Originally Posted by PenelopePitstop
But are they faster than the space shuttle when it is on my tv set?
But are they faster than the space shuttle when it is on my tv set?
It may not have been your intent, but that was the effect. Damage done. Been there myself. I usually try to apologize.
"Each day well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness and every tomorrow a vision of hope. Look well therefore to this one day for it, and it alone, is life"
~ Sanskrit poem attributed to Kalidasa, "Salutation to the Dawn"
Brian's Wish
So what is stopping you?
You were accusing me of something I didn't do. It's not my fault you misunderstood the 2012 race results I had posted. Your interpretation came from out of the blue because none of my posts in this thread had made reference to any INDYCAR race in Las Vegas.
You keep forgetting that I'm an Indycar fan. And even if I wasn't, I respect all drivers too much to play that card.
Last edited by PenelopePitstop; 03-15-2012 at 09:55 PM.
No, I just gave my opinion of what you were saying, what it meant to me. Your words, you said 'em.
It's not like we don't know about the legacy of danger on high-banked NASCAR tracks have for higher-performing IndyCars. See Daytona, 1959. That's been the undercurrent of this entire debate. Now when called on it, you're going to plead ignorance?
I'm sorry if that offends you, but it seems to be a reasonable supposition to me.You keep forgetting that I'm an Indycar fan. And even if I wasn't, I respect all drivers too much to play that card.
Like I said, if I said something that was hurtful, even if it was misunderstood, I'd hope I'd apologize upon hearing about it.
I said the same words a week earlier and it had no effect on you.
I don't know anything about Daytona 1959. Or what the heck you are referring to.It's not like we don't know about the legacy of danger on high-banked NASCAR tracks have for higher-performing IndyCars. See Daytona, 1959. That's been the undercurrent of this entire debate. Now when called on it, you're going to plead ignorance?
If you are asking for an apology from me here it is: I'm sorry if you were hurt by my report concerning the 2012 NASCAR and INDYCAR race results to date that had nothing to do with Indycar's accident at Las Vegas in 2011.Like I said, if I said something that was hurtful, even if it was misunderstood, I'd hope I'd apologize upon hearing about it.
Here's an additional apology: Your inability to understand my post about the 2012 results caused you to say untrue words about me. I'm sorry that you are so classless as to not apopogize or retract your words that impugned my character.
Sorry you feel that way, but I don't see how anything I said was untrue or unfairly impugning. If it was, I apologize- as I already said.
It might not have been what you meant - but that's what it meant to me. If you're really unaware of the implications of Daytona, then that probably explains a lot: you really don't have a frame of reference that I presumed was a prerequisite for this discussion.
I'll do my best not to respond to anything else you say.
Fare thee well.
Last edited by Turn13; 03-16-2012 at 12:36 PM.
Right.
You still think that 55mph>56 mph if the Indycar is the one doing 55. It is your frame of reference that is completely inane.It might not have been what you meant - but that's what it meant to me. If you're really unaware of the implications of Daytona, then that probably explains a lot: you really don't have a frame of reference that I presumed was a prerequisite for this discussion.
Have fun watching those superfast 103mph city street races this year.I'll do my best not to respond to anything else you say.
Fare thee well.
Gosh, you're not impugning my character, are you?Right.
Not what I said and you know it.You still think that 55mph>56 mph if the Indycar is the one doing 55.
In your opinion. Big deal - at least my "frame of reference" is consistent with the real worldIt is your frame of reference that is completely inane.
I will. Why wouldn't I? I'm actually a fan of the series.Have fun watching those superfast 103mph city street races this year.
Post #269:
These were your words:I'm just amazed that someone with any character could come up with that response to my statement that clearly refers to the 2012 schedule.I was so pissed when I saw you had the gall to rate NASCAR over IndyCar at Las Vegas, even though IndyCar lapped the track 20 or 30 mph faster just a few months ago. But no, you give them "0 mph", because they didn't go back after losing Dan. Class move, PP. Maybe we'll get the chance to introduce you to his widow at Indy. Maybe you can shoot your sneeing lip off at Dario when you see him, tell him what you really think.
56 mph on a straight section of highway IS a lesser demonstration of the capability of speed than is 55 mph on a very tight curve. That's just a component of the common definition of "faster" that you choose to reject.
"Faster" is a relative term. The range of mph possible in the universe is 0 to 671 million mph. Given the scale, the only possible way to consider any forms of terrestrial, mechanical locomotion "fast" is to consider it as the demonstration of relative capabilities.
We all have different frames of reference based on our particular experience, knowledge, information, and even empathy and self-awareness, I suppose. I'm not going to take it personally. I'm not even as pissed, now that I'm reminded better of where you're coming from.
But in real terms that everyone understands without a two paragraph setup, 55mph is slower than 56mph.
Why should you take it personally? I didn't take any cheap shots at you then pretend I did nothing wrong. Your demeanor is tactless in this case. Nothing personal, mind you, just an honest assessment of character.We all have different frames of reference based on our particular experience, knowledge, information, and even empathy and self-awareness, I suppose. I'm not going to take it personally. I'm not even as pissed, now that I'm reminded better of where you're coming from.
Can't believe this argument is still going.
Basically what it comes down to is an argument of common-sense and ability to think and rationalize like a human being vs. someone who thinks of everything in black & white and absolute absolutes. It's an argument that is impossible to win from either side.
If you measure the average speed of a NASCAR season versus an IndyCar season, naturally the NASCAR season is going to come out faster because they race almost exclusively on ovals.
However if you put the two cars on the same course, the IndyCars are much faster than the NASCARs.
