and learn.
@MrThreshold2009 Anything I say is not crap, but anything you say against me is crap. The fact that you are so clueless and stupid astounds me.
When a moron, an idiot, a dimwit like you comes across I wonder why you aren't a posterchild for abortion. I support pro choice and you're the reason why. Fact is you're a cunt and you're getting yourself into an argument by taking sides and wanting to pick a fight when it's not needed.
I've never lost an argument ever. Losers like you never learn.
@Kranbone Well you're a talking/typing contradiction as you've lost two arguments right here on this page! You live and learn, kid, you live and learn.
Besides which, I didn't pick a fight. I merely pointed out to you (as you are so blinded by your arrogance) that you lost the debate with Dan. Couldn't handle that, eh? Now you've twisted it all around in your perverted brain so you can fire accusations at me. Pathetic. You're a bigot and a hypocrite.
@MrThreshold2009 Contradiction, me, no. You, yes. You're a hypocritical loser which is evident by every post you have made here. Live and learn, you mean YOU have to live and learn. I have nothing to learn, but a lot to teach.
Especially idiots and people like you who have no clue. But then again, idiots like you rarely learn. I am not blinded by arrogance, rather I can accept the truth and the facts which you argue against by supporting him.
@Kranbone You've done it again, right there! Automatically assumed you have won. I'm sorry to have to remind you, but you have lost two arguments. You're the one who started this, and you're the one who started using insults first. Conradiction! This just doesn't click in your brain, huh? You are too obnoxious to see Dan simply left the argument as there was no point in continuing; it was open ended and you assumed victory. Only a total wanker would do that. Full offence meant. Grow up.
@MrThreshold2009 Done it again? You mean you have, you've even called me a total wanker in your current post. Let's get something right here. YOU'RE THE WANKER. YOU NEED TO GROW UP. Dan left the argument because he lost. He argued against established facts and thus lost the argument.
I never started any fight, merely finished it. It's wankers like you that wish to continue beating a dead horse. Grow up and move on you loser.
@Kranbone Does this happen a lot to you; people giving up in debate rather than concluding it like an adult? In your mind this may constitute a victory, which is unconscionably arrogant, but the reason people are abandoning the dispute is due to your intolerable nature. It has nothing to do with your perceived superiority. Your inability to see this, instead continuously professing yourself as victorious, is pitiable.
@MrThreshold2009 What seems to happen is people think they can argue against facts and win. I'm an adult and as an outstanding and amazing adult I feel I could offer you a lot of advice. It's just a shame your childish brain can't take it.
I don't know about intolerable. It's hard to tolerate losers or people who are stupid to argue against facts or pick fights ;)
I am a victor, always have been, always will be, something you will NEVER be.
@Kranbone "I am a victor, always have been, always will be, something you will NEVER be" - You suffer from severe egomania. I'd recommend seeing a psychiatrist as it may be impinging on your social and/or work life. I mean this seriously, and with concern.
@MrThreshold2009 Egomania? Sorry to say the truth but I am a winner, you're a loser. The first step to fixing your problem is admitting you're a loser. I've suggested that earlier. I'd also consider suggesting you seek a medical or mental health professional but have doubts on whether it would be of any help.
A person who denies facts and backs a losing argument obviously has a mental deficiency. No need to concern yourself about my awesome life. Seek help for yourself, you need it.
@Kranbone This is my point exactly; the deluded fantasies of grandeur you are placing yourself in. Perhaps if you try considering yourself in an impartial manner you would view other notions and possibilities with more respect. Mindlessly repeating your convictions of superiorty are getting you nowhere, and making you appear somewhat simple minded.
Again, I will point out, at no stage have this debate between you or I been based around tangible fact. I
@MrThreshold2009 I am not deluded. You are so deluded you even mistake myself for you. Possibly this is because you are jealous and would love to be a winner. I am as impartial as one can be and this is evident in my F1 discussions.
Mindless repeating facts in arguments and refusing to back a loser who argues against them makes me a winner. A person as bias and as stupid as you wouldn't grasp that. Fact of the matter is I am better than you and I have won arguments against you and dan. Eat it
@Kranbone You are deluded. You won't think so, obviously, as your narcissism is all encompassing, but you are seriously deceiving yourself, taking your contradictory nature into perpuity, and working your blood pressure up. Remember; a meeting in therapy is only a phone call away. It would help you.
@MrThreshold2009 Deluded, no, you've mistaken me for you. Obviously someone so full of bias and delusion can't handle facts or see both sides of an argument. I really suggest you stop replaying the same tape and move on.
You may wish to contact Mindline 0845 766 0163
They will send you to the right asylum where you can be treated and sterilized for the good of the public.
@MrThreshold2009 You're welcome for the number thought they would be more concerned about you rather than me. Any condition I have would be good though. Standing up for what's right, true, factual.
What do you stand up for? People who deny facts, losers. You show a great bias to ignore insults from other users yet throw some out yourself and even have the audacity to call out others for theirs.
Please call that number now. You need help, urgently.
@Kranbone It's pretty basic psychology; you gave me the number under the subconscious desire for assistance. Mind you, considering how fundamental theory has so far proven beyond you I can see how you didn't get this.
You're being a pedant over this "fact" issue; entirely missing how I have never said denying facts is the way to go about things. And the insults from other users were derived from your initiations; so you should create a cessation on the rhetoric there as it is moronic
@MrThreshold2009 Don't pull this basic psychology stuff. You need it, not me. I am the advisor here and going by the arguments I've won and will continue to win, you're in urgent need of help.
It's not just facts I'm right about but bias. You're too ashamed to back down now because you backed the a losing argument and don't want to admit it despite being the failure you are.
You're a one-sided hypocritical moron. It's as simple as that.
@Kranbone And I'm not ashamed, I'm enjoying this far too much to not bother replying! Watching you squirm about uncomfotably and borderline incoherently, with innocuous issues is like like book on neurological conditioning I am reading about right now. You would make an excellent case study in assumed rhetoric!
@MrThreshold2009 You are ashamed as you were proved wrong. You supported someone who had a failed argument and then took a very bias, one-sided, hypocritical stance on an issue. Watching you fail repeatedly brings me and everyone else GREAT pleasure. You're a laughing stock and seeing you suffer at my hands is quite enjoyable.
You would make a great example for Freud to study.
@Kranbone You are quite superfluously continuing to engage with these issues which I have already sufficiently explained to you several times. Does your limited imagination not allow for the creation of alternate discourse? You are belligerently pursuing the same areas like a deranged stoic, too pent up on your self importance to realise you have been going around in circles for some time now.
@MrThreshold2009 You previously haven't given a sufficient explaination for your clear bias. You are completely ignorant of facts stated and just choose to pick a losing argument, attacking a winner and getting off scot-free, get real.
A lot of your rhetoric just leads to going back in circles. What I have said cannot be denied and it's why any of your posts should be taken with a grain of salt considering you ignore facts and show so much hypocrisy.
@Kranbone I have noticed, too, you pick up on my parlance and begin using it in your comments! A sign you have long since run out of your own potential. You are even using the same argument points as I am. Get a grip. You haven't "won" anything. What there is to "win" here is absolutely nothing and I couldn't care less; I just want to see you face up to this knowledge.
And the whole "facts". It has nothing to do with this. I have stated a score of times how this has not been about that.
@MrThreshold2009 You're chirping like a parrot and repeating completely nonense. I've won every argument I have had against you and Dan. You cannot deny that you jumped into an argument without realising what was going on and threw the first punch. You call me out for being immature yet you are far worse (hypocrisy at it's finest).
