Calling Bullsh1t on this thread
10-20-2005, 01:20 PM
#31
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Premier Motorsp
Professor,
No, I do not have a commercial interest that is leading me to be a 'scold'. But thanks for your cynical interpretation of the facts.
It is, however, in my best possible commerical interest that racers be as educated as possible. I do what I can to further this goal. I think that is a benefit to everyone.
It does not help me or anyone else when this forum is a place where new or different ideas result in a gang-bang.
Here is how this always plays out:
Colorchange says: I believe X for Y reason.
Rennlister: No, X is not true.
Colorchange: Would you offer some sort of reasoning why X is not true?
Rennlister: X is false because of reason Z
Colorchange: Reason Z is false.
Rennlister: No, X is false. You are a noob, so shut up.
Colorchange: No, you shut up.
And so on.
For sure Color could have treaded more lightly at times with his responses. A strongly worded opinion, however, should not be an invitation for an ad hominem attack.
No, I do not have a commercial interest that is leading me to be a 'scold'. But thanks for your cynical interpretation of the facts.
It is, however, in my best possible commerical interest that racers be as educated as possible. I do what I can to further this goal. I think that is a benefit to everyone.
It does not help me or anyone else when this forum is a place where new or different ideas result in a gang-bang.
Here is how this always plays out:
Colorchange says: I believe X for Y reason.
Rennlister: No, X is not true.
Colorchange: Would you offer some sort of reasoning why X is not true?
Rennlister: X is false because of reason Z
Colorchange: Reason Z is false.
Rennlister: No, X is false. You are a noob, so shut up.
Colorchange: No, you shut up.
And so on.
For sure Color could have treaded more lightly at times with his responses. A strongly worded opinion, however, should not be an invitation for an ad hominem attack.
Thanks again Chris and you are correct. For the times I have responded with “no you shut up”, I was wrong and I apologize to all on this board. Low character actions should not prompt a less than gentlemenly reply on my part and I denigrated myself by doing so. As TD recently pointed out, I shouldn’t do it, I haven’t since, and I won’t in the future.
10-20-2005, 02:01 PM
#32
Race Director
Originally Posted by jgrant
Did you do any G-SUM calcs for your performance in that half-marathon? If so, I'd be interested in the results.
Sure did....
(pant... pant).... G, I need Sum water.......
10-20-2005, 02:13 PM
#33
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Hmmm...
Save it to your hard drives, folks;
That may be the closest we ever get to a CC Mea Culpa. Let the record show that the attempt was made, at least, I guess...sort of, I think.
Chris C - I too like what Sunday, KurtM, and M758 had to say (amongst many others to varying extents). Let me tell you where I agree with you, FWIW;
Dog Piling - We are wrong. We should be bigger. We should not allow incredulity to be replaced by inhospitability, regardless of the tenor of what it is we question.
Where I can't agree; Techincally. I am not smart enough to know whether Tim is full of shirt with his theories about Acq and such. I simply can't follow it. He may be brilliant, partially so, or not. I will never know as it pertains strictly to the techincal. In that regard, I will defer to you, if indeed you are supporting some of CC's offerings. As Joe rightly said, you have earned your props.
Where I don't agree; That Tim has not earned derision. He has. Others have spelled the case out quite elloquently. Should we be the betters here and suppress our Pavlovian responses? Yes, certainly. Tell that to the coke-head mouse as he nods in agreement... then pushes the button and takes another snort.
It is a very simple matter to plead your case - passionately even - without starting fights. You make it about "I", not "you." "I think, I feel, I'm pretty certain, I am convinced."
Simple, and yet, apparently, confounding.
Save it to your hard drives, folks;
That may be the closest we ever get to a CC Mea Culpa. Let the record show that the attempt was made, at least, I guess...sort of, I think.
Chris C - I too like what Sunday, KurtM, and M758 had to say (amongst many others to varying extents). Let me tell you where I agree with you, FWIW;
Dog Piling - We are wrong. We should be bigger. We should not allow incredulity to be replaced by inhospitability, regardless of the tenor of what it is we question.
Where I can't agree; Techincally. I am not smart enough to know whether Tim is full of shirt with his theories about Acq and such. I simply can't follow it. He may be brilliant, partially so, or not. I will never know as it pertains strictly to the techincal. In that regard, I will defer to you, if indeed you are supporting some of CC's offerings. As Joe rightly said, you have earned your props.
