Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

F1 Racing (magazine) and F1 media in general...(merged)


  • Please log in to reply
1079 replies to this topic

#801 nbhb

nbhb
  • Member

  • 903 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 19:30

So are you speaking for Autosport, now? Is this what actually happened?

If not, more hot air! :D

EDIT:

Noble disagrees. So much for misplaced loyalty and attempts to cover for the editorial team, lol.


Noble disagrees. So much for misplaced loyalty and attempts to cover for the editorial team, lol.


Now I really starting to think that McLaren pick up the phone. Now, I don't blame Autosport for closing down the story. Autosport is not a tabloid like Planetf1, who only copy internet stories and blow everything out of them. Autosport need acces to McLaren team.

But it's a total McLaren PR disaster, after the stupid things that McLaren emplyee said, asking Autosport to close it down was IMO an even more stupid thing. The story had already been taken, so I think it would have been better just to cosmetize it.

Edited by nbhb, 01 February 2012 - 19:32.


Advertisement

#802 Apollonius

Apollonius
  • Member

  • 601 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 01 February 2012 - 19:38

To be honest im not sure how much the other teams do it with Autosport or other media.

As I said, im sure there are agreements, off the record conversations and small talk that stays within the paddock. But you cannot deny the ties between mclaren and autosport might just make a bit harder to say no when a team doesnt like a certain article.

Whats more, uptill now there hasnt been an instance where an article, after publication, is being pulled other than this Mclaren article. And as you also admit, the way Autosport has been dealing with this, has been very poor.



Autosport sh1tout. The floundering by you and Buttoneer here is hilarious. You're trying too hard mate

#803 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,415 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 20:06

Now I really starting to think that McLaren pick up the phone. Now, I don't blame Autosport for closing down the story. Autosport is not a tabloid like Planetf1, who only copy internet stories and blow everything out of them. Autosport need acces to McLaren team.

But it's a total McLaren PR disaster, after the stupid things that McLaren emplyee said, asking Autosport to close it down was IMO an even more stupid thing. The story had already been taken, so I think it would have been better just to cosmetize it.


It's likely that McLaren did request it be removed. However the reason for it being taken down is far, far, far more likely to be because it was incorrect and contained errors, than someone at McLaren just didn't like it. If McLaren had that much pull here you would wonder why they haven't got articles on Autosport actually critical of the team removed, instead of this fairly normal piece.

Keeping up a factually wrong article helps no one, not Autosport not McLaren nor most of all us.

#804 nbhb

nbhb
  • Member

  • 903 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 20:13

It's likely that McLaren did request it be removed. However the reason for it being taken down is far, far, far more likely to be because it was incorrect and contained errors, than someone at McLaren just didn't like it. If McLaren had that much pull here you would wonder why they haven't got articles on Autosport actually critical of the team removed, instead of this fairly normal piece.

Keeping up a factually wrong article helps no one, not Autosport not McLaren nor most of all us.


If it was like this, a request to modify the content and a public denial for McLaren would have been enough, don't you think?

#805 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2012 - 20:14

It's likely that McLaren did request it be removed. However the reason for it being taken down is far, far, far more likely to be because it was incorrect and contained errors, than someone at McLaren just didn't like it. If McLaren had that much pull here you would wonder why they haven't got articles on Autosport actually critical of the team removed, instead of this fairly normal piece.

Keeping up a factually wrong article helps no one, not Autosport not McLaren nor most of all us.


Hmmm :rolleyes:

#806 Watkins74

Watkins74
  • Member

  • 5,814 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 20:26

Can we start a letter-writing campaign to Mclaren and stop concentrating on Autosport.com who seem to have been bullied out of a legit story yet?

Better be careful. Those Bahrain boys at McLaren fight back.  ;)

#807 KateLM

KateLM
  • Member

  • 2,342 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 20:26

From James Allen:

There have been no denials about this quote – unlike a recent quote from a McLaren Applied Technologies boss which appeared to heap praise on Sebastian Vettel over the McLaren duo, which was denied by the team.


Sounds more like a mistake to me. Is James Allen being censored too?

#808 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,415 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 20:34

If it was like this, a request to modify the content and a public denial for McLaren would have been enough, don't you think?