Facts and hypocrisy have so much do to with this argument. Just because you argue against it doesn't make it true nor does it mean I'll let you off.
@MrThreshold2009 Perhaps this time you can give a fair response and not be a dick.
1// The debate WAS NOT left open ended. The person conceded. He couldn't argue against the facts and even sent me a friends request. He couldn't win and gave up thus I AM A VICTOR.
2// It's a fact, you backed a loser, making you just as much of a loser as him.
3// You initiated the argument first and I responded, get the facts straight.
4// So you jump into an argument ignoring facts. You are stupid.
@Kranbone This has been my point all along, your immature conduct. Your inability to see how Dan simply left you to it is a major weakness.
Regarding point 3; I am well aware I started the "DEBATE" (READ: not argument) first. Following my first message you immediately insulted me and turned it into an argument. I have explained this to you several times now. Clearly this will continue aimlessly in circles as you repeat yourself over and over and over.
@MrThreshold2009 My point has been how hypocritical you are by calling out for immature conduct yet you conduct yourself in a far worse manner. Furthermore you ignore the previous argument only to get your foot in the door and try and throw the first punch.
You started the debate, thus threw the first punch. Don't think someone will let you get a way in and no respond. You're so clueless you can't fathom this, it's such a shame you choose to ignore facts and be so hypocritical.
@Kranbone I'd also like to be prescient here and point out how you, in your next response, will ignore all of what I have just written and repeat yourself YET AGAIN. Looking forward to it. I'll be here for the next few months explaining it for you; free of charge. Eventually you'll catch up!
@MrThreshold2009 To be fair most of what you say is rubbish and should be ignored. I repeat facts and events that have occurred. The reason you don't want to bring them up or choose to ignore them is because it makes you look like an idiot and rightly so.
I'll be here to make sure you never get the last word and I have all the time in the world to educate you. Eventually you'll run away like Dan and show what a loser you are.
The hypocritical, ignorant and a fact denying twat that you are.
@Kranbone Correct, I started the debate (I noticed you changed your tune from "argument" after I pointed out how belligerent you have been). You use such forceful language; "threw the first punch" (that's a verbatim quote). I merely offered my opinion. You are the one who responded with insipid arrogance and insults. Clearly you are not mature enough to see this.
Your contuining use of the points I raised against you also clearly shows you long ago lost where you were in this matter.
@MrThreshold2009 A debate can also be viewed as an argument. I have never changed my tune. You choose to argue with me but I have pointed out how belligerent and stupid you are as you willingly choose to ignore facts, a previous debate and show such bias.
Clearly you aren't mature to be taken seriously.
Your inability to fathom that leads me to believe you need a kick up the backside which I will so keenly provide.
@Kranbone And I have been referring to this singular case as an "argument", what is happening here is not a "debate". It could be reffered to as the latter if it had any intellectual merit to it. As it does not and you are leading us on a merry-go-round of repition it is in the vacuous domain of "argument"; a quarrel or a dispute. Do not try and raise it above what it isn't in some vain attempt to add meaning to your foul mouthed rants.
@MrThreshold2009 In this case, this is can be seen as both an argument and a debate. My feeling is that a debate is more formal, but in reality, when points of view and facts are discussed this should consitute a debate.
It's a shame you can't fathom my views through that thick head of yours.
@Kranbone From the very beginning I stipulated my issues had nothing to do with the “facts” you so persistently talk of. PLEASE READ: I AM NOT RUBBISHING YOUR CLAIMS, WHATEVER THEY WERE. I WAS POINTING OUT HOW YOUR DEMEANOUR WAS WORTHY OF DERISION. Do you understand yet? I’ll bring it up in my next post, and ad infinitum, until you fully grasp the concept. It is not too difficult, dear.
@MrThreshold2009 But someone who chooses to ignore facts and previous statements before jumping into an argument is surely an idiot. Do you blindly cross the street too?
It's not too difficult to grasp this concept that YOU HAVE SHOWN BIAS. YOU HAVE ALSO CHOSEN TO BACK SOMEONE WHO HAS IGNORED FACTS WHICH MAKES YOU AN IDIOT.
@Kranbone Indeed, you never have changed your tune, you have been a belligerent and petulant from the get go. You also keep using my parlance; is this a useful English lesson for you? "Belligerent" and "fathom" are the latest ones.
@MrThreshold2009 You have kept trying to backpedal where you can because you know you have been beaten in an argument on a regular basis by me. I've never had to change my tune because I've always been correct. I need no English lesson but I can't help but explain the word hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy; an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction.
@Kranbone As you keep resorting to obscenities it is also overtly clear you are floundering. It will do your traits some good to just admit you have been behaving pathetically. This is why Dan abandoned the debate, this is why I have supported him. It is nothing to do with whatever you two were on about regarding F1. Comprehend? Hypocrisy, ignorance etc. etc. does not come into it, that is your opinion, I reverse these feelings on you and what do we have? You repeating every point I make!
@MrThreshold2009 Resorting to obscenities? Me? Wait, what about you? Again, another hypocritical view. You have insulted me on many occassion(sp) despite me being correct and never once being bias nor a hypocritical cunt like you.
@Kranbone I will reiterate once again; yes I used expletives against you, but you initiated matters in this regard. So what exactly do you expect? Me to just sit around letting you insult away? Get real, kid. You are maintaining double standards here which you are wholly oblivious of.
I do hope on some level you are being subversively humorous; but if you are serious about your claims you are very deluded.
@MrThreshold2009 Let me reiterate again, that you have initiated the argument/debate. You choose to stick your nose in where it doesn't belong. By your own admission you joined in without prior knowledge and used insults and expletives.
You criticised(sp) me on being petty yet you in the past and no doubt in the future you will continue to act in the same way. This shows you have a massive double standard and hypocrisy on the issue and that your opinion is worth null.
@Kranbone Incidentally it's called "freedom of speech". Read some Orwell to understand its importance. If you think that was "sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong" when I merely commented on your lacklustre conduct, then your narcissism has left you oblivious to other people's views. By my "own admission" I joined in without prior knowledge? I read yours and Dans posts, you're the one who came across as insufferable (which is why Dan abandoned the deabte). It is a shame you can't see this
@MrThreshold2009 I admire freedom of speech. I admire catching people out for the hypocritical cunts they are.
I admire showing how stupid someone is for jumping into a debate in which they are completely clueless.
I see everything, however sadly, going by your previous posts you see nothing and it's no surprise because you're an idiot. For your benefit you did stick your nose into an argument which had finished in my favour. Shame you didn't see that (nor dan sending a friends request).
@MrThreshold2009 Opinion. No, you've backed someone else who went against facts. YOU"RE AN IDIOT. You have shown CLEAR BIAS. Not an opinion, that's a fact. You have shown a hypocritical stance where you complain about my attitude and insults yet you have thrown your own.
Must I repeat every point I make. You're such an idiot.
I will never EVER give you the last word. Part of me schooling you is getting the final word so you know.
What are you apologising for Vettel?
Clearly it was Hamilton's Fault, haha
iboa100 1 week ago
"Who KERS about KERS?"
ErosaScuderia 3 months ago
Stop hating on Vettel haters. Vettel wouldn't
CitizenZon3 3 months ago
Button and Vettel are good friends, and I know Vettel didn't mean to crash with Button, he's a good guy!
Justine906 3 months ago
Hah,bet u all dont know he win in a toro Rosso before :) in 2008 monza and it was raining
Yusri211 4 months ago
@Yusri211 Raining makes it unpredictable there for giving not so great teams a chance to win and that car was designed by Adrien Newey who designed the Red Bull RB5 RB6 and RB7 and when he was at Mclaren they won a title too. He is the best designer in F1, i wish he was at Ferrari but he might in the future but we'll never know! In 2008 he designed the Toro Rosso and the current ones aren't designed by him even though Toro Rosso are owned by Red Bull and are a sister team to them.
Nesto885 2 months ago
I cant help myself to see Vettel as a ridiculously funny figure, specialy from these times, with his long hair saing "Who KERS?" :)
Iurisperitus 4 months ago
ha funniest thing is they are both great friends
MrAdamocovic 4 months ago
@GeorgePantazis1 your gay mother is watching you
TheAsi55 4 months ago
Omg...what a noob (Vettel)
GeorgePantazis1 4 months ago
Yes Vettel, you MAY be fast in the fastest car in F1 at the moment, but you CANNOT overtake for SHIT
xRapidClaWx 5 months ago
@xRapidClaWx pffff go cry to your mommy.
philateliceun 5 months ago
@philateliceun Nice arrogance, vettel fan boy much?
xRapidClaWx 4 months ago
@xRapidClaWx yeah, ofc he cant. you could either. if you are first, there is noone to be overtaken.
5t3v3n 4 months ago
LOL at that Kranbone with his obvious ghost account!
F1TomM 6 months ago
wish he would gave a race like that, this year!!
johnnyfiveisking 7 months ago 2
All the people arguing in the comments are the same person.
Hannoi 7 months ago 6
Comment removed
BonakiD24 11 months ago
Vettel is awesome - zee most kick driver out there to watch. I don't care about this stuff - that's part of racing. But the best part is watching Vettel fly around the track - dang quick as S***!
BourbonAnakin 1 year ago 2
How did Vettel lose it on a straight and take Button (fellow rival) out. Poor driving there by Vettel.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Tires. Not shit driving, Similar to what happened to Webber at Korea, just Button was in the way.
agiIsMyLiFe 1 year ago
@agiIsMyLiFe well no similar really ... watch the sequences again and then comment
numbtesticle 1 year ago
@agiIsMyLiFe They are not at all similar. Vettel drove shit there and took another competitor out. Webber lost it on a wet curb.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Webber, lost it on a wet curb, but also took out another competitor, and he took out Rosberg in what probably would have been his maiden win, what a dick head
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Webber lost it on a wet curb. Right, the fact that he accidentally took another competitor is not his fault you dickhead.
Funny that, Vettel took Webber out for what would have been Webber maiden win. It was under the safety car too.
Eat a dick ;)
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone No one purposely takes out another competitor (except maybe Senna), it's always an accident. When Vettel did it to Webber it was going to be a second place not a win, and you say under the safety car too, which implies that you think that Webber took out Rosberg under a safety car, which is not true, he did it before the safety car, and the incident caused a safety car.
And no, I will not be eating a dick, as I imagine it would not taste nice
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Webber had a very strong shot at winning in Fuji when Vettel took him out. It's a fact that he was taken out, whilst under the safety car which is generally quite strange. I never implied Webber took Rosberg out, it was a racing incident.
You might want to read my post :)
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone I was saying that you were implying that their incident happened under a safety car, which you did. I just referred to it as Webber taking Rosberg out, because until now I have not come across anyone, event the biggest Webber fans, that honestly thinks that was a racing incident. A racing incident is when they both played a part in it, Rosberg had no where to go, and was taken out by Webber, it was 100% Webber's fault, and hence not a racing incident.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L You need to read my posts carefully. Vettel took Webber out under a safety car. This is a fact. Webber did not take Rosberg out, this was a racing incident/accident. If a driver purposely takes another competitor out, it's not a racing incident and they must face the stewards. As Webber did not intend to take Rosberg out, neither drive is to blame.
When Vettel took Webber out though, that was HIS fault, 100%, don't deny this.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone I read your post, I know what you were saying, it was just wrong.... No drivers purposely do it. I agree that Vettel took Webber out as it was HIS fault, however he did not do it purposely, no driver is stupid enough to just take themselves and another competitor out on purpose. However the Webber and Rosberg incident was 100% Webber's fault, Rosberg played no part in it, therefore it is not a racing incident, as all of the blame is on one driver.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L No you obviously should learn to read. Whatever I said is correct, factual and thus right. YOU are wrong. Webber spun, hit a wall, He didn't aim to take Rosberg out like you implied. Rosberg was an innocent passenger just as Webber was an innocent passenger. This is called a racing incident.
There are drivers who take out other drivers, Vettel for instance losing it on a straight piece of road, or under the safety car, or even turning in to his own team mate. Vettel is to blame.
Kranbone 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kranbone Your an idiot, a quote from you "Whatever I said is correct, factual and thus right". I can't believe you just think you are right. You need to learn to read, it's getting frustrating out how you keep bringing up this 'aiming at people' thing. Vettel was never aiming at anyone. By you logic, when someone is not in control of their car (even if it's their own fault that they aren't in control) and they hit someone, it is a racing incident.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@Kranbone Why do you think someone losing it on a straight and spinning into someone (whilst not in control) is them crashing into someone else, but someone spinning on a corner and spinning into another competitor is different, HOW IS THAT... WHERE IS YOUR LOGIC!!!!
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Webbers accident involved a wet curb. He lost it, hit a wall, after that he became a passenger when he accidentally hit Rosberg. Going backwards after hitting a wall it's understandable that he should not receive blame as he was merely a passenger. Vettel lost it on a straight piece of road and slammed into Button. Where is the wall, was his car damaged prior to hitting Button?
Webbers car was damaged after hitting the wall and he was going backwards. Think, don't just post.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone His car was damaged BECAUSE OF HIS OWN MISTAKE. Speaking of thinking, consider this; Was Mark Webber going backwards his own fault? Who was innocent in the collision? As far as I am concerned, it was Webber's fault that the collision occured, and on no part Rosberg's. Adrian Sutil hit Koboyashi that race and he was not in control of his car at the time, but he received a penalty, the only reason Webber was not penalized was to avoid interrupting the incredibly close title race.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L His car was damaged because he hit a wall, after that he lost control going backwards and merely became a passenger. You need not put words in my mouth or get too technical here. By that aspect it makes Vettel look worse because he did not hit a wall and still collided with Button. It was his OWN fault and it was very stupid and reckless, more so than Webber.
Accept the facts and move on. Button played no part in the Vettel collision, he was innocent. Vettels fault, accept it.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Also, you keep randomly adding things about why you deem it a racing incident... Stewards don't just make it up on the spot, so how about you define what you believe to be a racing incident. Because from what you have said so far, you think that something is a racing incident if 'they have hit a wall and their car is damaged'. Any idiot would know that this is wrong. A racing incident is when both drivers played equal parts in a collision (i.e Hamilton and Webber in Singapore)
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L you cannot accept any facts where you are wrong or that you don't agree with. Nor will you let the argument die because you have failed. You have lost. Get over it, accept it.
Don't go off on a random tangent here. Accept and deal with the facts. There are set rules. If Mark Webber took out another competitor on purpose, he would face the stewards punishment. He hit a wall and then became a passenger and unfortunately he and Nico collided. Racing incident.
Don't be an idiot.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@dan1994L What I am trying to say because you are so thick, is that in Webbers crash of Rosberg, he hit the wall and became a passenger. There is on intention of taking another competitor out.