Where I don't agree; That Tim has not earned derision. He has. Others have spelled the case out quite elloquently. Should we be the betters here and suppress our Pavlovian responses? Yes, certainly. Tell that to the coke-head mouse as he nods in agreement... then pushes the button and takes another snort.
It is a very simple matter to plead your case - passionately even - without starting fights. You make it about "I", not "you." "I think, I feel, I'm pretty certain, I am convinced."
Simple, and yet, apparently, confounding.
10-20-2005, 02:28 PM
#34
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: KY
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While Tim (CC) and I will likely differ for ever on some of his ideas, I find that the discussions cause me to at least stop and think outside the box for a while. When TD posted his "Why g-sum" thread, I made a conscious decision to try and engage Tim in discussion that stayed on topic without resorting to what has now become standard - the idiot, Idiot, IDIOT back and forth. Tim, to his credit, conducted a discussion with me in an adult fashion, even though we don't really agree.
And then, it degenerated into the classic CC post (who started it - well, who cares?), so I bailed.
I do like having Tim on the forum, even if keeping the emotion out of the discussion is a little like having sex with a porcupine, but I think some of the onus is on Tim to relax on what he thinks are personal attacks, and then the rest is on us to give him a chance to demonstrate that change.
Two weeks ago Mark (SundayDriver) came back to the forum, and the first week was a great back and forth of ideas and wisdom. Since then, the past few days have been a complete f#%*ing waste of time, all around. I don't really care who's starting it or finishing it, I think all of us have a responsibility to try and bring the forum back to being a creative interchange of ideas and, gulp, facts or speculation.
Fire away, or better yet, prove me wrong.
Bruce
EDIT: Damn, I just read CC's response to Sunday on the data he was provided with. Maybe my wife is right, I'm way too much of an optimist. Tim, someone has to go first, and it would behoove you to do the analysis of the data and show us what you think. I for one, would be enormouly impressed with a good technical analysis, a) because it would educate me and b) because it would indisputably demonstrate your ability to interpret someone else's data to most of the forum. I'm not trying to initiate another meltdown, I'm really interested in seeing the results.
And then, it degenerated into the classic CC post (who started it - well, who cares?), so I bailed.
I do like having Tim on the forum, even if keeping the emotion out of the discussion is a little like having sex with a porcupine, but I think some of the onus is on Tim to relax on what he thinks are personal attacks, and then the rest is on us to give him a chance to demonstrate that change.
Two weeks ago Mark (SundayDriver) came back to the forum, and the first week was a great back and forth of ideas and wisdom. Since then, the past few days have been a complete f#%*ing waste of time, all around. I don't really care who's starting it or finishing it, I think all of us have a responsibility to try and bring the forum back to being a creative interchange of ideas and, gulp, facts or speculation.
Fire away, or better yet, prove me wrong.
Bruce
EDIT: Damn, I just read CC's response to Sunday on the data he was provided with. Maybe my wife is right, I'm way too much of an optimist. Tim, someone has to go first, and it would behoove you to do the analysis of the data and show us what you think. I for one, would be enormouly impressed with a good technical analysis, a) because it would educate me and b) because it would indisputably demonstrate your ability to interpret someone else's data to most of the forum. I'm not trying to initiate another meltdown, I'm really interested in seeing the results.
10-20-2005, 02:44 PM
#35
Most frequent participants of these threads know CC (aka Tim) and understand how to tune out some the the noise in his posts. They are always lively, and I believe one last year (in the First G-Sum Era), "degenerated" into an extremely amusing thread... introducing among other things the famous Homer Simpson G-Sum Plot...
However, Mark has proved his abilities on the track (top 10 in SRF at SCCA Run-offs IIRC). I think that has earned him a certain amount of credibility to most of us, and I personally value his comments as they come with gold plated credentials.... (as opposed to the tin plated credentials that I and probably most of us here have....)
Every one here is free to share their opinions and they are all valued including CC's. However, it is sometimes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff... this is part of the fun and challenge, there is nothing wrong with excercising a bit of discipline here to keep things on track and keep the information as valid and true as possible......IMHO, those who truely do have the credentials should be given a bit more respect, and not have their threads hi-jacked.
However, Mark has proved his abilities on the track (top 10 in SRF at SCCA Run-offs IIRC). I think that has earned him a certain amount of credibility to most of us, and I personally value his comments as they come with gold plated credentials.... (as opposed to the tin plated credentials that I and probably most of us here have....)
Every one here is free to share their opinions and they are all valued including CC's. However, it is sometimes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff... this is part of the fun and challenge, there is nothing wrong with excercising a bit of discipline here to keep things on track and keep the information as valid and true as possible......IMHO, those who truely do have the credentials should be given a bit more respect, and not have their threads hi-jacked.
10-20-2005, 03:21 PM
#36
Race Director
Originally Posted by JCP911S
Most frequent participants of these threads know CC (aka Tim) and understand how to tune out some the the noise in his posts. They are always lively, and I believe one last year (in the First G-Sum Era), "degenerated" into an extremely amusing thread... introducing among other things the famous Homer Simpson G-Sum Plot....
-Z-man.
10-20-2005, 03:22 PM
#37
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We seem to be headed in the right direction at least, but:
John says:
Techincally. I am not smart enough to know whether Tim is full of shirt with his theories about Acq and such. I simply can't follow it. He may be brilliant, partially so, or not. I will never know as it pertains strictly to the techincal. In that regard, I will defer to you, if indeed you are supporting some of CC's offerings. As Joe rightly said, you have earned your props.
My complaint is not about whether Tim, or anyone else is actually right or wrong. My complaint is that every time he makes a statement (at least until the thread degenerates into chaos) he also provides a reasoned argument about why he believes what he has said to be true.
I have no problem with, and even encourage, somebody coming back and telling Tim he is wrong, and here are the reasons why he is wrong. But what has mostly happened here is not that, but instead people telling him that he cannot possibly be right due to his level of experience. This is stupid. It presupposes that the most experienced people are never wrong, and the least experienced people are never right.
JCP911 says:
However, Mark has proved his abilities on the track (top 10 in SRF at SCCA Run-offs IIRC). I think that has earned him a certain amount of credibility to most of us, and I personally value his comments as they come with gold plated credentials.... (as opposed to the tin plated credentials that I and probably most of us here have....)
Indeed Mark has proved his abilities on the track. I do not argue this. But this fact does not automatically make his argument stronger than Tim's. The reader SHOULD consider experience when placing relative values on each opinion, but the experience level has nothing to do with the validity of the argument.
That is what it is all about right there. If you don't believe that looking at G-sum on the data is useful, then don't do it. I know Tim is not going to call you LC for doing that. But if you tell him that he is wrong and provide no backup for your argument, and then get pissed when he calls you on it, you are going to get called LC.
Chris Cervelli
Premier Motorsports
John says:
Techincally. I am not smart enough to know whether Tim is full of shirt with his theories about Acq and such. I simply can't follow it. He may be brilliant, partially so, or not. I will never know as it pertains strictly to the techincal. In that regard, I will defer to you, if indeed you are supporting some of CC's offerings. As Joe rightly said, you have earned your props.
My complaint is not about whether Tim, or anyone else is actually right or wrong. My complaint is that every time he makes a statement (at least until the thread degenerates into chaos) he also provides a reasoned argument about why he believes what he has said to be true.
I have no problem with, and even encourage, somebody coming back and telling Tim he is wrong, and here are the reasons why he is wrong. But what has mostly happened here is not that, but instead people telling him that he cannot possibly be right due to his level of experience. This is stupid. It presupposes that the most experienced people are never wrong, and the least experienced people are never right.
JCP911 says:
However, Mark has proved his abilities on the track (top 10 in SRF at SCCA Run-offs IIRC). I think that has earned him a certain amount of credibility to most of us, and I personally value his comments as they come with gold plated credentials.... (as opposed to the tin plated credentials that I and probably most of us here have....)
Indeed Mark has proved his abilities on the track. I do not argue this. But this fact does not automatically make his argument stronger than Tim's. The reader SHOULD consider experience when placing relative values on each opinion, but the experience level has nothing to do with the validity of the argument.
That is what it is all about right there. If you don't believe that looking at G-sum on the data is useful, then don't do it. I know Tim is not going to call you LC for doing that. But if you tell him that he is wrong and provide no backup for your argument, and then get pissed when he calls you on it, you are going to get called LC.