Depends on what Autosport would of been left with. If the whole interview was bogus and had to pulled, there would be nothing left salvageable save a sentence saying McLaren think next year will be great.

#809 artista

artista
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,298 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 20:48

If it was like this, a request to modify the content and a public denial for McLaren would have been enough, don't you think?

When the main information is wrong, it is discovered soon enough, and it can't be "repaired" to make it correct, the normal thing is to retire the article (if the person who writes the article finds it is wrong) or to ask whoever published it to retire it more than writing a public denial.

A practical example (a silly one, just to try to explain what I mean): imagine a journal publishes driver X was in New Zealand on Monday when he was supposed to be at home and the information is incorrect.
A) the writer discovers the information that was published is wrong. Correcting the article brings nothing since it is no news that X was at home. -------> the writer takes the article away.
B) X discovers that the journal says he was in New Zealand 10 minutes after the article is published. He picks up the phone, calls the author and says: mate, what are you talking about? I'm at home, do you want to talk to my mum to check it?---------> the jouno should take the article away since the news have been there for a very short time, what was published was not correct and there is no way he can modify the news.
Of course, X could write a denial, but if the journal doesn't take the news away, it means the journal keeps stating X was in New Zealand and what X says is a lie.
Moreover, if the journal doesn't takes the news away, they risk being accused of defamation in court.

Edit: typos due to the iPad

Edited by artista, 01 February 2012 - 21:25.


#810 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 20:59

Flying lap shed some light on this, basically saying it was a non story and that Bunk loves his conspiracy theories

#811 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,690 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 21:10

It was a 'non story' in news terms, but it was an accurate story by all appearances. McLaren throwing around phrases like 'bonafide source' is interesting because that calls into question the qualifications of the person speaking, not that they didn't say it.

#812 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,619 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 21:14

Good god.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that anything contentious that could be varified was factually incorrect!

1) "There are technical innovations on this car which will be immediately obvious when you see them"

No there isn't.

2) "We started way behind in the last couple of years"

What. Like 2010 you mean?

3) "There's no trickery on the cars"

How does he know this? Red Bull are probably the most secretive team on the grid. Do you really believe that the intimate working knowledge of the concepts and systems that make their car so fast would be spread as far as a satellite operation of McLaren? Gimme a break!

Finally, the so called journalist reports that "It is understood that McLaren are focussing on single lap speed with the MP4-27 which it hopes will allow it to take more pole positions and control races from the front"

Today, Goss actually said that they were more focussed on getting the best out of the tyres during the race to that exact question!


:up: And of course the author that penned it had never before penned an article for Autosport.com. I'm still amazed at the gullibility of all those who believed that article was genuine (including autosport staffers themselves), especially considering the glaring 'red herrings' in the article which you have highlighted. It was obvious? No? :confused:

Yet we have people proclaiming that it was removed because big bad evil McLaren is unfairly stomping over poor wittle Autosport. Perhaps the more plain explanation of: 'because it was bullshit' is just too.... logical.

#813 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,690 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 21:17

Why on earth would Autosport, being racing people, take quotes from a non-motorsport journalist quoting a currently non-F1 person and make them their most promoted story? I think they checked.

If the story was wrong it wouldn't be that embarassing to say they were misled. It's much worse for their image to have to say "Yeah, McLaren made us take it down"

#814 Watkins74

Watkins74
  • Member

  • 5,814 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 21:22

:up: And of course the author that penned it had never before penned an article for Autosport.com. I'm still amazed at the gullibility of all those who believed that article was genuine (including autosport staffers themselves), especially considering the glaring 'red herrings' in the article which you have highlighted. It was obvious? No? :confused:

Yet we have people proclaiming that it was removed because big bad evil McLaren is unfairly stomping over poor wittle Autosport. Perhaps the more plain explanation of: 'because it was bullshit' is just too.... logical.

I have no idea if that story was true but I am glad to see you have stopped some of your reasoning from yesterday which was proven false beyond a shadow of the doubt.

ex. about the conservative car.

#815 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,619 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 21:30

Why on earth would Autosport, being racing people, take quotes from a non-motorsport journalist quoting a currently non-F1 person and make them their most promoted story? I think they checked.

If the story was wrong it wouldn't be that embarassing to say they were misled. It's much worse for their image to have to say "Yeah, McLaren made us take it down"


Exactly. Why on earth would Autosport go there and to him for a story about the new McLaren car. You don't think that was an unusual way for 'racing people' to source a story about the new McLaren car? Autosport do tend to check, which is why it's all the more surprising that that article appeared to begin with.



#816 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,619 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 21:32

I have no idea if that story was true but I am glad to see you have stopped some of your reasoning from yesterday which was proven false beyond a shadow of the doubt.

ex. about the conservative car.


Explain???

Edited by P123, 01 February 2012 - 21:32.


#817 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 01 February 2012 - 21:37

:up: And of course the author that penned it had never before penned an article for Autosport.com. I'm still amazed at the gullibility of all those who believed that article was genuine (including autosport staffers themselves), especially considering the glaring 'red herrings' in the article which you have highlighted. It was obvious? No? :confused:

Yet we have people proclaiming that it was removed because big bad evil McLaren is unfairly stomping over poor wittle Autosport. Perhaps the more plain explanation of: 'because it was bullshit' is just too.... logical.


Dude, you won't know what logic is if it lived inside your cavernous head and stepped out every hour just to say cuckoo.

It is bad enough we have people abjectly surrendering their powers of inference and reasoning and saying "no proof!!1", now you want to go on a tangent with your crackpot theory in which Autosport staff were duped not only into publishing a 'fake' story, but also into apologizing for it.

Have some mercy on everything logical, and don't post until you have read earlier posts and brought yourself upto facts.

Edited by primer, 01 February 2012 - 21:44.


#818 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,619 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 22:14

Dude, you won't know what logic is if it lived inside your cavernous head and stepped out every hour just to say cuckoo.

It is bad enough we have people abjectly surrendering their powers of inference and reasoning and saying "no proof!!1", now you want to go on a tangent with your crackpot theory in which Autosport staff were duped not only into publishing a 'fake' story, but also into apologizing for it.

Have some mercy on everything logical, and don't post until you have read earlier posts and brought yourself upto facts.


Come on Primer, calm down dear! The article was pulled because it was bollocks. The content of it alone should have raised suspicion. The only facts are that the article itself was full of factual inaccuracies, was penned by a new writer to the website (his only article to date) and was pulled at the request of somebody after a short time. Why that was we can only speculate, but from what we actually know that outcome can hardly be taken as surprising.

#819 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,690 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 22:23

That'd make sense if it was a website other than a professional one.

Advertisement

#820 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 22:26

That'd make sense if it was a website other than a professional one.


Professional websites make gaffes too you know. Only human behind the pretty text and colours.

#821 Wi000

Wi000
  • Member

  • 1,163 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 22:37

That'd make sense if it was a website other than a professional one.

Indeed, judging from the gigantic gaffe they made with this article I'm wondering about the professionalism of the Autosport website.
Eff up then fess up and go on respected by your clients I'd say, but this way I wonder if they are really worth my money.

#822 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,249 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 01 February 2012 - 22:41

The author was Andrew Purcell: http://yfrog.com/z/kkrswup

Google throws back one result to this site, the now taken down article: http://www.google.co...h...440&bih=775

Compared to, for instance, 347 results for Jonathan Noble: http://www.google.co...m...440&bih=775

"Andrew Purcell motorsport" into Google either doesn't get us far: http://www.google.co...m...440&bih=775

Does this person actually exist? :confused:


#823 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,654 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 February 2012 - 22:45

With a name like Purcell, perhaps he's employed for whitewashing.

#824 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,439 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 22:53

The author was Andrew Purcell: http://yfrog.com/z/kkrswup

Google throws back one result to this site, the now taken down article: http://www.google.co...h...440&bih=775

Compared to, for instance, 347 results for Jonathan Noble: http://www.google.co...m...440&bih=775

"Andrew Purcell motorsport" into Google either doesn't get us far: http://www.google.co...m...440&bih=775

Does this person actually exist? :confused:


http://www.google.co...3Aautosport.com

so definitely his only article within Autosport. how very odd :)

#825 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,690 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 22:55

This is Andrew Purcell. http://andrew-purcell.com/ (edited to the correct URL for the correct Andrew) He is a journalist.

