"83 wins from 212 GPs for 39%" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1c93d9c147de365f98969d@news.comcast.giganews.com...> All teams roll six dice>
Cars line up in reverse order of total number on dice>
After 'dice roll', teams go out back and ignite one million dollars.>
PERFECT!!!>
-Bob>
If Schumacher was on pole under these circumstances you would say qualifying is great.
Fucking pervert, your upset again because you didn't kill another bear on one of your hunting trips.
83 wins from 212 GPs for 39% <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:
All teams roll six dice>
Cars line up in reverse order of total number on dice>
After 'dice roll', teams go out back and ignite one million dollars.>
PERFECT!!!>
I think this needs some work. People could actually become good at throwing dice, and hence some skill could be involved. I suggest using a lottery machine containing just the balls of the cars numbers.
83 wins from 212 GPs for 39% <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:>
All teams roll six dice>>
Cars line up in reverse order of total number on dice>>
After 'dice roll', teams go out back and ignite one million dollars.>>
PERFECT!!!>>
I think this needs some work. People could actually become good at>throwing dice, and hence some skill could be involved. I suggest using>a lottery machine containing just the balls of the cars numbers.>
If you're going to go that far why not use the balls of the drivers with the numbers painted on them.
"83 wins from 212 GPs for 39%" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1c93d9c147de365f98969d@news.comcast.giganews.com...> All teams roll six dice>
Cars line up in reverse order of total number on dice>
After 'dice roll', teams go out back and ignite one million dollars.>
In article <MPG.1c93d9c147de365f98969d@news.comcast.giganews.com>, 83 wins from 212 GPs for 39% <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:>All teams roll six dice>
Cars line up in reverse order of total number on dice>
After 'dice roll', teams go out back and ignite one million dollars.
What's the point of that. Then everyone will comment how Farrari have designed "loaded" / intelligent dice which favour them depending on how they are thrown..
F2004: 15 of 17* 6 March 2005 22:18:38 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:27:31 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com (Andre Denis) wrote:>On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:01:58 -0600, 83 wins from 212 GPs for 39%><tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:>>All teams roll six dice>>Cars line up in reverse order of total number on dice>>After 'dice roll', teams go out back and ignite one million dollars.>>PERFECT!!!>
Stop pouting Bob. It doesn't look good on you. Your hero has come from>the back of the grid before.
That's not at all the point. This scheme is anti-competitive, and some have been saying so all along.
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:18:38 GMT, "F2004: 15 of 17*" <Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:27:31 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com>(Andre Denis) wrote:>>On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:01:58 -0600, 83 wins from 212 GPs for 39%>><tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:>>>All teams roll six dice>>>Cars line up in reverse order of total number on dice>>>After 'dice roll', teams go out back and ignite one million dollars.>>>PERFECT!!!>>
Stop pouting Bob. It doesn't look good on you. Your hero has come from>>the back of the grid before. >
That's not at all the point. This scheme is anti-competitive, and>some have been saying so all along.>
I don't think the new qualifying is anti-competitive, unless the weather gets involved like it did this race. Having said that, I much prefer the old 12 lap one hour system. I hate it when they over regulate too.
F2004: 15 of 17*** 7 March 2005 18:29:37 [ permanent link ]
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 21:03:11 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com (Andre Denis) wrote:>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:18:38 GMT, "F2004: 15 of 17*"><Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote:>>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:27:31 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com>>(Andre Denis) wrote:>>>On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:01:58 -0600, 83 wins from 212 GPs for 39%>>><tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:>>>>All teams roll six dice>>>>Cars line up in reverse order of total number on dice>>>>After 'dice roll', teams go out back and ignite one million dollars.>>>>PERFECT!!!>>>
Stop pouting Bob. It doesn't look good on you. Your hero has come from>>>the back of the grid before. >>
That's not at all the point. This scheme is anti-competitive, and>>some have been saying so all along.>>
I don't think the new qualifying is anti-competitive, unless the weather>gets involved like it did this race.
There will always be a unacceptable randomizing element: Rain, wind, temperature, humidity. The system is fundamentally flawed and unfair.
Having said that, I much prefer the old 12 lap one hour system. >I hate it when they over regulate too.
It's very interesting that everyone seems to mention 12-lap qualifying with an almost amorous nostalgia...
12-lap qualifying was the first of the modern stupidities enacted in the name of "leveling" the field.
Qualifying should be one-hour, drive all you want, or don't.
...And stop fucking whinging when someone from another country beats you.