Chris Cervelli
Premier Motorsports
10-20-2005, 03:42 PM
#38
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Larry Herman
You mean T*D, with the brown SC with a different tire at each corner? Nah, never heard of him. 
t*d archives
10-20-2005, 04:06 PM
#39
Experience! Yes please, love experience, learn it, share it, improve it, develop it, please fail and tell about it so the rest of us don't do it (especially me 
).
But there are a few things I have to point out.
Experience:
Well it's true up to a certain level. After that level, some development are pure theories that are ended up tested in real conditions. Theory guy and driver guy are not always the same. It's not Alois Ruf, Günter Mandl nor Reinhold Schirmler who race the cars to the podium. Go up another league and you have a even bigger gap. My point: Just because you don't even qualify for being experienced on the track doesn't mean you're dead wrong.
Pure mean comments:
Look around and there are plenty off people who give comments where it says between the lines: "**** off" and try to point out personal flaws and errors. It don't just really see the value of it.
).But there are a few things I have to point out.
Experience:
Well it's true up to a certain level. After that level, some development are pure theories that are ended up tested in real conditions. Theory guy and driver guy are not always the same. It's not Alois Ruf, Günter Mandl nor Reinhold Schirmler who race the cars to the podium. Go up another league and you have a even bigger gap. My point: Just because you don't even qualify for being experienced on the track doesn't mean you're dead wrong.
Pure mean comments:
Look around and there are plenty off people who give comments where it says between the lines: "**** off" and try to point out personal flaws and errors. It don't just really see the value of it.
10-20-2005, 04:54 PM
#40
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by Rassel
Experience:
Well it's true up to a certain level. After that level, some development are pure theories that are ended up tested in real conditions. Theory guy and driver guy are not always the same. It's not Alois Ruf, Günter Mandl nor Reinhold Schirmler who race the cars to the podium. Go up another league and you have a even bigger gap. My point: Just because you don't even qualify for being experienced on the track doesn't mean you're dead wrong.
Well it's true up to a certain level. After that level, some development are pure theories that are ended up tested in real conditions. Theory guy and driver guy are not always the same. It's not Alois Ruf, Günter Mandl nor Reinhold Schirmler who race the cars to the podium. Go up another league and you have a even bigger gap. My point: Just because you don't even qualify for being experienced on the track doesn't mean you're dead wrong.
5 or 10 Races in an ITS, PCA "H" race etc... makes me listen because they have tested the theories to get to the front.
Experience or more importantly listening to those who are experienced is EVERYTHING.
10-20-2005, 09:17 PM
#42
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Chris is the real master here....here figured out that if everyone were to just agree with CC and respond "I see, thank you", that we would really ruin his fun and he would quickly go away!
Very smart Chris! Why do we keep playing CC's game????????????
Very smart Chris! Why do we keep playing CC's game????????????
10-20-2005, 09:42 PM
#43
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC's... Arm Chair Quarterbacking... many times spouting his OPINIONS as if they were facts, in most cases haven't been proven. In fact, some of his schemes could be down right dangerous... if someone were to try to use them on a track.
His famous 996 TT post which started with the premise that the fastest way thru turns is to... SLAM ON YOUR BRAKES using ABS diving into the corner right up to the apex... evolved into trail braking after many pages of name-calling and insulting remarks towards anyone who dis-agreed with him.He called out a member on this board... then backed off when his CHALLENGE was accepted. CC likes to use the term " LOW CHARACTER " as an insult to those who dis-agree with his opinions. Issuing a challenge... then weaseling out... seems to me to be as " LOW A CHARACTER" action as I have seen on this board.
I coud go on mentioning... his 50 PSI air pressure at the track, his driving Videos showing many rookie mistakes. 3 less than full days of Drivers Ed... when he posted his SLAM ON ABS info... etc and so forth. This simply shows that CC has a LOT TO LEARN. DAS will not teach him how to hustle a car around the track, working with people who have experience... just might.
10-20-2005, 09:50 PM
#44
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Chris;
I agree with you. I've known far too many guys in the car game that "have been in the business for 30 years, so don't try and tell me..." In most cases, that means about 25+-years too long! The guys who DO have the real stuff would never say that. And indeed, sometimes the noob can see the forrest AND the trees.
I think we all have to be honest and say that we cannot get past Tim's electronic demeanor. He may be right some of the time for all I know. I can't follow half of it, and generally am not inclined to try anyway. The scab just never gets to heal before he makes a comment in such a way that it is very difficult to ignore. There are ways to stand up for your position, and be passionate in your beliefs, without things being personal or even needlessly emphatic. But, that's not his style, is it?
