Putnam Park Recap And PSM/ABS Disconnection
10-11-2005, 10:07 AM
#182
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Without getting embroiled in this argument, there is one important point being missed about any challenge and ANYONE who has truly driven a car at the edge of it's performance envelope understands this...
The track is never the same lap to lap. That is a part of the challenge is that conditions are constantly changing. Suddenly there is no grip where there used to be grip and grip where none existed on the previous lap. Any challenge using the same car will subject each driver to different conditions - and the ability to claim that the track conditions were not as good for my run as the other guys.
If you guys are really going to run this challenge, then you need to take that out of the equation and use two identical cars, such as SRF's at the same time. The tunability of the SRF's even ensures that each driver gets a car that behaves the way they prefer. As Dan said, if the money is an issue, I would personally kick in to help defray the rental costs of a pair of SRF's. SRF's are perfect for this because of their safety record, their lower speeds and the fact the run on street tires with no aero (hence no one has to try to extend their mAd sKiLZ into new territory.
The track is never the same lap to lap. That is a part of the challenge is that conditions are constantly changing. Suddenly there is no grip where there used to be grip and grip where none existed on the previous lap. Any challenge using the same car will subject each driver to different conditions - and the ability to claim that the track conditions were not as good for my run as the other guys.
If you guys are really going to run this challenge, then you need to take that out of the equation and use two identical cars, such as SRF's at the same time. The tunability of the SRF's even ensures that each driver gets a car that behaves the way they prefer. As Dan said, if the money is an issue, I would personally kick in to help defray the rental costs of a pair of SRF's. SRF's are perfect for this because of their safety record, their lower speeds and the fact the run on street tires with no aero (hence no one has to try to extend their mAd sKiLZ into new territory.
10-11-2005, 10:35 AM
#183
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD: Very nice post. Please answer my lettered questions directly as I have tried to address all of your points.
Many of my perceptions on this forum are not intended but since I do little to address the issue, (and I accept and recognize my “tone” rubs people the wrong way) I accept the resulting friction my communication “style” leads to. But, I do think the response it triggers should still be reasonable.
There is a reason for my rudely calling out Mike, and that was intentional. If you are not familiar with the history of my online relationship with Mike it is not a good one.
1. He has repeatedly accused me of lying.
2. He has repeatedly falsely misquoted me and even after being shown the original quote and being implored to stop doing it, he has continued.
3. He personally insulted me, before I had insulted him.
4. When his errors have been pointed out to him, unequivocally, he has refused to offer the apology I was due.
That is why I consistently call him a low character individual and this is why I wanted to beat his stinkin ****. This is definitely not a friendly challenge from my viewpoint as I despise low character people and would love nothing more than to “disgrace” someone like this by beating them “at their own game”.
A. How does an aggressive calling out oblige me to accept any terms, ESPECIALLY when those counter-offers go against what I have previously stated I would not do? Do you not believe I previously stated the safety constraints? I’ll supply the posts if you need them.
B. What would I be apologizing to Mike for? Again, there is no making up here that I can see. I do my best not to associate with low character people and I have never seen, nor do I ever expect, contrition from someone like Mike that would change improve his badly damaged character.
C. Do you have any problem with Mike “supposedly” previously accepting my challenge, but not accepting it now? And how can you say his declining in the face of prior acceptance is anything close to my declining in the case of prior stated restrictions.
PS
Please read this post where I have been considering this seriously, and gee, it predates this thread by quite a bit. Hmmm. https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...ighlight=miata
Mark:
You are saying you believe there is likely to be more variation between track conditions over a short time span than here is likely to be between two different cars? Boy do I disagree. While you could switch cars, back and forth, this requires the rental of 2 cars, and Mike shouldn’t have to pay anything and I sure don’t want to pay for 2 cars (much less one) for a stupid bet.
To me, if you had one car, person A (determined by a coin flip) goes out for 5 laps, B goes out for5 laps, then later B goes out for 5 and A goes out for 5, you pick the top three laps from each person and lowest total wins. Maybe they each get a session earlier in the day to get used to the car. This would be fair in my book.
And for the record, I would do an SRF if the costs could be controlled.
Many of my perceptions on this forum are not intended but since I do little to address the issue, (and I accept and recognize my “tone” rubs people the wrong way) I accept the resulting friction my communication “style” leads to. But, I do think the response it triggers should still be reasonable.
There is a reason for my rudely calling out Mike, and that was intentional. If you are not familiar with the history of my online relationship with Mike it is not a good one.
1. He has repeatedly accused me of lying.
2. He has repeatedly falsely misquoted me and even after being shown the original quote and being implored to stop doing it, he has continued.
3. He personally insulted me, before I had insulted him.
4. When his errors have been pointed out to him, unequivocally, he has refused to offer the apology I was due.
That is why I consistently call him a low character individual and this is why I wanted to beat his stinkin ****. This is definitely not a friendly challenge from my viewpoint as I despise low character people and would love nothing more than to “disgrace” someone like this by beating them “at their own game”.
A. How does an aggressive calling out oblige me to accept any terms, ESPECIALLY when those counter-offers go against what I have previously stated I would not do? Do you not believe I previously stated the safety constraints? I’ll supply the posts if you need them.
B. What would I be apologizing to Mike for? Again, there is no making up here that I can see. I do my best not to associate with low character people and I have never seen, nor do I ever expect, contrition from someone like Mike that would change improve his badly damaged character.
C. Do you have any problem with Mike “supposedly” previously accepting my challenge, but not accepting it now? And how can you say his declining in the face of prior acceptance is anything close to my declining in the case of prior stated restrictions.
PS
Please read this post where I have been considering this seriously, and gee, it predates this thread by quite a bit. Hmmm. https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...ighlight=miata
Mark:
You are saying you believe there is likely to be more variation between track conditions over a short time span than here is likely to be between two different cars? Boy do I disagree. While you could switch cars, back and forth, this requires the rental of 2 cars, and Mike shouldn’t have to pay anything and I sure don’t want to pay for 2 cars (much less one) for a stupid bet.
To me, if you had one car, person A (determined by a coin flip) goes out for 5 laps, B goes out for5 laps, then later B goes out for 5 and A goes out for 5, you pick the top three laps from each person and lowest total wins. Maybe they each get a session earlier in the day to get used to the car. This would be fair in my book.
And for the record, I would do an SRF if the costs could be controlled.
10-11-2005, 10:48 AM
#184
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ColorChange
And for the record, I would do an SRF if the costs could be controlled.
10-11-2005, 11:17 AM
#186
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I can't believe I just read this whole thread.
Tim,
You are a fool like none other. I've known and raced with Mike for years. He's not only one of the nicest guys I've ever met but pretty damn fast. You forgot to post the qualifying in the rain at Road America in 2004 when Mike was on pole in his F car in a group that included B, C, D, E, F and I think GT4. I was so far back I needed binoculars to see Mike take the green. Anyone can turn the times you do in a 600 hp 996.
Mike,
I have the perfect solution. Let's get Jeff, Eric and anyone else that wants to have fun and we'll go to the skippy school without CC. It soulds like a lot more fun to me. Let the betting begin.
Jim
Tim,
You are a fool like none other. I've known and raced with Mike for years. He's not only one of the nicest guys I've ever met but pretty damn fast. You forgot to post the qualifying in the rain at Road America in 2004 when Mike was on pole in his F car in a group that included B, C, D, E, F and I think GT4. I was so far back I needed binoculars to see Mike take the green. Anyone can turn the times you do in a 600 hp 996.
Mike,
I have the perfect solution. Let's get Jeff, Eric and anyone else that wants to have fun and we'll go to the skippy school without CC. It soulds like a lot more fun to me. Let the betting begin.
Jim
10-11-2005, 11:22 AM
#187
Mr. Excitement
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
CC. With the $$$ list of cars you own and the $$$ gadgets you bolt onto them or play with in your basement I would think cost would be low on you list in order to uphold your standing around here.
There are many reasonable intelligent people in this forum and you are not fooling anyone with you word parsing and dithering about details. Put up or shut up.
Jim B. Your Skippy skool idea is spot on to the real sprirt of fun with true friends.
There are many reasonable intelligent people in this forum and you are not fooling anyone with you word parsing and dithering about details. Put up or shut up.
Jim B. Your Skippy skool idea is spot on to the real sprirt of fun with true friends.
10-11-2005, 11:28 AM
#188
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=ColorChange]TD: .......
There is a reason for my rudely calling out Mike, and that was intentional. If you are not familiar with the history of my online relationship with Mike it is not a good one.
1. He has repeatedly accused me of lying.
2. He has repeatedly falsely misquoted me and even after being shown the original quote and being implored to stop doing it, he has continued.
3. He personally insulted me, before I had insulted him.
4. When his errors have been pointed out to him, unequivocally, he has refused to offer the apology I was due.
That is why I consistently call him a low character individual and this is why I wanted to beat his stinkin ****. This is definitely not a friendly challenge from my viewpoint as I despise low character people and would love nothing more than to “disgrace” someone like this by beating them “at their own game”.
Wonderful choice of words... once again, CC !!!
IMO... this statement sums up both your attitude and personality !!!
Definition... Character n. 1. The combintion of qualities distinguishing any person or class of persons... 2. High qualities:moral force. 3. Reputation.
CC , you truly define the very meaning of... " LOW CHARACTER " . 
There is a reason for my rudely calling out Mike, and that was intentional. If you are not familiar with the history of my online relationship with Mike it is not a good one.
1. He has repeatedly accused me of lying.
2. He has repeatedly falsely misquoted me and even after being shown the original quote and being implored to stop doing it, he has continued.
3. He personally insulted me, before I had insulted him.
4. When his errors have been pointed out to him, unequivocally, he has refused to offer the apology I was due.
That is why I consistently call him a low character individual and this is why I wanted to beat his stinkin ****. This is definitely not a friendly challenge from my viewpoint as I despise low character people and would love nothing more than to “disgrace” someone like this by beating them “at their own game”.
Wonderful choice of words... once again, CC !!! IMO... this statement sums up both your attitude and personality !!!Definition... Character n. 1. The combintion of qualities distinguishing any person or class of persons... 2. High qualities:moral force. 3. Reputation.
CC , you truly define the very meaning of... " LOW CHARACTER " .
10-11-2005, 12:08 PM
#189
Originally Posted by ColorChange
TD: Very nice post. Please answer my lettered questions directly as I have tried to address all of your points.
Many of my perceptions on this forum are not intended but since I do little to address the issue, (and I accept and recognize my “tone” rubs people the wrong way) I accept the resulting friction my communication “style” leads to. But, I do think the response it triggers should still be reasonable.
There is a reason for my rudely calling out Mike, and that was intentional. If you are not familiar with the history of my online relationship with Mike it is not a good one.
1. He has repeatedly accused me of lying.
2. He has repeatedly falsely misquoted me and even after being shown the original quote and being implored to stop doing it, he has continued.
3. He personally insulted me, before I had insulted him.
4. When his errors have been pointed out to him, unequivocally, he has refused to offer the apology I was due.
That is why I consistently call him a low character individual and this is why I wanted to beat his stinkin ****. This is definitely not a friendly challenge from my viewpoint as I despise low character people and would love nothing more than to “disgrace” someone like this by beating them “at their own game”.
A. How does an aggressive calling out oblige me to accept any terms, ESPECIALLY when those counter-offers go against what I have previously stated I would not do? Do you not believe I previously stated the safety constraints? I’ll supply the posts if you need them.
B. What would I be apologizing to Mike for? Again, there is no making up here that I can see. I do my best not to associate with low character people and I have never seen, nor do I ever expect, contrition from someone like Mike that would change improve his badly damaged character.
C. Do you have any problem with Mike “supposedly” previously accepting my challenge, but not accepting it now? And how can you say his declining in the face of prior acceptance is anything close to my declining in the case of prior stated restrictions.
Many of my perceptions on this forum are not intended but since I do little to address the issue, (and I accept and recognize my “tone” rubs people the wrong way) I accept the resulting friction my communication “style” leads to. But, I do think the response it triggers should still be reasonable.
There is a reason for my rudely calling out Mike, and that was intentional. If you are not familiar with the history of my online relationship with Mike it is not a good one.
1. He has repeatedly accused me of lying.
2. He has repeatedly falsely misquoted me and even after being shown the original quote and being implored to stop doing it, he has continued.
3. He personally insulted me, before I had insulted him.
4. When his errors have been pointed out to him, unequivocally, he has refused to offer the apology I was due.
That is why I consistently call him a low character individual and this is why I wanted to beat his stinkin ****. This is definitely not a friendly challenge from my viewpoint as I despise low character people and would love nothing more than to “disgrace” someone like this by beating them “at their own game”.
A. How does an aggressive calling out oblige me to accept any terms, ESPECIALLY when those counter-offers go against what I have previously stated I would not do? Do you not believe I previously stated the safety constraints? I’ll supply the posts if you need them.
B. What would I be apologizing to Mike for? Again, there is no making up here that I can see. I do my best not to associate with low character people and I have never seen, nor do I ever expect, contrition from someone like Mike that would change improve his badly damaged character.
C. Do you have any problem with Mike “supposedly” previously accepting my challenge, but not accepting it now? And how can you say his declining in the face of prior acceptance is anything close to my declining in the case of prior stated restrictions.
This whole topic is getting very close to a long-standing pet peeve of mine that has nothing to do with this thread. Specifically, it seems to me that whenever the topic of character or ethics is discussed these days, everyone wants to talk about someone else rather than themselves.
For example, if you question someone on something that they have done that appears to be unethical, their response usually focuses on some justification based on the actions of a third party. IMHO, this entirely misses the point of character and ethics. I hope to teach my kids that character and ethics is all about how you react in the face of unfair, unjust, and even unethical actions of others. It is very easy to be good around good people with high morals. No challenge whatsoever. It is very hard to be good when someone else is being unethical or unfair towards you. The definition of high character and ethics is that you don't depart from your own standards (i.e., what is right) despite how easy or convenient or advantagous it would be to do so. My city, DC, wouldn't be such a messed up place if more people understood this. Of course, it is far easier to preach than to practice. However, my goal is to not let my standards vary or be dictated by anyone else but myself. For this reason, I think that your questions are misplaced. Nonetheless, since you asked, I will answer.
A. I do think that aggressively calling someone out obligates you to accept reasonable counterterms. I think you have a choice, you can either (1) politely propose a contest under specific terms (in which case you have no obligation to accept any counter proposals, and I don't think anyone else would even notice or care if you refused a counter proposal no matter how reasonable) (2) or aggressively and rudely call someone out while questioning their character, in which case I think you have a moral obligation to accept reasonable counteroffers or withdraw your insults and challenge. You see, it really doesn't matter what Mike has or has not done, because you were the person who made the challenge in this instance. It wasn't too long ago in history that you would have been threatened with physical violence or death for calling another man a coward. The Internet seems to have made people take threats and insults a little less seriously, which is too bad.
B. You would be apologizing for acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the high standards you have set for yourself. Again, as I explained above, it really doesn't matter whether Mike deserves your apology if you are apologizing for your own failures. You also might be surpised . . . Your personal standards should not be dictated by the actions of others.
C. For the reasons I explained above, I don't really think Mike's actions are relevant for your purposes. Also, I haven't really focused on the other challenges and am too lazy to get involved now.
I do think that accusing someone of having low character or being a coward should be saved for a more important issues than driving skill and posts on the Internet. You don't always have to say everything you think. Who knows, you might meet Mike someday and realize you were wrong.
You asked, so I answered.
TD
10-11-2005, 12:25 PM
#190
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow TD, I am muy impressed.
A. OK. Your reply is reasonable.
B. You are 100% correct. Mike, I apologize for letting my personal feelings for you and your actions cloud my judgment and act in a non-gentlemanly manner. I’m sorry and will try not to do it again. If I do TD, please call me on the carpet again.
C. I don’t think you did a very good job on this one but OK.
It is clear to me that you are an honorable individual TD. Therefore, I assume you will know the resentment it causes for someone to call you a liar and to purposefully misrepresent your positions repeatedly. This is lousy behavior and I don’t know how to correct it over the internet. How do you weigh trying to correct it against staying above it all? This is a paradox for me and I don’t have a solution, accept to ignore them or walk away from the whole thing.
A. OK. Your reply is reasonable.
B. You are 100% correct. Mike, I apologize for letting my personal feelings for you and your actions cloud my judgment and act in a non-gentlemanly manner. I’m sorry and will try not to do it again. If I do TD, please call me on the carpet again.
C. I don’t think you did a very good job on this one but OK.
It is clear to me that you are an honorable individual TD. Therefore, I assume you will know the resentment it causes for someone to call you a liar and to purposefully misrepresent your positions repeatedly. This is lousy behavior and I don’t know how to correct it over the internet. How do you weigh trying to correct it against staying above it all? This is a paradox for me and I don’t have a solution, accept to ignore them or walk away from the whole thing.
10-11-2005, 12:29 PM
#191
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by ColorChange
It is clear to me that you are an honorable individual TD. Therefore, I assume you will know the resentment it causes for someone to call you a liar and to purposefully misrepresent your positions repeatedly. This is lousy behavior and I don’t know how to correct it over the internet. How do you weigh trying to correct it against staying above it all? This is a paradox for me and I don’t have a solution, accept to ignore them or walk away from the whole thing.
Edit to add: Those other individuals who are honorable and mature will recognize and appreciate your actions without comment - you will have to take that on faith. As for those who do not appreciate how you conduct yourself as a mature, responsible individual - why would you care about their opinions, no matter how loudly voiced?
10-11-2005, 01:01 PM
#192
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
While we're all thinking about ethics and such, it might be wise to mentally review what it takes to decide you've been called a "liar".
For example Person C says "I did such and such"
Person "M" says I don't agree.
Did M call C a liar?
Hey DTR! Welcome back!
Food for thought....
For example Person C says "I did such and such"
Person "M" says I don't agree.
Did M call C a liar?
Hey DTR! Welcome back!
Food for thought....
10-11-2005, 01:36 PM
#193
Race Director
Originally Posted by Mike in Chi
...I'm through with this endless foolishness.
I leave it to anyone willing to wade through all the bs to decide who is of low character, who is of high character, and who is a coward.
I leave it to anyone willing to wade through all the bs to decide who is of low character, who is of high character, and who is a coward.
But you have taken the higher ground by putting an end to the nonsense of this little challenge. To that, I applaud you.
Thank you,
-Z-man.
10-11-2005, 08:22 PM
#194
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by ColorChange
<snip>
B. You are 100% correct. Mike, I apologize for letting my personal feelings for you and your actions cloud my judgment and act in a non-gentlemanly manner. I’m sorry and will try not to do it again.
<snip>
Therefore, I assume you will know the resentment it causes for someone to call you a liar and to purposefully misrepresent your positions repeatedly. This is lousy behavior and I don’t know how to correct it over the internet. How do you weigh trying to correct it against staying above it all? This is a paradox for me and I don’t have a solution, accept to ignore them or walk away from the whole thing.
B. You are 100% correct. Mike, I apologize for letting my personal feelings for you and your actions cloud my judgment and act in a non-gentlemanly manner. I’m sorry and will try not to do it again.
<snip>
Therefore, I assume you will know the resentment it causes for someone to call you a liar and to purposefully misrepresent your positions repeatedly. This is lousy behavior and I don’t know how to correct it over the internet. How do you weigh trying to correct it against staying above it all? This is a paradox for me and I don’t have a solution, accept to ignore them or walk away from the whole thing.
10-11-2005, 08:31 PM
#195
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by ColorChange
B. You are 100% correct. Mike, I apologize for letting my personal feelings for you and your actions cloud my judgment and act in a non-gentlemanly manner. I’m sorry and will try not to do it again. If I do TD, please call me on the carpet again.
Thank you .
I accept.
Mike, I apologize for letting my personal feelings for you and your actions cloud my judgment and act in a non-gentlemanly manner. I’m sorry and will try not to do it again.
Back in post 26 I said
"... we have friends-and-acquaintances-in-common. They tell me they've met you at the track and you're "a good guy". I trust their evaluation and opinion, and am willing to accept that you are a good guy. "
Perhaps, as someone suggested earlier in this thread, we can meet up at a track some day.
Perhaps I'll even find my friends and acquaintances are right, and you'll find your personal feelings for me and my actions are wrong.