In you originl post in this matter. I have quoted it in it's whole form at least twice now, apart from the excerpts. I will quote it again below.
That's not the question. You have no idea what we are discussing, do you? We are discussing the truth. The simple truth. A poster I no longer remember accused me of being to closed minded to accept a simple truth. I hinted that his "They cheated and got awaya with it. End thread" (not exact words) was not a simple truth. In fact, it was not even a truth. So I challenged him to bring forward a simple truth in this case. He backed off, instead you took up the challenge and wrote, as an example of a simple truth:
Just quote the question and answer. Or stop making stuff up.
Here's the question. Again. For about the fourth time...
Now you answer: Do you believe the bolded part to be true?
I'll have a go.
Merc had a go-ahead from the FIA to run their 2013 car. That's why the Tribunal gave a small penalty.
Any other team that runs a 2013 car does it without that go-ahead, and will demonstrably be sticking 2 fingers up at the rules and the FIA. The penalty would be on that basis.
Edit: End of story.
That is the question here. I claimed it's not true. You ask me why. "Why is the non-truth not true?"
It could be very philosophical, but I believe it is as simple as you not wanting to accept that your statement is false. You want to make it true by equalling the "belive they have permission" with "they have permission". It's not the same.
-"Do you know how fast you where driving there, sir?"
-"No more than 60, officer!"
-"Actually, it was 93"
-"Oh, I really believed it was 60, officer"
-"Really sir? Ok, go ahead then and have a nice day"