All of this arguing over technicalities is pointless and I've got news for you Penelope...... 99% of human beings don't give a damn about obsessing and nitpicking over technicalities.
It's like a criminal that gets released because of some minor technicality when all of the evidence and common-sense points to him being guilty. 99% of people are pissed when they hear about something like this and yet there is always this one person who goes "well technically..........."
**** This Sport
You state the truth here.
The rest of your words (about 99% of this post) are an attempt to explain away that truth.
I would say that in real terms, comparing 55 mph to 56 mph without understanding the track and conditions is meaningless in determining which is the greater accomplishment. And it doesn't take two paragraphs to note the radius of the curve
I think you took cheap shots at the series, its fans and competitors. I have no way to know if you were pretending to not know that or not.Why should you take it personally? I didn't take any cheap shots at you then pretend I did nothing wrong.
Yeah, because what could possibly be personal about an attack on one's character?Your demeanor is tactless in this case. Nothing personal, mind you, just an honest assessment of character.
We aren't talking greater accomplishment we're talking faster.I would say that in real terms, comparing 55 mph to 56 mph without understanding the track and conditions is meaningless in determining which is the greater accomplishment. And it doesn't take two paragraphs to note the radius of the curve
If you would bother to read my post where I listed the results after the Phoenix race you would know that I was reporting the 2012 season results precisely the same way. If you had no objections to that post then you should have no protest about the updated report after the Las Vegas race. You refuse to accept responsibility for your accusations.I think you took cheap shots at the series, its fans and competitors. I have no way to know if you were pretending to not know that or not.
I'm commenting on the character that you have chosen to publicly display. Not one other member has even remotely thought my post had anything to do with the 2011 Las vegas Indycar race.Yeah, because what could possibly be personal about an attack on one's character?
I know. This is where you ignore the "capability of speed" part of the dictionary definition of "faster", and choose the more limited definition.
We are talking the demonstration of a greater capability of speed. You are just comparing mph on different tracks and conditions.
Whatever. I found your dismissive tone and callous comparisons to be very insensitive in context - but that's been the underlying current of this debate with you on every point. You pleaded that it wasn't intentional and I apologized for taking it that way, twice now I think. I accepted that you were just not thinking of Dan when you posted about Las Vegas, and that you have no concept of the history of IndyCars on highbanked tracks. What else do you want?If you would bother to read my post where I listed the results after the Phoenix race you would know that I was reporting the 2012 season results precisely the same way. If you had no objections to that post then you should have no protest about the updated report after the Las Vegas race. You refuse to accept responsibility for your accusations.
You're quite the mindreader. I never said you posted "0 mph" as the 2011 speed - I took it as you posted it as the speed IndyCar got for not racing there and on other high banks more often this year. Is that not true?I'm commenting on the character that you have chosen to publicly display. Not one other member has even remotely thought my post had anything to do with the 2011 Las vegas Indycar race.
I'm reminded of an old saying, to paraphrase - when you have the numbers, argue the numbers, when you have the facts, argue the facts, and when you have neither, argue "character".
Yes I am. I'm comparing actual to actual. You are comparing potential to possible to perhaps to probably.
My subject was the 2012 results. Your interpretation was completely off-base. Period.Whatever. I found your dismissive tone and callous comparisons to be very insensitive in contextYou are the one who brought personalities into the mix, so heed your own advice.I'm reminded of an old saying, to paraphrase - when you have the numbers, argue the numbers, when you have the facts, argue the facts, and when you have neither, argue "character".
Last edited by PenelopePitstop; 03-18-2012 at 01:56 PM.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallac...20ad%20nauseamMy subject was the 2012 results. Your interpretation was completely off-base. Period.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallac...20ad%20hominemYou are the one who brought personalities into the mix, so heed your own advice.
Says the man who argues that 55>56
As for your links, try using truth and honesty when debating. No links needed. And it helps when giving advice if you weren't the one who first violated the subject. Class move, Turn13.
NASCAR raced for the fourth time in 2012 yesterday.
INDYCAR (no races)
Last edited by PenelopePitstop; 03-19-2012 at 06:28 AM.
Why do you seem to be so impressed with this? It would seem logical since the season has not started yet.
So it is a true statement. Why is it a matter of concern to you? Does it bother you?
Whatever Missy, This whole thread and your ridiculous attempts at trying to look smart bother me though.
Indycars go faster than NASCAR racecars. Always.
PP may well be making the silliest argument in the history of TF... and that says quite a lot.
Let (s)he who has never made a silly argument on TrackForum, cast the first stone...
No, I didn't, and that was already demonstrated in posts #300 and #365.
Using this once may have been an oversight on your part. What's the second and third offense?
Seems to me all your posts for the last few pages have been either false or repetition of previously debunked notions. Or character attacks.
Running out of ammo?
56>55 is the silliest, no doubt.
Oh, and while we're averaging averages, wouldn't it be valid to average the last ten years?
What's that, four times?
Information without knowledge is just data. Dumb data
Context is everything.
Yes, you did.
Originally Posted by PenelopePitstop
55mph is slower than 56mph no matter the course, no matter the degree of difficulty, no matter the banking, no matter the radius, no matter the vehicle dynamics.
I reject that as nonsense, and inconsistent with the commonly accepted definitions and concepts, and as demonstrated amply in this thread.
Sorry to disappoint, but the one who has attacked the other's character has been you. And despite your claims, I have seen no apology from you for doing so. As is consistent with my statement regarding your character.Seems to me all your posts for the last few pages have been either false or repetition of previously debunked notions. Or character attacks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks