On 9 Sep, 19:45, John Chapman  wrote:
> grape wrote:
> > Catweazel wrote:
> >> On Sep 9, 2:50 pm, ulapamilaal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> óÍÏÔÒÉ, ËÁË ÏÎÁ ÓÏÓÅÔ ÞÌÅÎ, ÏÎÁ ÌÕÞÛÁÑ! š
> >>>http://ragdai.info/golaya-pravda.htm
> >>> üÔÏ ×ÉÄÅÏ ÓÕÐÅÒ!
>
> >> ya neh gavoritye po russki.
> >> Angliski, da.
> >> Russki, niet.
>
> >> PO Box 88, Mockba.
>
> > Que?
>
> Sorry,he's from Barcelona.

Well he's no use then!
What I want to know is who's Kevin, and what is it he is doing to
Britney in this "super video"?

BobC

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:55:16 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>There's nothing "unfamiliar" about the word "sport".  I don't accept
>motor racing as sport and you cannot convince me that motor racing
>qualifies as sport.  

What's your definition of a sport?

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:51:10 +0100, Ed Chilada 
wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:55:16 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>There's nothing "unfamiliar" about the word "sport".  I don't accept
>>motor racing as sport and you cannot convince me that motor racing
>>qualifies as sport.  
>
>What's your definition of a sport?

The conventional one.

Following up to Graz  

>>What's your definition of a sport?
> 
> The conventional one.

the conventional one is in the dictionary
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:25:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:51:10 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:55:16 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>There's nothing "unfamiliar" about the word "sport".  I don't accept
>>>motor racing as sport and you cannot convince me that motor racing
>>>qualifies as sport.  
>>
>>What's your definition of a sport?
>
>The conventional one.  

What's your definition of a sport? Please actually explain it.

Following up to Ed Chilada  

> What's your definition of a sport?

as an aside, if I was in the position "Graz" *thinks* he is in, ie, can
decide what words mean, I would introduce some subdivisions

artsport - things where style is judged (syncronised swimming)
mindsport - non physical competitions (chess)
gamesport - uses physical skill but little physical strength (darts,
snooker)
knobsport - competitive public road driving

of course motorsport already has a label so why doesnt Graz say he likes
sport but not motorsport and save some bandwidth?

Do you reckon he carries a baseball bat in his car? (if not trolling).
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:29:31 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>What's your definition of a sport?
>> 
>> The conventional one.
>
>the conventional one is in the dictionary

No, that's the dictionary one.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:09:42 +0100, Ed Chilada 
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:25:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:51:10 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:55:16 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>There's nothing "unfamiliar" about the word "sport".  I don't accept
>>>>motor racing as sport and you cannot convince me that motor racing
>>>>qualifies as sport.  
>>>
>>>What's your definition of a sport?
>>
>>The conventional one.  
>
>What's your definition of a sport? Please actually explain it.

It would take more time than I can justify.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:50:35 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Ed Chilada  
>
>> What's your definition of a sport?
>
>as an aside, if I was in the position "Graz" *thinks* he is in, ie, can
>decide what words mean, I would introduce some subdivisions
>
>artsport - things where style is judged (syncronised swimming)
>mindsport - non physical competitions (chess)
>gamesport - uses physical skill but little physical strength (darts,
>snooker)
>knobsport - competitive public road driving

Motor racing seems to belong under "mindsport", then.

>of course motorsport already has a label so why doesnt Graz say he likes
>sport but not motorsport and save some bandwidth?
>
>Do you reckon he carries a baseball bat in his car? (if not trolling).

What do I need a baseball bat for?  I use a three foot breaker bar for
changing wheels.  Will that do?

Following up to Graz  

>>> The conventional one.
>>
>>the conventional one is in the dictionary
> 
> No, that's the dictionary one.