Here's my theory.

He interviewed McGarth about McLaren Applied Whatevers, for another title. Maybe Purcell is an F1 fan and asked him about goings on. McGrath either assumed he was off the record, or since it was a question unrelated to what he was being interviewed about, didn't think it would go beyond casual conversation.

Purcell, assuming he's a racing fan even if not racing journalist, figures he has some good quotes actually and approaches Autosport about running them. They think it makes a good story(hence making it their 'main' story), reckon the guy checks out(hence he gets credit for the story) and they run it.

McLaren completely freak. Because the story isn't good for them and it's someone speaking out of turn, effectively. I imagine they investiated internally and found out what was said was actually said, but was never supposed to be for publication. So they go to Autosport, or rather Haymarket, and strongly ask for it to be taken down. And either through their very close relationship or via more direct action(depending on how defensive Autosport's editorial people were) they were able to convince them to remove the story entirely.

Do you guys remember the Aston Martin/Prodrive story from early 2009? Were going to file a 2010 entry, have Mercedes engines, etc. Started out I think as an Autocar exclusively, which Autosport obviously got a good heads up on, then the rest of the web ran it. It disappeared and reappeared a few times on the site that morning until the final version left out some details.

Aston Martin obviously would be very close to the automotive magazines which are very valuable to Haymarket, so you don't want to piss off advertisers and people who give you exclusive cars to test. And at the time the Prodrive Commercial Director(now Lotus Group Commercial Director)'s last job was CEO of Haymarket. So whatever problems there were with the Aston Martin/Prodrive F1 story getting out too soon or too detailed, would have only taken a call from the former CEO to the directors who would then tell the people running Autosport, either at the publishing or editorial level, to 'fix' that story.

There's lots of ways McLaren could have expressed their annoyance with Autosport over this story. Former F1 correspondent now McLaren guy Steve Cooper, former F1 Racing editor now McLaren communications boss Matt Bishop, LAT Photographic as the photographers for McLaren, Haymarket Customer Publishing(used to run Racing Line and did some work for Mobil 1).

Etc etc etc

Edited by Ross Stonefeld, 02 February 2012 - 00:10.


#826 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 22:59

This is Andrew Purcell. http://www.andrewpurcell.net/ He is a journalist.

Here's my theory.

He interviewed McGarth about McLaren Applied Whatevers, for another title. Maybe Purcell is an F1 fan and asked him about goings on. McGrath either assumed he was off the record, or since it was a question unrelated to what he was being interviewed about, didn't think it would go beyond casual conversation.

Purcell, assuming he's a racing fan even if not racing journalist, figures he has some good quotes actually and approaches Autosport about running them. They think it makes a good story(hence making it their 'main' story), reckon the guy checks out(hence he gets credit for the story) and they run it.

McLaren completely freak. Because the story isn't good for them and it's someone speaking out of turn, effectively. I imagine they investiated internally and found out what was said was actually said, but was never supposed to be for publication. So they go to Autosport, or rather Haymarket, and strongly ask for it to be taken down. And either through their very close relationship or via more direct action(depending on how defensive Autosport's editorial people were) they were able to convince them to remove the story entirely.

Do you guys remember the Aston Martin/Prodrive story from early 2009? Were going to file a 2010 entry, have Mercedes engines, etc. Started out I think as an Autocar exclusively, which Autosport obviously got a good heads up on, then the rest of the web ran it. It disappeared and reappeared a few times on the site that morning until the final version left out some details.

Aston Martin obviously would be very close to the automotive magazines which are very valuable to Haymarket, so you don't want to piss off advertisers and people who give you exclusive cars to test. And at the time the Prodrive Commercial Director(now Lotus Group Commercial Director)'s last job was CEO of Haymarket. So whatever problems there were with the Aston Martin/Prodrive F1 story getting out too soon or too detailed, would have only taken a call from the former CEO to the directors who would then tell the people running Autosport, either at the publishing or editorial level, to 'fix' that story.

There's lots of ways McLaren could have expressed their annoyance with Autosport over this story. Former F1 correspondent now McLaren guy Steve Cooper, former F1 Racing editor now McLaren communications boss Matt Bishop, LAT Photographic as the photographers for McLaren, Haymarket Customer Publishing(used to run Racing Line and did some work for Mobil 1).