An imperious tone will never win you any friends, especially not in a swift current like we have here. Perhaps the saddest thing is that Tim turns off so many people that might actually learn something from him. What to - or NOT- to do.
I think a lot of us have REALLY tried hard to meet him halfway. I'm not sure there has been reciprocation in kind, regardless of whether he is right or wrong.
And so... yet another interesting debate with Tim as the centerpiece.
I agree with you. I've known far too many guys in the car game that "have been in the business for 30 years, so don't try and tell me..." In most cases, that means about 25+-years too long! The guys who DO have the real stuff would never say that. And indeed, sometimes the noob can see the forrest AND the trees.
I think we all have to be honest and say that we cannot get past Tim's electronic demeanor. He may be right some of the time for all I know. I can't follow half of it, and generally am not inclined to try anyway. The scab just never gets to heal before he makes a comment in such a way that it is very difficult to ignore. There are ways to stand up for your position, and be passionate in your beliefs, without things being personal or even needlessly emphatic. But, that's not his style, is it?
An imperious tone will never win you any friends, especially not in a swift current like we have here. Perhaps the saddest thing is that Tim turns off so many people that might actually learn something from him. What to - or NOT- to do.
I think a lot of us have REALLY tried hard to meet him halfway. I'm not sure there has been reciprocation in kind, regardless of whether he is right or wrong.
And so... yet another interesting debate with Tim as the centerpiece.
10-20-2005, 09:50 PM
#45
Race Director
Maybe I'm just in a grumpy mood but.....
Tim is entitled to his opinion. No question. I think he's a little misguided about what is a fact and what is an opinion. That can be rather annoying, but is certainly tolerable.
My problem with Tim is how downright rude he is to so many people. He comes right out and tells them they are stupid and how smart he is. That in itself is boorish in the extreme. For me it's intolerable.
No amount of effort to help Tim (unless it is help with something he agrees with) , nice or otherwise has had any real effect on him that I can see.
As far as the "bullies" are concerned, as I said, Tim outright asks for it. So people beat him up verbally? If you go up to a martial arts master and kick him in the *****, you're going to get your *** kicked. Said another way, one should learn not to **** in the wind or learn not to complain about getting wet.
For my part, I really try these days to simply avoid him. I don't have the time for him (I've been trying to type this response for hours, literally - I'm at work) and it's not worth it. I'll take a shot at him once in a while and probably shouldn't do so, but it's almost always if not always after he's started being rude to people. Is it right? No. Should I stop? Yes. Will I? I don't know. I'll probably just try to avoid any thread Tim is actively participating in. If that means I participate in no threads anymore, so be it. The simple fact that we have a huge thead about being naughty to this boor is just beyond me. This is the grown-ups table. Act like one. And if you don't, don't complain when you get an earful, even if it isn't nice.
I'd leave y'all with a haiku, but I have to get back to working on my 2006 budgets.
Tim is entitled to his opinion. No question. I think he's a little misguided about what is a fact and what is an opinion. That can be rather annoying, but is certainly tolerable.
My problem with Tim is how downright rude he is to so many people. He comes right out and tells them they are stupid and how smart he is. That in itself is boorish in the extreme. For me it's intolerable.
No amount of effort to help Tim (unless it is help with something he agrees with) , nice or otherwise has had any real effect on him that I can see.
As far as the "bullies" are concerned, as I said, Tim outright asks for it. So people beat him up verbally? If you go up to a martial arts master and kick him in the *****, you're going to get your *** kicked. Said another way, one should learn not to **** in the wind or learn not to complain about getting wet.
For my part, I really try these days to simply avoid him. I don't have the time for him (I've been trying to type this response for hours, literally - I'm at work) and it's not worth it. I'll take a shot at him once in a while and probably shouldn't do so, but it's almost always if not always after he's started being rude to people. Is it right? No. Should I stop? Yes. Will I? I don't know. I'll probably just try to avoid any thread Tim is actively participating in. If that means I participate in no threads anymore, so be it. The simple fact that we have a huge thead about being naughty to this boor is just beyond me. This is the grown-ups table. Act like one. And if you don't, don't complain when you get an earful, even if it isn't nice.
I'd leave y'all with a haiku, but I have to get back to working on my 2006 budgets.