ROFL
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>Do you reckon he carries a baseball bat in his car? (if not trolling).
> 
> What do I need a baseball bat for?  I use a three foot breaker bar for
> changing wheels.  Will that do?

should be enough to get you three years some time, or maybe dead if the
other guy is a better thug.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>What's your definition of a sport? Please actually explain it.
> 
> It would take more time than I can justify.

thats funny, yesterday the subject needed only minimal thought, now its
going to take ages.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>artsport - things where style is judged (syncronised swimming)
>>mindsport - non physical competitions (chess)
>>gamesport - uses physical skill but little physical strength (darts,
>>snooker)
>>knobsport - competitive public road driving
> 
> Motor racing seems to belong under "mindsport", then.
> 
Er, it already has a name, "motorsport". 


-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:12:50 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:09:42 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:25:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:51:10 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:55:16 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>There's nothing "unfamiliar" about the word "sport".  I don't accept
>>>>>motor racing as sport and you cannot convince me that motor racing
>>>>>qualifies as sport.  
>>>>
>>>>What's your definition of a sport?
>>>
>>>The conventional one.  
>>
>>What's your definition of a sport? Please actually explain it.
>
>It would take more time than I can justify.

You seem to be backing down. Show some balls and offer your definition
of a sport and we'll see just why F1 doesn't fit into it and take a
look at what else doesn't fit into it.

Following up to Ed Chilada  

>>It would take more time than I can justify.
> 
> You seem to be backing down. Show some balls and offer your definition
> of a sport and we'll see just why F1 doesn't fit into it and take a
> look at what else doesn't fit into it.

it of course needs to be a definition that would exclude F1, i see this
coming back to "its just sitting down steering".
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:36:03 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>Do you reckon he carries a baseball bat in his car? (if not trolling).
>> 
>> What do I need a baseball bat for?  I use a three foot breaker bar for
>> changing wheels.  Will that do?
>
>should be enough to get you three years some time, or maybe dead if the
>other guy is a better thug.

Is it one year per foot these days?

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:47:24 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>artsport - things where style is judged (syncronised swimming)
>>>mindsport - non physical competitions (chess)
>>>gamesport - uses physical skill but little physical strength (darts,
>>>snooker)
>>>knobsport - competitive public road driving
>> 
>> Motor racing seems to belong under "mindsport", then.
>> 
>Er, it already has a name, "motorsport". 

Er, why do you need another category for "non physical competitions"?

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:37:00 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>What's your definition of a sport? Please actually explain it.
>> 
>> It would take more time than I can justify.
>
>thats funny, yesterday the subject needed only minimal thought, now its
>going to take ages.

It's not going to take ages.  I can't justify any more time on it.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:11:27 +0100, Ed Chilada 
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:12:50 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:09:42 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:25:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:51:10 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:55:16 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>There's nothing "unfamiliar" about the word "sport".  I don't accept
>>>>>>motor racing as sport and you cannot convince me that motor racing
>>>>>>qualifies as sport.  
>>>>>
>>>>>What's your definition of a sport?
>>>>
>>>>The conventional one.  
>>>
>>>What's your definition of a sport? Please actually explain it.
>>
>>It would take more time than I can justify.
>
>You seem to be backing down. Show some balls and offer your definition
>of a sport and we'll see just why F1 doesn't fit into it and take a
>look at what else doesn't fit into it.

I'm really not that interested.  Basically, F1 lacks the physical
component required.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:45:34 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:11:27 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:12:50 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:09:42 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:25:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:51:10 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:55:16 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There's nothing "unfamiliar" about the word "sport".  I don't accept
>>>>>>>motor racing as sport and you cannot convince me that motor racing
>>>>>>>qualifies as sport.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's your definition of a sport?
>>>>>
>>>>>The conventional one.  
>>>>
>>>>What's your definition of a sport? Please actually explain it.
>>>
>>>It would take more time than I can justify.
>>
>>You seem to be backing down. Show some balls and offer your definition
>>of a sport and we'll see just why F1 doesn't fit into it and take a
>>look at what else doesn't fit into it.
>
>I'm really not that interested.