Etc etc etc


How have you managed to create 6 paragraphs of an argument out of website linking to a guy called Andrew Purcell based in New York yet seems to have no connections to F1 whatsoever.


#827 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,439 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 23:00

This is Andrew Purcell. http://www.andrewpurcell.net/ He is a journalist.

Here's my theory.

He interviewed McGarth about McLaren Applied Whatevers, for another title. Maybe Purcell is an F1 fan and asked him about goings on. McGrath either assumed he was off the record, or since it was a question unrelated to what he was being interviewed about, didn't think it would go beyond casual conversation.

Purcell, assuming he's a racing fan even if not racing journalist, figures he has some good quotes actually and approaches Autosport about running them. They think it makes a good story(hence making it their 'main' story), reckon the guy checks out(hence he gets credit for the story) and they run it.

McLaren completely freak. Because the story isn't good for them and it's someone speaking out of turn, effectively. I imagine they investiated internally and found out what was said was actually said, but was never supposed to be for publication. So they go to Autosport, or rather Haymarket, and strongly ask for it to be taken down. And either through their very close relationship or via more direct action(depending on how defensive Autosport's editorial people were) they were able to convince them to remove the story entirely.

Do you guys remember the Aston Martin/Prodrive story from early 2009? Were going to file a 2010 entry, have Mercedes engines, etc. Started out I think as an Autocar exclusively, which Autosport obviously got a good heads up on, then the rest of the web ran it. It disappeared and reappeared a few times on the site that morning until the final version left out some details.

Aston Martin obviously would be very close to the automotive magazines which are very valuable to Haymarket, so you don't want to piss off advertisers and people who give you exclusive cars to test. And at the time the Prodrive Commercial Director(now Lotus Group Commercial Director)'s last job was CEO of Haymarket. So whatever problems there were with the Aston Martin/Prodrive F1 story getting out too soon or too detailed, would have only taken a call from the former CEO to the directors who would then tell the people running Autosport, either at the publishing or editorial level, to 'fix' that story.

There's lots of ways McLaren could have expressed their annoyance with Autosport over this story. Former F1 correspondent now McLaren guy Steve Cooper, former F1 Racing editor now McLaren communications boss Matt Bishop, LAT Photographic as the photographers for McLaren, Haymarket Customer Publishing(used to run Racing Line and did some work for Mobil 1).

Etc etc etc


Perfectly logical, except what was said wasn't true. That's the anomaly. There is nothing on the McLaren (yet) that is obviously dodgy. How intriguing.

#828 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,690 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 23:03

So what you're saying is someone is guilty of hyperbole to advance their own interests? Shocking.

#829 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,439 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 23:03

Actually your andrew purcell might not be THE Andrew Purcell... what about this dude - http://www.citroenra...drewpurcell.jpg ??

#830 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,293 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 01 February 2012 - 23:07

Looks like Michael Dunlop's been eating well lately.

#831 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,619 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 23:07

This is Andrew Purcell. http://www.andrewpurcell.net/ He is a journalist.

Here's my theory.


It's a good theory, but then McGrath wouldn't seem to know much about F1 or his company (i.e, McLaren initially slow because too conservative in 2011). Has Purcell (assuming he is the actual author of the piece) written anything else in relation to McLaren...?


#832 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,439 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 23:08

It's a good theory, but then McGrath wouldn't seem to know much about F1 or his company (i.e, McLaren initially slow because too conservative in 2011). Has Purcell (assuming he is the actual author of the piece) written anything else in relation to McLaren...?


That Andrew Purcell is a different Andrew Purcell. The fact he is a journo is a coincidence.

#833 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,293 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 01 February 2012 - 23:14

Andrew Purcell if you were Googling your name to pass the time and have discovered this thread, could you please register and tell us what's going on.

#834 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 23:16

It turns out Andrew Purcell is also a very impressive professional photographer and cook. Amazing what google can find when you look hard enough.

