Hardly, it's plain to see here: http://forums.autosp...a...ho&t=155428
OMG I committed the crime of posting 94 posts against Sakae's 84, plus Alx09's 78, etc. An injustice and an outrage if I have ever seen one!!!!!!
Intellectual honesty? No, I haven't seen you once say anything that isn't simply pro-status quo.
What has one to do with the other? Fact is that I provided lots of quotes clearly contradicting some of the myths that certain posters tried to establish. The contents of my posts are certainly influenced by opponents - there is little need to post much anti-status quo here, don't you think? Besides, I don't have too much to complain about, though I very much hope that Pirelli is right and the situation stabilizes similar to how it did in 2012. At the moment we are currently in danger of this whole thing going wrong.
So your entire line of posts are against the apparent intellectual dishonesty of those who have a problem with the current tyres and the type of racing they enforce on the drivers,
Did I say entire?
yet now you claim to sit on the fence, like you're Mr Objective?
Not at all
Talk about intellectual dishonesty. The difference with Group B is that he's put his flag in the sand, your position at this point is completely ambiguous.
Ah, so you are of the persuasion of considering it deceitful and weak to try and see beyond black and white, and to acknowledge the ambiguousness of reality. Some good you lot have done in the world.
Secondly, I think we all accept FIA/FOM wanted degradable tyres that create multi-pit stop races,
I've been having this discussion with Sakae for at least a year, and I don't think he is yet convinced.
however they never specifically asked for tyres that force the driver to drive so far under the limits of his car, sometimes for the majority of a race in order to be competitive.
I have presented lots of quotes by Whitmarsh asking for trouble as recently as November 2012, and lots of info about reasons for complications like no test car, which anyone with some rationality needs to accept as having an influence. What the contract says neither you nor I know, so quit writing as if you did. It's easy to see through.
That is the main issue here, it's a debate over the essence of racing. The powers that be may or may not be content with this farcical situation, but many of us aren't, and I consider myself in good company given that most of the drivers, Mark Hughes and Nigel Roebuck just to mention a few notables back up what i've always said since day one, that this isn't real racing, or at best is a diluted, facsimile of racing.
I'm afraid you don't have sole authority about the debate topics, and this thread has been home to many different debates concurrently over 40+pages, from all sides.