You seem to be being rather timid. Why back down like this?


> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.

Which is what?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:03:07 +0100, Ed Chilada 
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:45:34 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:11:27 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:12:50 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:09:42 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:25:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:51:10 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:55:16 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There's nothing "unfamiliar" about the word "sport".  I don't accept
>>>>>>>>motor racing as sport and you cannot convince me that motor racing
>>>>>>>>qualifies as sport.  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What's your definition of a sport?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The conventional one.  
>>>>>
>>>>>What's your definition of a sport? Please actually explain it.
>>>>
>>>>It would take more time than I can justify.
>>>
>>>You seem to be backing down. Show some balls and offer your definition
>>>of a sport and we'll see just why F1 doesn't fit into it and take a
>>>look at what else doesn't fit into it.
>>
>>I'm really not that interested.
>
>You seem to be being rather timid. Why back down like this?

I seem to be being rather disinterested.

>> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.
>
>Which is what? 

You can't understand "physical component"?

Following up to Graz  

>>> What do I need a baseball bat for?  I use a three foot breaker bar for
>>> changing wheels.  Will that do?
>>
>>should be enough to get you three years some time, or maybe dead if the
>>other guy is a better thug.
> 
> Is it one year per foot these days?

no idea, i dont do thuggery, it was a guess. How long would you regard as
OK to serve to avoid "backing down" on the roads?
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>> Motor racing seems to belong under "mindsport", then.
>>> 
>>Er, it already has a name, "motorsport". 
> 
> Er, why do you need another category for "non physical competitions"?

you dont, it isnt a category of non physical.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>thats funny, yesterday the subject needed only minimal thought, now its
>>going to take ages.
> 
> It's not going to take ages.  I can't justify any more time on it.

your spending plenty of time posting inane rebuttals, use that.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Ed Chilada  

>> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.
> 
> Which is what?

strength and fitness?
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>You seem to be being rather timid. Why back down like this?
> 
> I seem to be being rather disinterested.

disinterested means inmpartial
 
>>> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.
>>
>>Which is what? 
> 
> You can't understand "physical component"?

"physical" component could be a knobheads knob.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:39:34 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>> What do I need a baseball bat for?  I use a three foot breaker bar for
>>>> changing wheels.  Will that do?
>>>
>>>should be enough to get you three years some time, or maybe dead if the
>>>other guy is a better thug.
>> 
>> Is it one year per foot these days?
>
>no idea, i dont do thuggery, it was a guess. How long would you regard as
>OK to serve to avoid "backing down" on the roads?

A life sentence of timidity, I would say.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:40:41 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>> Motor racing seems to belong under "mindsport", then.
>>>> 
>>>Er, it already has a name, "motorsport". 
>> 
>> Er, why do you need another category for "non physical competitions"?
>
>you dont, it isnt a category of non physical.

It's just sitting and steering.  Can't get any less physical than
that.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:41:38 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>thats funny, yesterday the subject needed only minimal thought, now its
>>>going to take ages.
>> 
>> It's not going to take ages.  I can't justify any more time on it.
>
>your spending plenty of time posting inane rebuttals, use that.

Why?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:59:43 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>You seem to be being rather timid. Why back down like this?
>> 
>> I seem to be being rather disinterested.
>
>disinterested means inmpartial

What does "inmpartial" (sic) mean?

>>>> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.
>>>
>>>Which is what? 
>> 
>> You can't understand "physical component"?
>
>"physical" component could be a knobheads knob.

Is that what you call "wit"?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:57:42 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Ed Chilada  
>
>>> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.
>> 
>> Which is what?
>
>strength and fitness?

Unnecessary for sitting and steering.

Following up to Graz  

>>no idea, i dont do thuggery, it was a guess. How long would you regard as
>>OK to serve to avoid "backing down" on the roads?
> 
> A life sentence of timidity, I would say.

thats no answer, Noy is doing 14 for it, how long is worth it for you?
Do you think he wishes he had just put up with being cut-up and drove on?
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>you dont, it isnt a category of non physical.
> 
> It's just sitting and steering.  Can't get any less physical than
> that.

Well, you are nothing if not predictable.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>your spending plenty of time posting inane rebuttals, use that.
> 
> Why?

to demonstrate your ideas hold water and to not back down.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>disinterested means inmpartial
> 
> What does "inmpartial" (sic) mean?
 
are you reduced to criticizing typos?

>>>>> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.
>>>>
>>>>Which is what? 
>>> 
>>> You can't understand "physical component"?
>>
>>"physical" component could be a knobheads knob.
> 
> Is that what you call "wit"?

no.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>> Which is what?
>>
>>strength and fitness?
> 
> Unnecessary for sitting and steering.

true but irrelevant.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:53:21 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>no idea, i dont do thuggery, it was a guess. How long would you regard as
>>>OK to serve to avoid "backing down" on the roads?
>> 
>> A life sentence of timidity, I would say.
>
>thats no answer, Noy is doing 14 for it, how long is worth it for you?

I would make sure it was done in self-defence, therefore zero years
for me.

>Do you think he wishes he had just put up with being cut-up and drove on?

With his lifestyle, he would have ended up banged up sooner or later.
People like that don't think.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:53:48 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>you dont, it isnt a category of non physical.
>> 
>> It's just sitting and steering.  Can't get any less physical than
>> that.
>
>Well, you are nothing if not predictable.

That's a good thing, isn't it?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:54:28 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>your spending plenty of time posting inane rebuttals, use that.
>> 
>> Why?
>
>to demonstrate your ideas hold water and to not back down.

I've clarified how motor racing is just sitting and steering.  What
else do you want?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:58:11 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:03:07 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:45:34 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:11:27 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:12:50 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:09:42 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:25:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:51:10 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:55:16 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There's nothing "unfamiliar" about the word "sport".  I don't accept
>>>>>>>>>motor racing as sport and you cannot convince me that motor racing
>>>>>>>>>qualifies as sport.  
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What's your definition of a sport?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The conventional one.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's your definition of a sport? Please actually explain it.
>>>>>
>>>>>It would take more time than I can justify.
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be backing down. Show some balls and offer your definition
>>>>of a sport and we'll see just why F1 doesn't fit into it and take a
>>>>look at what else doesn't fit into it.
>>>
>>>I'm really not that interested.
>>
>>You seem to be being rather timid. Why back down like this?
>
>I seem to be being rather disinterested.

No, no. You're backing down timidly. Yet you're telling us that you
want to be more "assertive". Well let's have it then, assert your
definition of a sport on me.


>>> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.
>>
>>Which is what? 
>
>You can't understand "physical component"?

Sure, but that would seem to include F1 too, so that's surely not what
you meant to say. Perhaps you can be more specific?

Following up to Graz  

>>thats no answer, Noy is doing 14 for it, how long is worth it for you?
> 
> I would make sure it was done in self-defence, therefore zero years
> for me.

thats banking on waiting to be attacked by a professional then winning,
does that sound good odds? He would also have a better lawyer (if it wasnt
fatal!)
 
>>Do you think he wishes he had just put up with being cut-up and drove on?
> 
> With his lifestyle, he would have ended up banged up sooner or later.
> People like that don't think.

Right, so you think people who carry a weapon in the car and react to
traffic incidents with aggression "dont think"? Are you sure thats a good
line of argument for you?
I bet he wishes he had "backed down".
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>Well, you are nothing if not predictable.
> 
> That's a good thing, isn't it?

it can be.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>to demonstrate your ideas hold water and to not back down.
> 
> I've clarified how motor racing is just sitting and steering.  What
> else do you want?

you haven't "demonstrated" it, you have merely asserted it against all
evidence.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:29:53 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:57:42 +0100, "M............"
> wrote:
>
>>Following up to Ed Chilada  
>>
>>>> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.
>>> 
>>> Which is what?
>>
>>strength and fitness?
>
>Unnecessary for sitting and steering.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/moslive/article-1024235/Drivers-Anatomy-The-200-mph-workout.html

"After the neck, the forearms are probably the parts of the body most
tested by a full-length F1 race. An F1 car’s steering wheel only turns
through three-quarters of a revolution, compared to three for a
typical road car, but with the huge mechanical and gravitational
forces acting against the driver, great strength is required to turn
it with the necessary millimetre-perfect accuracy. Schumacher’s bionic
training cockpit also had variable weights attached to the steering
wheel to precisely target the muscles used"

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:21:11 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>thats no answer, Noy is doing 14 for it, how long is worth it for you?
>> 
>> I would make sure it was done in self-defence, therefore zero years
>> for me.
>
>thats banking on waiting to be attacked by a professional then winning,
>does that sound good odds?

It doesn't follow.

> He would also have a better lawyer (if it wasnt
>fatal!)

Why would he have a better lawyer?
 
>>>Do you think he wishes he had just put up with being cut-up and drove on?
>> 
>> With his lifestyle, he would have ended up banged up sooner or later.
>> People like that don't think.
>
>Right, so you think people who carry a weapon in the car and react to
>traffic incidents with aggression "dont think"? 

People like Noye, I said.

>Are you sure thats a good
>line of argument for you?
>I bet he wishes he had "backed down".

He's probably quite happy inside.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:22:31 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>to demonstrate your ideas hold water and to not back down.
>> 
>> I've clarified how motor racing is just sitting and steering.  What
>> else do you want?
>
>you haven't "demonstrated" it, you have merely asserted it against all
>evidence.

All the "evidence" to the contrary comes from F1 sites and
speed-obsessed knobheads.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:56:44 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>disinterested means inmpartial
>> 
>> What does "inmpartial" (sic) mean?
> 
>are you reduced to criticizing typos?

Are you reduced to semantics?

>>>>>> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is what? 
>>>> 
>>>> You can't understand "physical component"?
>>>
>>>"physical" component could be a knobheads knob.
>> 
>> Is that what you call "wit"?
>
>no.

I'm glad to hear it.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:06:45 +0100, Ed Chilada 
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:58:11 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:03:07 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:45:34 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:11:27 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:12:50 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:09:42 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:25:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:51:10 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:55:16 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>There's nothing "unfamiliar" about the word "sport".  I don't accept
>>>>>>>>>>motor racing as sport and you cannot convince me that motor racing
>>>>>>>>>>qualifies as sport.  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What's your definition of a sport?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The conventional one.  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What's your definition of a sport? Please actually explain it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It would take more time than I can justify.
>>>>>
>>>>>You seem to be backing down. Show some balls and offer your definition
>>>>>of a sport and we'll see just why F1 doesn't fit into it and take a
>>>>>look at what else doesn't fit into it.
>>>>
>>>>I'm really not that interested.
>>>
>>>You seem to be being rather timid. Why back down like this?
>>
>>I seem to be being rather disinterested.
>
>No, no. You're backing down timidly. Yet you're telling us that you
>want to be more "assertive". Well let's have it then, assert your
>definition of a sport on me.

I've spent enough time on this nonsense already.

>>>> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.
>>>
>>>Which is what? 
>>
>>You can't understand "physical component"?
>
>Sure, but that would seem to include F1 too, so that's surely not what
>you meant to say. Perhaps you can be more specific?

Why would I want to be?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:57:19 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>> Which is what?
>>>
>>>strength and fitness?
>> 
>> Unnecessary for sitting and steering.
>
>true but irrelevant.

Couldn't be more relevant.

Following up to Graz  

>>thats banking on waiting to be attacked by a professional then winning,
>>does that sound good odds?
 
> It doesn't follow.

really?
 
>> He would also have a better lawyer (if it wasnt
>>fatal!)
> 
> Why would he have a better lawyer?

hes a professional bank robber who got off murdering a policeman......
  
>>>>Do you think he wishes he had just put up with being cut-up and drove on?
>>> 
>>> With his lifestyle, he would have ended up banged up sooner or later.
>>> People like that don't think.
>>
>>Right, so you think people who carry a weapon in the car and react to
>>traffic incidents with aggression "dont think"? 
> 
> People like Noye, I said.

people who get aggressive over traffic?
 
>>Are you sure thats a good
>>line of argument for you?
>>I bet he wishes he had "backed down".
> 
> He's probably quite happy inside.

I hope not
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>you haven't "demonstrated" it, you have merely asserted it against all
>>evidence.
> 
> All the "evidence" to the contrary comes from F1 sites and
> speed-obsessed knobheads.

where is your evidence?
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>No, no. You're backing down timidly. Yet you're telling us that you
>>want to be more "assertive". Well let's have it then, assert your
>>definition of a sport on me.
> 
> I've spent enough time on this nonsense already.

then dont let it be wasted.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:55:41 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:06:45 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:58:11 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:03:07 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:45:34 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:11:27 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:12:50 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:09:42 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:25:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:51:10 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:55:16 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>There's nothing "unfamiliar" about the word "sport".  I don't accept
>>>>>>>>>>>motor racing as sport and you cannot convince me that motor racing
>>>>>>>>>>>qualifies as sport.  
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What's your definition of a sport?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The conventional one.  
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What's your definition of a sport? Please actually explain it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It would take more time than I can justify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You seem to be backing down. Show some balls and offer your definition
>>>>>>of a sport and we'll see just why F1 doesn't fit into it and take a
>>>>>>look at what else doesn't fit into it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm really not that interested.
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be being rather timid. Why back down like this?
>>>
>>>I seem to be being rather disinterested.
>>
>>No, no. You're backing down timidly. Yet you're telling us that you
>>want to be more "assertive". Well let's have it then, assert your
>>definition of a sport on me.
>
>I've spent enough time on this nonsense already.

Yet you keep replying. Either give it up or grow a pair and present
your definition of a sport. Otherwise everyone's going to know you
were talking out of your arse and laugh at you. And I know your
sensitive ego is going to have trouble "asserting" yourself against
that.


>>>>> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.
>>>>
>>>>Which is what? 
>>>
>>>You can't understand "physical component"?
>>
>>Sure, but that would seem to include F1 too, so that's surely not what
>>you meant to say. Perhaps you can be more specific?
>
>Why would I want to be?

Perhaps so that you wouldn't come across as timid.

Following up to Graz  

> More Daily Mail hype.  LOL!

wheres *your* evidence?
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:09:49 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>thats banking on waiting to be attacked by a professional then winning,
>>>does that sound good odds?
> 
>> It doesn't follow.
>
>really?

yes.
 
>>> He would also have a better lawyer (if it wasnt
>>>fatal!)
>> 
>> Why would he have a better lawyer?
>
>hes a professional bank robber who got off murdering a policeman......

I can afford just as good a lawyer.

>>>>>Do you think he wishes he had just put up with being cut-up and drove on?
>>>> 
>>>> With his lifestyle, he would have ended up banged up sooner or later.
>>>> People like that don't think.
>>>
>>>Right, so you think people who carry a weapon in the car and react to
>>>traffic incidents with aggression "dont think"? 
>> 
>> People like Noye, I said.
>
>people who get aggressive over traffic?

No, thugs.
 
>>>Are you sure thats a good
>>>line of argument for you?
>>>I bet he wishes he had "backed down".
>> 
>> He's probably quite happy inside.
>
>I hope not

He's among friends.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:10:13 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>you haven't "demonstrated" it, you have merely asserted it against all
>>>evidence.
>> 
>> All the "evidence" to the contrary comes from F1 sites and
>> speed-obsessed knobheads.
>
>where is your evidence?

Driving is sitting and steering.  That'll do for me.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:10:51 +0100, Ed Chilada 
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:55:41 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:06:45 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:58:11 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:03:07 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:45:34 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:11:27 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:12:50 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:09:42 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:25:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:51:10 +0100, Ed Chilada 
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:55:16 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>There's nothing "unfamiliar" about the word "sport".  I don't accept
>>>>>>>>>>>>motor racing as sport and you cannot convince me that motor racing
>>>>>>>>>>>>qualifies as sport.  
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What's your definition of a sport?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The conventional one.  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What's your definition of a sport? Please actually explain it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It would take more time than I can justify.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You seem to be backing down. Show some balls and offer your definition
>>>>>>>of a sport and we'll see just why F1 doesn't fit into it and take a
>>>>>>>look at what else doesn't fit into it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm really not that interested.
>>>>>
>>>>>You seem to be being rather timid. Why back down like this?
>>>>
>>>>I seem to be being rather disinterested.
>>>
>>>No, no. You're backing down timidly. Yet you're telling us that you
>>>want to be more "assertive". Well let's have it then, assert your
>>>definition of a sport on me.
>>
>>I've spent enough time on this nonsense already.
>
>Yet you keep replying. Either give it up or grow a pair and present
>your definition of a sport. Otherwise everyone's going to know you
>were talking out of your arse and laugh at you. And I know your
>sensitive ego is going to have trouble "asserting" yourself against
>that.

I know what sport is.  I don't need to convince you or any other
speed-obsessed knobhead.  

>
>>>>>> Basically, F1 lacks the physical component required.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is what? 
>>>>
>>>>You can't understand "physical component"?
>>>
>>>Sure, but that would seem to include F1 too, so that's surely not what
>>>you meant to say. Perhaps you can be more specific?
>>
>>Why would I want to be?
>
>Perhaps so that you wouldn't come across as timid.

On a newsgroup?  LOL

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:11:00 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>No, no. You're backing down timidly. Yet you're telling us that you
>>>want to be more "assertive". Well let's have it then, assert your
>>>definition of a sport on me.
>> 
>> I've spent enough time on this nonsense already.
>
>then dont let it be wasted.

It may have already been wasted.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:11:49 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>> More Daily Mail hype.  LOL!
>
>wheres *your* evidence?

Of what exactly?  That motor racing is nothing but sitting and
steering?  That should be obvious to even the casual observer.

Following up to Graz  

> es a professional bank robber who got off murdering a policeman......
> 
> I can afford just as good a lawyer.

lucky you, I will continue to prefer not needing one.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>where is your evidence?
> 
> Driving is sitting and steering.  That'll do for me.

clearly your own unsupported assertions "do for you"
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Graz  

>>wheres *your* evidence?
> 
> Of what exactly?  That motor racing is nothing but sitting and
> steering?  That should be obvious to even the casual observer.

its possible a very casual  observer might think so, the rest of the world
thinks otherwise.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:57:25 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>> es a professional bank robber who got off murdering a policeman......
>> 
>> I can afford just as good a lawyer.
>
>lucky you, I will continue to prefer not needing one.

Timid people rarely do...unless they're unlucky.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:58:08 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>where is your evidence?
>> 
>> Driving is sitting and steering.  That'll do for me.
>
>clearly your own unsupported assertions "do for you"

What else is there to it?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:59:36 +0100, "M............"
 wrote:

>Following up to Graz  
>
>>>wheres *your* evidence?
>> 
>> Of what exactly?  That motor racing is nothing but sitting and
>> steering?  That should be obvious to even the casual observer.
>
>its possible a very casual  observer might think so, the rest of the world
>thinks otherwise.

The rest of the world?  What, all of it?