#835 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,690 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 February 2012 - 23:41

http://www.newscient...-carbon-ne.html

#836 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,439 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 February 2012 - 23:47

http://www.newscient...-carbon-ne.html


So why did this guy receive such mis-information? McGrath said there would be innovations, and what we've seen is totally the opposite.

#837 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,822 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 01 February 2012 - 23:54

Andrew Purcell = Lawn Crud Repel

Sorry. Why not carry on the spoof!

Edited by maverick69, 02 February 2012 - 00:12.


#838 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,690 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 February 2012 - 00:01

So why did this guy receive such mis-information? McGrath said there would be innovations, and what we've seen is totally the opposite.


I'm more inclined to think McGrath was talking out of his ass than that this was all a hoax.

#839 Insane111

Insane111
  • Member

  • 505 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 02 February 2012 - 00:07

http://www.newscient...-carbon-ne.html


http://uk.linkedin.c...cell/42/618/472

http://andrew-purcell.com/

Advertisement

#840 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,690 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 February 2012 - 00:09

Yeah sorry I had the link to the wrong media Andrew Purcell.

#841 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,822 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 02 February 2012 - 00:19

:up: And of course the author that penned it had never before penned an article for Autosport.com. I'm still amazed at the gullibility of all those who believed that article was genuine (including autosport staffers themselves), especially considering the glaring 'red herrings' in the article which you have highlighted. It was obvious? No? :confused:

Yet we have people proclaiming that it was removed because big bad evil McLaren is unfairly stomping over poor wittle Autosport. Perhaps the more plain explanation of: 'because it was bullshit' is just too.... logical.


Indeed.

I contribute to their wages through the online subscription system and have brought the magazine for the past 20 years.

Dear Sir's and Madams........ have some accountability. Please.


#842 Insane111

Insane111
  • Member

  • 505 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 02 February 2012 - 00:19

Yeah sorry I had the link to the wrong media Andrew Purcell.


I was more crediting you for leading me to the sites, I'd googled his title of "Andrew Purcell, online producer" in the article you linked and they came up ;)

Edited by Insane111, 02 February 2012 - 00:19.


#843 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,439 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 February 2012 - 01:03

Indeed.

I contribute to their wages through the online subscription system and have brought the magazine for the past 20 years.

Dear Sir's and Madams........ have some accountability. Please.


You don't contribute as contribution suggests charitable implications to said spend.

Anyway, all this mystery is quite fun.

Edited by rhukkas, 02 February 2012 - 01:04.


#844 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 02 February 2012 - 01:39

You don't contribute as contribution suggests charitable implications to said spend.

So when you contribute to your pension fund, that makes you a charity?


#845 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 02 February 2012 - 01:41

Quote from deleted article

"There are technical innovations on the car which will be immediately obvious when you see them" and are "getting ready for a fight"

... and surprise surprise there are very little immediately obvious technical innovations on the car that will draw protests. Maybe after extreme study you might find something dodgy, but nothing obvious. So the evidences suggests that the person giving the quote is

1. Uninformed
2. Lying

That also confirms the quotes about Vettel are probably either 1. misinformed 2. rubbish because they were nonsense.

No bureau of censorship, no big conspiracy. Autosport came to a realisation that the article was bogus as proven with today's launch. An example of journalistic integrity.

Or maybe there will be something obvious, and you've not seen it yet.

#846 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,439 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 February 2012 - 01:47

So when you contribute to your pension fund, that makes you a charity?




I was trying to state that someone saying they "contribute to someone's wages" is suggesting somehow buying a magazine elevates them a position of influence/importance, when it doesn't. I buy a magazine , I don't contribute to the wages of those who work for the magazine.

Edited by rhukkas, 02 February 2012 - 01:48.


#847 NoDivergence

NoDivergence
  • Member

  • 1,862 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 02 February 2012 - 01:47

There will be something obvious? Give me a break, LOL

#848 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,439 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 February 2012 - 01:48

Or maybe there will be something obvious, and you've not seen it yet.


then it isn't obvious then is it???!!!

that's it, I'm out lol

#849 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 02 February 2012 - 01:49

There will be something obvious? Give me a break, LOL

That might depend on who's looking at it.


#850 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 02 February 2012 - 01:50

then it isn't obvious then is it???!!!

that's it, I'm out lol

Maybe you've not seen it yet.