After Webber struck the wall he lost control and went backwards. Vettel on the other hand lost it on a straight and collided into another competitor. If you feel Webber is at fault, than surely Vettel must be MORE at fault in his example as he didn't hit a wall, rather Button first.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone You constantly tell me to read posts more carefully, yet you are repeating yourself in every post. Firstly, calling me thick won't get you anywhere, especially with such appalling grammar.... I think you have difficulty with the meaning of the word intention and intentionally. If someone intends to take someone out, they SEEK to do it, they WANT to hit the other person. This is not the case in any accidents, no drivers seek to hit another competitor. Perhaps you
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L I love how you keep arguing so you get the last word. I don't mind but I won't give you the satisfaction of the last word nor double reply so I'll keep going on. I'm repeating myself and the facts which you can't hide from. You can't handle the fact that you're wrong so you keep posting a wall of text as a defense in some hope that I will go "you're right" but in reality we both know YOU ARE WRONG.
It's the internet, if you can't get over grammar and typos, eat a dick :)
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone (cont. from last message) are thinking of the word directly, Vettel directly hit Button.The only difference between the incidents was the time taken between the mistakes and the collisions. Vettel's mistake immediately caused him to hit Button, whereas Webber had a small delay between his mistake and his collision with Rosberg.The incidents are alike in that they both made a mistake, and their mistake was the sole reason another competitor was put out of the race.Both 100% responsible.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L (cont. from last message) I will always reply so you don't get the last word because I know that's what eats away at you. The fact that you can't handle that and the fact that I am correct and you have been caught short.
FACT: Webber lost it on a web kerb, hit a wall and went out of control and hit Rosberg. Webber was at fault for hitting the wall, but not at fault for Rosberg, that's an accident.
FACT: Vettel lost it on a straight piece of road.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@dan1994L (cont. from last message)
FACT: Vettel took Button out. Now consider this, when Webber lost it, he hit the wall and could do nothing else, as opposed to Vettel who has no excuse for taking another competitor out DIRECTLY.
FACT: Vettel is responsible for taking our Button just as much as he was for taking out Webber in Fuji and crashing into him in Turkey. This is an ugly side of Vettel's character.
We don't proclaim Webber to be the best driver just stating facts.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone OK, It's funny you should bring this 'last word concept' up, as just before I was considering how tired this conversation has become. I don't think you are right, and I keep having to say it, but will say it again. Whether you lose it on a wet curb or on a straight does not change whether the circumstances that follow that are a racing incident or a driver taking another out. Webber lost it, and hit another driver whilst he wasn't in control.Vettel was not in control when he hit Button
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Funny how you replied to every message I've put out and in some cases twice over. You really want the last word but can't handle the fact I won't give it to you. I'll be sure to reply to your 3 posts :)
I am right and the reason is because I'm stating the facts, plus you're always wrong anyway :)
Webber lost it of his own accord, hit the wall, then whatever happens to that is out of his control. Vettel caused himself to hit Button. Dangerous move..
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone You seem to struggle with the fact that when the stewards consider the question; racing incident or a stupid mistake on behalf of one driver. They do not take into account, was it done on a straight or a wet curb. Because all of the drivers on the track have to deal with the same conditions. Webber managed to deal with the straight, Vettel managed to deal with wet curbs, they are all in the same conditions, so if it is their own fault they lost control (which is the case for both)
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L You seem to have issues with the facts I bring up so you keep bringing on this big wall of text but it's only digging you a deeper hole. If Webber blatantly caused the accident, he would be summoned by the race stewards and held accountable.
Vettel didn't manage to stay in a straight line whilst on the road, he instead took Button out of the race. A wet curb is harder to deal with than a straight piece of road.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone they have to accept responsibility for what follows. Also their is a difference between typos and poor sentence structure. I don't like Vettel btw, we are just using him as an example for some reason as he, like Webber, lost control of his car and hit another driver whilst he was unable to control where he was going.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Your sentences are poor but in all honesty, I can't be arsed going through everything nor typing everything up for you. If I bothered, I'd be perfect, but I'm better than you and it's reflected in the fact that my arguments > yours. The fact that you keep replying trying to justify yourself with a big failing wall of text and the fact that you're wrong and can't give the last word show that.
I support Sutil and Kubica, but it still doesn't change that Vettel took Button out.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@dan1994L More to the point, why can't you accept Vettel was to blame for taking out Webber under a safety car in Japan? Why can't you accept he turned into his own team mate in Turkey whilst his team mate gave him room? Why can't you accept that Vettel made very grand errors as such taking Button out while on a straight piece of road. Is it because deep down you like Vettel but either feel ashamed to admit to it because of his mistakes or can't own up to facts?
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone You really are a tool, I have been saying the whole time that Vettel is to blame for his collisions, I have been accepting that, and I have been using it as an example as realistically it is similar to Webber's incident. Let me try to make something clear, that I have been trying to make clear this whole time, whether they spun on a wet curb, or spun on a straight, does not change whether they are at fault for an accident. Perhaps you have forgotten what this discussion is about?
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Wow you're such an IDIOT. You're a tool. I've been saying these facts the whole time and now that you can't run away from them you admit it. I'm glad you accept these facts and that you understand Vettel is to blame on each accounts and that it shows a history of inexperience and perhaps something worse.
I think personally, it's easier to spin on a wet kerb/curb than on a straight. How do you agree with that? I've always been stating the facts, shame you couldn't handle them.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone It is about whether the incident in Korea was a racing incident or Webber's fault entirely. And we are using the Vettel incident as an example of how someone can be blamed entirely for a collision (which he deserved to be blamed) despite not having control. It was Vettel's fault he didn't have control, but he still hit someone because of his own mistake. Just like how Webber made a mistake which caused him to lose control and therefore hit Rosberg. His own fault he didn't have control.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Webber was at fault for hitting the wall, after that, he merely became a passenger. Hitting Rosberg was regretful, he didn't intend to do it, nor did he have control over his car. Vettel lost his car on a straight, a very rare thing to do and slammed into another competitor and took him out. Completely Vettel's fault.
Webber on the other hand lost control on a wet curb, not a straight, he hit a wall first (his fault) then hit Rosberg whilst he was out of control. He is blameless.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@dan1994L You are trying to say by Webber hitting the wall anything else after that is his fault when it's not true. Webber is at fault for hitting the wall, after he loses control of the car is merely when he becomes a passenger. Going backwards in the wet with no driver aids and a broken car is hard to blame him.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone But the wall in between does not change the question or racing incident or one drivers fault. You have been so caught up with repeating yourself about a wall in between, that you have forgotten the fact that we are debating whether or not it was a racing incident. I keep trying to say to you, it does not matter whether it is wet or not, or whether it is a corner or a straight, a racing incident is when both drivers play a part in the collision.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L I will reply to each one of your posts and then some to make sure I continue to one up you. It eats away at you, I know it. The wall does change the fact that it's not his fault because Webber lost control AFTER hitting the wall. It was a freak accident but you cannot blame Webber on it because he did not even intend to hit the wall in the first place.
I have had to repeat the facts so many times to demonstrate previous points which you have ignored or cannot accepted.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@dan1994L Conditions such as a damp track can play a part in an accident so they are relevant. This is an accident, a racing incident where no one is to blame, it's just that Rosberg was really unlucky. Wrong place, wrong time to hit an out of control Webber who is going backwards with a broken car after rebounding the car in the wet.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@dan1994L See, I can provide numerous replies + walls of text too.
