Ah yes, it may explain my itching, other than that maybe it was when I was on here in mumbo Jumbo land, I must have picked up some a tropical disease, unfortunately no suntan.. Other than I did say to the missus it was a bad idea, to go to that wine and anthrax party. If everybody agreed on something, its sure to be wrong..
Yes and we apparently are judging our world championship contenders on number and size of earrings and how they wear their hair.
Just failing to see why you are here. I really do not go back and read all of your comments, pretty obvious what you will say.
Rosberg has 4 wins? Lewis has 9? And Ham could've won even more if he didn't have 3 or 4 DNF's. Everytime Rosberg and Lewis started together on the grid, and both finished (except once, Monaco) Lewis was the better on race day. On Saturday's... Rosberg seems better at winning pole positions (I'll give him that).
ok, take "could've" away. Scoreboard is LH 9 wins to NR's 4 and LH is ahead in the Championship. Why does Nico deserve the Title more than Lewis?
If you're all going to espouse this "coulda woulda shoulda the points are the only thing that matters" rhetoric then why are you all vehemently opposed to double points? The underlying problem with that is it can result in someone undeserving winning because good luck and bad luck alike are doubly stacked on one race result. I know for a fact that you gentleman above who are saying all this "points at the end are what matter every winner has a trophy and every loser has a story" are opposed to double points because I've seen you post it. So that begs the question; how can you be against double points but at the same time embrace the notion that whoever has the most points is the rightful and deserving winner. Seems hypocritical and contradictory to me. Please explain.
To have a fair and honest championship all results have to earn the same points. Do I need to say it more slowly?
The last race (double point system) is or can be a game changer, but it won't be for me, either way. IMO Toil is simply pointing out that most folk seem opposed to it, yet they will embrace it if Nico wins.
Interesting that you say this but at the same time seem to brush aside the poster who invited a hypothetical discussion. The inference being that to you it does not matter that Hamilton has retired from more races than his team mate because he would have "less points" and no trophy. At least that is the interpretation I am getting from your posts. Aircon is a little more direct with his. But since you are interested in fairness then you must accept that being taken out by your team mate or having more mechanical dnfs is not "fair" given the strict definition of the word. Given you advocate a fair and honest championship why do you so readily brush aside a discussion of past races that elucidates a level of unfairness? Albeit one that does not come from the fia by manipulating the points system but it does come from other sources; the team not being able to provide a working car, or a driver ruining his team mates race (intentionally or unintentionally that may be) and that working out to benefit his own. In the interest of "fairness" all are relevant to the discussion. To stand for "fairness" but be selective in its application is illogical at best. In fact, inconsistently in application is a hallmark of unfairness in itself...so being a fair man as you say you are, you must not think that.
If that's what he's saying, then he's unbalanced. If either of them wins because of the double points it will be a travesty. It won't change the result, though. That's the problem with you two......you still think everyone who's not a one eyed Hamilton fan MUST hate him and be wishing for Nico to win. That's just not the case (mostly) I don't care who wins apart from watching you guys melt down if it's Nico ...but as drivers, I don't have a preference. I really hope it's not because of the double points, but I honestly suspect it won't be an issue. <<<I hope I'm right about that.