I will now state facts to rub your nose in it.
Vettel takes Button out after losing it on a straight. The track was damp but it's a very weird incident.
In a race which had 17 laps under a safety car and delays Webber loses control on a flooded kerb and hits a wall (his fault). He rebounds off the wall without any control and his broken car is then hit by a fellow racer (not his fault, just a freak accident). Again?
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone OK, firstly I would like to clear something up, as you clearly don't have a logical train of though. If I post for example 3 comments, it does not mean that I am replying to 3 comment you have made before, the number of comments I post is related to the text limit, not what you have said. How on earth have I come across as arrogant, and the one with the big ego? You are the one who is constantly saying that you are right and everything you say is correct.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Firstly I would like to clear something up and that is not only can you not have the last word but you can't accept facts especially when they are against your opinion.
Sadly as my limit is running out I'll have to compress this. You have come across as arrogant as you can't accept when I am right, have valid points, and you cannot accept being wrong, nor can you accept me getting the last word.
I'm not right because I'm me, but because I state facts.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone You call Webber a fan favourite, but out of the drivers in all of the 3 top teams, he probably has the least genuine fans. And nor is he so popular with the press, sure he gets support from those 3 idiots at ‘One HD’ who know nothing about F1, but around the world the media hate him. Perhaps it might be because he is hard to interview as he struggles to string 3 words together without saying ‘aaahhh’. People with English as a second language are more fluent than him.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Webbers market share is smaller, however in the paddock he is generally well liked and loved with very few enemies compared to current or previous championship. He is generally seen as everyones favourite underdog (try and deny that). His interviews are priceless due to his blunt and honest nature, a great trait if you ask me. Reminds me of the gold old days before everyone was so PC.
Maybe you should speak to Trulli or Fisi if you think he's a poor interview.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone
Quote from you “Rosberg was really unlucky. Wrong place, wrong time to hit an out of control Webber”. You have to be joking, Rosberg did not ‘hit Webber’, he was sandwiched between Webber and the wall, Webber rolled backwards into the side of him.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L You must be blind, stupid and or both. If Rosberg didn't hit Webber, who did he hit? Fact is Webber spun on a curve, hit a wall and was out of control when Rosberg collected him. Unfortunate for Rosberg.
By your way of thinking it seems Webber did this on purpose "Webber rolled backwards into the side of him". I think the term, "an out of control Webber [after hitting the wall and with nowhere to go] made contact with Rosberg".
Can you not accept when things aren't you way?
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Rosberg did not hit anyone, watch the replay, Webber rolled into his side pod. I don't think Webber was trying to do that, but you say Rosberg hit Webber, when it was really Webber that went into Rosberg, watch the replays if you need to. You will see it was Webber that collected Rosberg. And yes, Webber did roll backwards into the side of him, he didn't mean to do it, but he did.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Look how I have worded this. If Rosberg did not hit anyone, how come he retired? Fact is he hit Webber whilst Webber was out of control. It's not Rosbergs fault, nor is it Webbers fault. I've watched the replay and saw an out of control Webber impacting the wall then rebounding off it.
I will never blame a driver for something that is out of their control. This is just bad luck, something Webber has a lot of in his career.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone There is always something to blame for an incident. Rosberg was 0% to blame for that incident, so who should be accepting the blame? Frankly, I think it’s Webber that is 100% to blame for this incident, unless you would like to blame God, or some invisible ghost that might have attacked him, a story that would not be so out of place among all the other bullshit you enjoy posting on here, your going to have to accept that.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Formula 1 is not always clear cut. Only idiots believe this. There is not always someone to blame. Sometimes a car can fail and as such the driver can be involved in an accident where he himself is blameless. I've never blamed Rosberg, as he was innocent so don't be stupid ad put words into my mouth.
An out of control Webber who had no way of steering his car going backwards made impact with Rosberg. Neither driver is at fault, it's a racing incident.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone I know he didn’t mean to, and he was not in control when it happened, but it was his mistake that caused the accident. Think of it like this, if Webber hadn’t have spun, would the incident still have happened? The answer is No. Now ask another question, If Rosberg had not been in the race, would Webber have smashed straight into the wall anyway (the second hit of the wall, when he was rolling)? And the answer to that is Yes.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L It's good you can accept Webber did not meant to strike Rosberg. If Webber had not have spun, who knows what could have happened. Imagine if Rosberg wasn't funded in his junior career. Imagine if you weren't born.
Things happen, accidents happen, mistakes happen. Formula 1 is not about playing the blame game. If Webber was like you he'd be having a sook about every car that has failed on him.
Thank goodness he's not.
Kranbone 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dan1994L You are a fucking idiot. That is all.
turtlehater2 1 year ago
@Kranbone If Webber wasn’t there, then no incident would have occurred. If Rosberg wasn’t there, an incident still would have occurred. Mark Webber was crashing by himself, and (not purposefully) collected Nico Rosberg in the process.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L That analogy is so stupid. Formula 1 is being in the right place at the right time (sometimes that's how passes can happen, profit from a backmarker etc).
Webber made a mistake, he accepts blame, but he cannot be held responsible for when he has NO control over his car. He is completely blameless.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone And about this whole last word thing, just before you originally brought it up, I was considering just giving up on this conversation as we are getting nowhere, but then when you posted that and I realised that if I give up, you will think that I have realized you are right and am trying to escape it, which is not the case
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L You would never consider giving up the last word because you can't handle the fact that I'm right. I've stated facts which are true. Plus whenever you have argued against me you are wrong and sprout stupid bullshit about real life.
You have lost your argument and your only shred of dignity is to get the last word.
I will NEVER give you that, loser.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Finally I would like to quote your comment about me being arrogant, it is quite funny. “You have come across as arrogant as you can't accept when I am right, have valid points, and you cannot accept being wrong”. The reason I found this to be funny is because in it, you have shown the same qualities you are arguing that I have.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Furthermore I would like to state your arrogance in continuing this argument. "Finally I would like to quote". You keep going on and on and on. You just can't handle the fact that I have called you out for being arrogant. No last post for you :)
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone You are saying that I cannot accept being wrong, and you are saying that I just assume I am right and have the valid points, but in that, you are showing that you always think you are right otherwise you would not assume that you have valid points that I am apparently trying to avoid.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L You are wrong, not just because you argued against the facts but because you are you. Anything said by you should be taken like a grain of salt but it hurts not having the final post.
Your points aren't valid and your real life comparison was utterly PATHETIC. You have failed. I will gladly waste more of your time. It's your choice.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone
You keep saying that Webber can’t be held accountable for actions when he wasn’t in control. And I keep on trying to tell you that when most accidents happen the drivers aren’t in control, sure the time between their mistakes and collisions is a little shorter than in Korea, but they still aren’t in control. But clearly other F1 situations aren’t getting me anywhere with your level of understanding so I will use a real life scenario for you.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L You can't always compare real life to F1 as that is very hard to do. Drivers make mistakes, for that they are accountable, but when they are unable to stop anything more, for example after hitting a wall or being pushed off by someone else, forced wide, it's not their fault, rather a racing incident.
If a driver is forced wide because of another and accidentally clips another car, who is at fault? The person who jerked suddenly to avoid first contact or the initial driver?
Kranbone 1 year ago
@dan1994L Formula 1 is not equivalent to real life so your real life scenario is very poor just like your level of understanding. You're the type of person we don't need in F1, looking to point the finger of blame for every little thing, rather than letting people race.
Let them race I say. Nannies like you don't belong.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone I like to let them race, however I hardly call sliding backwards and hitting someone and then not taking responsibility for it, racing
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L You don't like to let them race, you like to play the blame game. To requote a certain loser "There is always something to blame for an incident."
Racing is racing, accidents will happen. If Rosberg was anything like you, he wouldn't be in the paddock very long. I hope Webber continues to race because we need real men like him, not nannies.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Firstly, I’m not even sure you understand the meaning of the word arrogance, if someone keeps ‘going on and on’ that does not make them arrogant. Another thing I am not sure you understand is when someone hits someone. By hit someone, I do not mean make contact, I mean run into someone. Whenever you watch a replay it is always clear who ran into who, Rosberg was ahead of Webber when the contact occurred, and Webber HIT the side of Rosberg. Rosberg did not HIT anyone.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L I know what arrogance means and even in your final post you still think not only that you are correct when in fact you are WRONG but by your attitude thinking you know better when you clearly don't.
A further note, you're not listening. If Rosberg didn't hit anyone he wouldn't have retired. It was not Rosbergs fault, nor did I say it was but Rosberg made contact with Webber. Webber hit Rosberg, Rosberg hit Webber. Both drivers hit each other and thus they both retire from the race.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone You complained of me putting words in your mouth, yet you are constantly doing that with me. In fact, in a very recent post you said “You don't like to let them race”, well, actually, I never said that, quite the contrary really as I said that I do like to let them race. And your reasoning for thinking that I don’t like to let the race is because I blame people for incidents. Yes they should race and be on the limit, but there is a reason for everything.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Again being caught up on a technical side there you can't accept being wrong. It doesn't matter who is to blame but matter of fact is that both Rosberg and Webber made contact, so by saying Rosberg never hit Webber makes you look like a MASSIVE idiot which isn't surprising.
I reply in the same way you have so if you have tried to put words in my mouth, I'll return fire. Annoying isn't it, but it goes to show you can't handle when things are turned against you.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@dan1994L You give a strong impression that you're a whinging/complaining overly politically correct F1 nazi/nanny. I quoted against you and you couldn't handle that either hence trying to justify it here. Not everything can be blamed or finger pointed.
You can trace events back to a starting point but it isn't always worthy of blame. Knowing you, you would blame your engineers if your engine was weak.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone You are constantly bringing up the same things in everyone of your posts. In a majority of your last posts, you brought up my analogy, my analogy was only there to help you understand a simple concept, as you were clearly struggling with it. Obviously Nico and Mark had not been off getting smashed before the race, but it is about accepting responsibility.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@Kranbone Finally, as my ego isn’t quite as big as yours, I am going to accept that this conversation is going absolutely no where, as we are basically just paraphrasing our previous comments. Barely any new content is being added to our ‘discussion’.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Ego, no your ego has been repeatedly beaten and smashed into place by yours truly. Another scalp for me and a big loss for you. The conversation will go nowhere because you fail to accept facts and continue to point blame where no blame can be given.
You sound like a loser making a quick exit, but I applaud. You finally accept you're a loser and you're high-tailing it out of here.
*claps*
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone And Thus, I am not going to pursue this ‘discussion’ any longer. But please just know the reason I am finishing is not because I think you are right, it is because I cannot argue with you any longer and it is wasting my time, and filling up my iPad auto notification.
So bye bye, nice talking to you (it wasn't really).
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Even when you say you won't persue the discussion further you still do so. You just can't help but add to it. You're a loser, you know it, I know it. I am right, not only because I've stated facts and you have argued against them but because I am me, and you are you.
Me = right regardless of which point I take.
You = wrong regardless of which side you take (real reason, you're a loser).
It has been nice putting you in your place. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone And btw, just something extra to add, for future reference, it was extremely obvious that deep down you have desperately wanted the 'last word' all along, and you tried to disguise it by saying you only wanted it to take it away from me, but really you needed that last word, you needed it as a means of feeling good about yourself, so please take it, it's an early Christmas present from me.
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L Wanted the last word? Wow, such a loser here. You kept posting after you so desperately wanted to stop. You going on and on, like a broken record. I'm not after the last word, personally, I don't care. The only things I care about is stating facts in the hopes you argue against them, which you have and show how stupid you are.
I should also point out that you still can't give someone the last word and you're only backing out now because you realise you're a loser.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@dan1994L I appreciate the Christmas present. My present to you is this piece of advice. You're a loser now, you'll be a loser in the future. You tried to argue a point then argued against facts because you couldn't handle being proven wrong in an argument then let me get the better of yourself.
It's the internet, get over it. (BIGGEST LESSON LEARNT).
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone oh, one last thing (I know I said I would stop commenting, but this is my last one I promise), you say if Rosberg was anything like you (I assume that means if Rosberg had the same "blame game attitude" that I do), he wouldn't be in the paddock. Well he did blame Webber just like I did, quote from his twitter "I don't understand why Webber didn't hit the brakes,It was crazy to roll back across the track like that."
dan1994L 1 year ago
@dan1994L AHAHAHAHAH
You're still going. Talk about a wall of text. You really wanted the last post didn't you. I almost feel bad for not giving it to you, almost. You keep going on about the fact that you would shut up and take it on the chin but I have my doubts.
Seeing as how you try to prove facts wrong, it's not surprising that you can't let an argument die down especially when you're on the losing side. Take it on the chin and leave with your tail between your legs mate.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@dan1994L In regards to Rosberg. It's natural he would feel disappointed and angry. He was driving along when suddenly an out of control Webber makes contact. Rosberg was not at fault and never will be, but there is the chance that Webber (and I believe this as a strong chance) after crashing against a wall damaged several components or was winded.
Rosberg is really unlucky, no doubt but it's not like Webber rolled into him on purpose. Wrong German ;)
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Glad to see you've finally given up. A mighty saga can now rest :)
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone I've just read through this lot and it's very obvious dan1994L did not give up, but just got bored of your protracted rambling. If you can think beyond your narcissitic state of mind for a moment, you will find you lost this debate.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 I think you will find he conceded because he like you, is a massive loser. Enjoy wasting your time reading up on the debate. Only idiots like yourself ignore facts. By debating against a fact, you realise how much of a loser you are.
Ramble harder ;)
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Pfffft. I wasn't on about the point of your argument, I was regarding the manner in which you were conducting yourselves. Seeing as you were behaving like a Grade A Cunt, that's why you lost. Duh?
You're boring and tediously arrogant. Have fun replying. Only vacuous twats like you would.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 If you argue against me and not Dan then you are just as bad as he is and just as hypocritical. You are a grade A cunt yourself for picking a side and trying to start a little shit storm in a teacup. But congratulations on showing how stupid and hypocritical you are. Not only choosing to ignore facts but picking the losing side.
Eat a dick and get over yourself, loser. Calling me arrogant yet you throw the first punch, my my, someone is a bit pretentious.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone That's complete crap and you know it. If you don't you're even more clueless than my initial appraisal.
When you are clearly as moronic as you are I do not expect you to suddenly change your viewpoint, but the fact remains you come across as a complete arsehole and you have well and truly lost the argument. Can't deal with that, can you? Hahaha. You live and learn, son, you live and learn.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 Anything I say is not crap, but anything you say against me is crap. The fact that you are so clueless and stupid astounds me.
When a moron, an idiot, a dimwit like you comes across I wonder why you aren't a posterchild for abortion. I support pro choice and you're the reason why. Fact is you're a cunt and you're getting yourself into an argument by taking sides and wanting to pick a fight when it's not needed.
I've never lost an argument ever. Losers like you never learn.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Well you're a talking/typing contradiction as you've lost two arguments right here on this page! You live and learn, kid, you live and learn.
Besides which, I didn't pick a fight. I merely pointed out to you (as you are so blinded by your arrogance) that you lost the debate with Dan. Couldn't handle that, eh? Now you've twisted it all around in your perverted brain so you can fire accusations at me. Pathetic. You're a bigot and a hypocrite.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 Contradiction, me, no. You, yes. You're a hypocritical loser which is evident by every post you have made here. Live and learn, you mean YOU have to live and learn. I have nothing to learn, but a lot to teach.
Especially idiots and people like you who have no clue. But then again, idiots like you rarely learn. I am not blinded by arrogance, rather I can accept the truth and the facts which you argue against by supporting him.
You pathetic hypocrite. You have lost.
Kranbone 1 year ago
You lose an argument when you start flinging insults, which is exactly what you're doing.
Anime998877 1 year ago
@Anime998877 Exactly, Threshold threw an insult into a dead argument hence he's lost. Dan also did it earlier.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone You've done it again, right there! Automatically assumed you have won. I'm sorry to have to remind you, but you have lost two arguments. You're the one who started this, and you're the one who started using insults first. Conradiction! This just doesn't click in your brain, huh? You are too obnoxious to see Dan simply left the argument as there was no point in continuing; it was open ended and you assumed victory. Only a total wanker would do that. Full offence meant. Grow up.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 Done it again? You mean you have, you've even called me a total wanker in your current post. Let's get something right here. YOU'RE THE WANKER. YOU NEED TO GROW UP. Dan left the argument because he lost. He argued against established facts and thus lost the argument.
I never started any fight, merely finished it. It's wankers like you that wish to continue beating a dead horse. Grow up and move on you loser.
Accepting you have a problem is the first step.
Kranbone 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
Comment removed
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Does this happen a lot to you; people giving up in debate rather than concluding it like an adult? In your mind this may constitute a victory, which is unconscionably arrogant, but the reason people are abandoning the dispute is due to your intolerable nature. It has nothing to do with your perceived superiority. Your inability to see this, instead continuously professing yourself as victorious, is pitiable.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 What seems to happen is people think they can argue against facts and win. I'm an adult and as an outstanding and amazing adult I feel I could offer you a lot of advice. It's just a shame your childish brain can't take it.
I don't know about intolerable. It's hard to tolerate losers or people who are stupid to argue against facts or pick fights ;)
I am a victor, always have been, always will be, something you will NEVER be.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone "I am a victor, always have been, always will be, something you will NEVER be" - You suffer from severe egomania. I'd recommend seeing a psychiatrist as it may be impinging on your social and/or work life. I mean this seriously, and with concern.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 Egomania? Sorry to say the truth but I am a winner, you're a loser. The first step to fixing your problem is admitting you're a loser. I've suggested that earlier. I'd also consider suggesting you seek a medical or mental health professional but have doubts on whether it would be of any help.
A person who denies facts and backs a losing argument obviously has a mental deficiency. No need to concern yourself about my awesome life. Seek help for yourself, you need it.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone This is my point exactly; the deluded fantasies of grandeur you are placing yourself in. Perhaps if you try considering yourself in an impartial manner you would view other notions and possibilities with more respect. Mindlessly repeating your convictions of superiorty are getting you nowhere, and making you appear somewhat simple minded.
Again, I will point out, at no stage have this debate between you or I been based around tangible fact. I
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 I am not deluded. You are so deluded you even mistake myself for you. Possibly this is because you are jealous and would love to be a winner. I am as impartial as one can be and this is evident in my F1 discussions.
Mindless repeating facts in arguments and refusing to back a loser who argues against them makes me a winner. A person as bias and as stupid as you wouldn't grasp that. Fact of the matter is I am better than you and I have won arguments against you and dan. Eat it
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone You are deluded. You won't think so, obviously, as your narcissism is all encompassing, but you are seriously deceiving yourself, taking your contradictory nature into perpuity, and working your blood pressure up. Remember; a meeting in therapy is only a phone call away. It would help you.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 Deluded, no, you've mistaken me for you. Obviously someone so full of bias and delusion can't handle facts or see both sides of an argument. I really suggest you stop replaying the same tape and move on.
You may wish to contact Mindline 0845 766 0163
They will send you to the right asylum where you can be treated and sterilized for the good of the public.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Thanks for the number. I'll give them a ring and discuss your condition in depth. I'll get back to you shortly.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 You're welcome for the number thought they would be more concerned about you rather than me. Any condition I have would be good though. Standing up for what's right, true, factual.
What do you stand up for? People who deny facts, losers. You show a great bias to ignore insults from other users yet throw some out yourself and even have the audacity to call out others for theirs.
Please call that number now. You need help, urgently.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone It's pretty basic psychology; you gave me the number under the subconscious desire for assistance. Mind you, considering how fundamental theory has so far proven beyond you I can see how you didn't get this.
You're being a pedant over this "fact" issue; entirely missing how I have never said denying facts is the way to go about things. And the insults from other users were derived from your initiations; so you should create a cessation on the rhetoric there as it is moronic
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 Don't pull this basic psychology stuff. You need it, not me. I am the advisor here and going by the arguments I've won and will continue to win, you're in urgent need of help.
It's not just facts I'm right about but bias. You're too ashamed to back down now because you backed the a losing argument and don't want to admit it despite being the failure you are.
You're a one-sided hypocritical moron. It's as simple as that.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone And I'm not ashamed, I'm enjoying this far too much to not bother replying! Watching you squirm about uncomfotably and borderline incoherently, with innocuous issues is like like book on neurological conditioning I am reading about right now. You would make an excellent case study in assumed rhetoric!
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 You are ashamed as you were proved wrong. You supported someone who had a failed argument and then took a very bias, one-sided, hypocritical stance on an issue. Watching you fail repeatedly brings me and everyone else GREAT pleasure. You're a laughing stock and seeing you suffer at my hands is quite enjoyable.
You would make a great example for Freud to study.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 So what have you, how come you're so full of bias? Does it annoy you that I caught you out. You ignore these facts,
1// the fact you backed a losing argument
2// the fact that you're a loser and an idiot as demonstrated in the arguments
3// the fact that you called me out for insults yet you too have done the same, and you have NOT called Dan out for his insults
4// the fact that you argued against me despite me providing genuine facts on the F1 issue?
Fail much?
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone You are quite superfluously continuing to engage with these issues which I have already sufficiently explained to you several times. Does your limited imagination not allow for the creation of alternate discourse? You are belligerently pursuing the same areas like a deranged stoic, too pent up on your self importance to realise you have been going around in circles for some time now.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 You previously haven't given a sufficient explaination for your clear bias. You are completely ignorant of facts stated and just choose to pick a losing argument, attacking a winner and getting off scot-free, get real.
A lot of your rhetoric just leads to going back in circles. What I have said cannot be denied and it's why any of your posts should be taken with a grain of salt considering you ignore facts and show so much hypocrisy.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone I have noticed, too, you pick up on my parlance and begin using it in your comments! A sign you have long since run out of your own potential. You are even using the same argument points as I am. Get a grip. You haven't "won" anything. What there is to "win" here is absolutely nothing and I couldn't care less; I just want to see you face up to this knowledge.
And the whole "facts". It has nothing to do with this. I have stated a score of times how this has not been about that.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 You're chirping like a parrot and repeating completely nonense. I've won every argument I have had against you and Dan. You cannot deny that you jumped into an argument without realising what was going on and threw the first punch. You call me out for being immature yet you are far worse (hypocrisy at it's finest).
Facts and hypocrisy have so much do to with this argument. Just because you argue against it doesn't make it true nor does it mean I'll let you off.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone I will explain again, perhaps this time you should read the response so you don't go aimlessly regurgating in your next post. Yes?
1- The debate was left open-ended. If the other person leaves you to it as you are too petulant to bother with further, this does not mean you "win".
2- That's your opinion, I would apply the same to you,
3- I replied with insults as you initiated proceedings.
4- I was not debating your use of facts. Can you not get this into your daft skull?
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 Perhaps this time you can give a fair response and not be a dick.
1// The debate WAS NOT left open ended. The person conceded. He couldn't argue against the facts and even sent me a friends request. He couldn't win and gave up thus I AM A VICTOR.
2// It's a fact, you backed a loser, making you just as much of a loser as him.
3// You initiated the argument first and I responded, get the facts straight.
4// So you jump into an argument ignoring facts. You are stupid.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone This has been my point all along, your immature conduct. Your inability to see how Dan simply left you to it is a major weakness.
Regarding point 3; I am well aware I started the "DEBATE" (READ: not argument) first. Following my first message you immediately insulted me and turned it into an argument. I have explained this to you several times now. Clearly this will continue aimlessly in circles as you repeat yourself over and over and over.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 My point has been how hypocritical you are by calling out for immature conduct yet you conduct yourself in a far worse manner. Furthermore you ignore the previous argument only to get your foot in the door and try and throw the first punch.
You started the debate, thus threw the first punch. Don't think someone will let you get a way in and no respond. You're so clueless you can't fathom this, it's such a shame you choose to ignore facts and be so hypocritical.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone I'd also like to be prescient here and point out how you, in your next response, will ignore all of what I have just written and repeat yourself YET AGAIN. Looking forward to it. I'll be here for the next few months explaining it for you; free of charge. Eventually you'll catch up!
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 To be fair most of what you say is rubbish and should be ignored. I repeat facts and events that have occurred. The reason you don't want to bring them up or choose to ignore them is because it makes you look like an idiot and rightly so.
I'll be here to make sure you never get the last word and I have all the time in the world to educate you. Eventually you'll run away like Dan and show what a loser you are.
The hypocritical, ignorant and a fact denying twat that you are.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Correct, I started the debate (I noticed you changed your tune from "argument" after I pointed out how belligerent you have been). You use such forceful language; "threw the first punch" (that's a verbatim quote). I merely offered my opinion. You are the one who responded with insipid arrogance and insults. Clearly you are not mature enough to see this.
Your contuining use of the points I raised against you also clearly shows you long ago lost where you were in this matter.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 A debate can also be viewed as an argument. I have never changed my tune. You choose to argue with me but I have pointed out how belligerent and stupid you are as you willingly choose to ignore facts, a previous debate and show such bias.
Clearly you aren't mature to be taken seriously.
Your inability to fathom that leads me to believe you need a kick up the backside which I will so keenly provide.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone And I have been referring to this singular case as an "argument", what is happening here is not a "debate". It could be reffered to as the latter if it had any intellectual merit to it. As it does not and you are leading us on a merry-go-round of repition it is in the vacuous domain of "argument"; a quarrel or a dispute. Do not try and raise it above what it isn't in some vain attempt to add meaning to your foul mouthed rants.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 In this case, this is can be seen as both an argument and a debate. My feeling is that a debate is more formal, but in reality, when points of view and facts are discussed this should consitute a debate.
It's a shame you can't fathom my views through that thick head of yours.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone From the very beginning I stipulated my issues had nothing to do with the “facts” you so persistently talk of. PLEASE READ: I AM NOT RUBBISHING YOUR CLAIMS, WHATEVER THEY WERE. I WAS POINTING OUT HOW YOUR DEMEANOUR WAS WORTHY OF DERISION. Do you understand yet? I’ll bring it up in my next post, and ad infinitum, until you fully grasp the concept. It is not too difficult, dear.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 But someone who chooses to ignore facts and previous statements before jumping into an argument is surely an idiot. Do you blindly cross the street too?
It's not too difficult to grasp this concept that YOU HAVE SHOWN BIAS. YOU HAVE ALSO CHOSEN TO BACK SOMEONE WHO HAS IGNORED FACTS WHICH MAKES YOU AN IDIOT.
CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Indeed, you never have changed your tune, you have been a belligerent and petulant from the get go. You also keep using my parlance; is this a useful English lesson for you? "Belligerent" and "fathom" are the latest ones.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 You have kept trying to backpedal where you can because you know you have been beaten in an argument on a regular basis by me. I've never had to change my tune because I've always been correct. I need no English lesson but I can't help but explain the word hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy; an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone As you keep resorting to obscenities it is also overtly clear you are floundering. It will do your traits some good to just admit you have been behaving pathetically. This is why Dan abandoned the debate, this is why I have supported him. It is nothing to do with whatever you two were on about regarding F1. Comprehend? Hypocrisy, ignorance etc. etc. does not come into it, that is your opinion, I reverse these feelings on you and what do we have? You repeating every point I make!
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 Resorting to obscenities? Me? Wait, what about you? Again, another hypocritical view. You have insulted me on many occassion(sp) despite me being correct and never once being bias nor a hypocritical cunt like you.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone I will reiterate once again; yes I used expletives against you, but you initiated matters in this regard. So what exactly do you expect? Me to just sit around letting you insult away? Get real, kid. You are maintaining double standards here which you are wholly oblivious of.
I do hope on some level you are being subversively humorous; but if you are serious about your claims you are very deluded.
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 Let me reiterate again, that you have initiated the argument/debate. You choose to stick your nose in where it doesn't belong. By your own admission you joined in without prior knowledge and used insults and expletives.
You criticised(sp) me on being petty yet you in the past and no doubt in the future you will continue to act in the same way. This shows you have a massive double standard and hypocrisy on the issue and that your opinion is worth null.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@Kranbone Incidentally it's called "freedom of speech". Read some Orwell to understand its importance. If you think that was "sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong" when I merely commented on your lacklustre conduct, then your narcissism has left you oblivious to other people's views. By my "own admission" I joined in without prior knowledge? I read yours and Dans posts, you're the one who came across as insufferable (which is why Dan abandoned the deabte). It is a shame you can't see this
MrThreshold2009 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 I admire freedom of speech. I admire catching people out for the hypocritical cunts they are.
I admire showing how stupid someone is for jumping into a debate in which they are completely clueless.
I see everything, however sadly, going by your previous posts you see nothing and it's no surprise because you're an idiot. For your benefit you did stick your nose into an argument which had finished in my favour. Shame you didn't see that (nor dan sending a friends request).
Kranbone 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 Your belief that you are the better in this argument makes me belief that you are completely deluded and somewhat mentally ill.
Kranbone 1 year ago
@MrThreshold2009 Opinion. No, you've backed someone else who went against facts. YOU"RE AN IDIOT. You have shown CLEAR BIAS. Not an opinion, that's a fact. You have shown a hypocritical stance where you complain about my attitude and insults yet you have thrown your own.
Must I repeat every point I make. You're such an idiot.
I will never EVER give you the last word. Part of me schooling you is getting the final word so you know.
Kranbone 1 year ago