83 wins from 212 GPs for 39% wrote:> All teams roll six dice>
Cars line up in reverse order of total number on dice>
After 'dice roll', teams go out back and ignite one million dollars.>
PERFECT!!!>
**** The fastest tightest best race I ever watched was the 1973 World Championship of F1 stock-cars at Harringay Stadium -- the BriSCA protocol has always been that a reigning world champ must start from the last row on the grid -- which is a rolling grid. That year, Stu Smith #391 (454" Chev motor) cut through a field of over 20 who'd had to qualify for this single race and were hard men, entitled to hit, and Smithy fought through to second place behind a smooth Dave Chisholm #252. Great days, and thirty years on my ears still suffer. One of the Vincelli brothers who actually lived on Harringay High Street, used to drive his stock car down the road and across into the pits! Harringay's a hypermarket now, but a wise BriSCA still runs the best racing format in the world: Drivers must QUALIFY during the season to get into the single race that determines the world championship, so if you're no good you are not wasting space in the WC race, but if you're in you can win the WC regardless of your season's score! Look at the 1950's-to-1970's: www.oldstox.com
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:29:37 GMT, "F2004: 15 of 17*·**" <Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 21:03:11 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com>(Andre Denis) wrote:>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:18:38 GMT, "F2004: 15 of 17*">><Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote:>>>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:27:31 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com>>>(Andre Denis) wrote:>>>>On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:01:58 -0600, 83 wins from 212 GPs for 39%>>>><tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:>>>>>All teams roll six dice>>>>>Cars line up in reverse order of total number on dice>>>>>After 'dice roll', teams go out back and ignite one million dollars.>>>>>PERFECT!!!>>>>
Stop pouting Bob. It doesn't look good on you. Your hero has come from>>>>the back of the grid before. >>>
That's not at all the point. This scheme is anti-competitive, and>>>some have been saying so all along.>>>
I don't think the new qualifying is anti-competitive, unless the weather>>gets involved like it did this race. >
There will always be a unacceptable randomizing element: Rain, wind,>temperature, humidity. The system is fundamentally flawed and unfair.>
Having said that, I much prefer the old 12 lap one hour system. >>I hate it when they over regulate too. >
It's very interesting that everyone seems to mention 12-lap qualifying>with an almost amorous nostalgia...>
12-lap qualifying was the first of the modern stupidities enacted in>the name of "leveling" the field.>
Qualifying should be one-hour, drive all you want, or don't.>
...And stop fucking whinging when someone from another country beats>you.>
What I really should have said is that I prefer the 12 lap system over the one they are using now.
I am one of the people who long for the old days before the demasculation of F1. Don't get me wrong.. the improved safety of today's cars has it's benefits. Like not watching one of your heroes die every other race. However, I still think F1 should be all out racing, no cost limitation. They can increase qualifying to 3 hours all out as many laps as they want, for all I care. Give the fans some moneys worth. Let them use as many engines as they want. Let them use as many tires as they want. Open up the rules and stop complaining about the high cost. If Honda, Fiat, Renault, Mercedes, Ford, Toyota and BMW want us to buy there crappy road cars, let them foot the bill. If they don't want to be in the game, because it costs too much, let them leave.
F2004: 15 of 17*В·** 10 March 2005 02:32:56 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:14:29 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com (Andre Denis) wrote:>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:29:37 GMT, "F2004: 15 of 17*В·**"><Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote:>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 21:03:11 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com>>(Andre Denis) wrote:>>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:18:38 GMT, "F2004: 15 of 17*">>><Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote:>>>>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:27:31 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com>>>>(Andre Denis) wrote:>>>>>On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:01:58 -0600, 83 wins from 212 GPs for 39%>>>>><tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:>>>>>>All teams roll six dice>>>>>>Cars line up in reverse order of total number on dice>>>>>>After 'dice roll', teams go out back and ignite one million dollars.>>>>>>PERFECT!!!>>>>>
Stop pouting Bob. It doesn't look good on you. Your hero has come from>>>>>the back of the grid before. >>>>
That's not at all the point. This scheme is anti-competitive, and>>>>some have been saying so all along.>>>>
I don't think the new qualifying is anti-competitive, unless the weather>>>gets involved like it did this race. >>
There will always be a unacceptable randomizing element: Rain, wind,>>temperature, humidity. The system is fundamentally flawed and unfair.>>
Having said that, I much prefer the old 12 lap one hour system. >>>I hate it when they over regulate too. >>
It's very interesting that everyone seems to mention 12-lap qualifying>>with an almost amorous nostalgia...>>
12-lap qualifying was the first of the modern stupidities enacted in>>the name of "leveling" the field.>>
Qualifying should be one-hour, drive all you want, or don't.>>
...And stop fucking whinging when someone from another country beats>>you.>>
What I really should have said is that I prefer the 12 lap system over the>one they are using now. >
I am one of the people who long for the old days before the demasculation>of F1. Don't get me wrong.. the improved safety of today's cars has it's>benefits. Like not watching one of your heroes die every other race. >However, I still think F1 should be all out racing, no cost limitation.>They can increase qualifying to 3 hours all out as many laps as they want,>for all I care. Give the fans some moneys worth. Let them use as many>engines as they want. Let them use as many tires as they want. Open up>the rules and stop complaining about the high cost. If Honda, Fiat,>Renault, Mercedes, Ford, Toyota and BMW want us to buy there crappy road>cars, let them foot the bill. If they don't want to be in the game,>because it costs too much, let them leave.
"F2004: 15 of 17*·**" <Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote in message news:iduu21tst70nd8h5gfkbjgl84ovkm3ihtv@4ax.com...> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:14:29 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com> (Andre Denis) wrote:>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:29:37 GMT, "F2004: 15 of 17*·**">><Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote:>>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 21:03:11 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com>>>(Andre Denis) wrote:>>>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:18:38 GMT, "F2004: 15 of 17*">>>><Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote:>>>>>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:27:31 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com>>>>>(Andre Denis) wrote:>>>>>>On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:01:58 -0600, 83 wins from 212 GPs for 39%>>>>>><tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:>>>>>>>All teams roll six dice>>>>>>>Cars line up in reverse order of total number on dice>>>>>>>After 'dice roll', teams go out back and ignite one million dollars.>>>>>>>PERFECT!!!>>>>>>
Stop pouting Bob. It doesn't look good on you. Your hero has come >>>>>>from>>>>>>the back of the grid before.>>>>>
That's not at all the point. This scheme is anti-competitive, and>>>>>some have been saying so all along.>>>>>
I don't think the new qualifying is anti-competitive, unless the weather>>>>gets involved like it did this race.>>>
There will always be a unacceptable randomizing element: Rain, wind,>>>temperature, humidity. The system is fundamentally flawed and unfair.>>>
Having said that, I much prefer the old 12 lap one hour system.>>>>I hate it when they over regulate too.>>>
It's very interesting that everyone seems to mention 12-lap qualifying>>>with an almost amorous nostalgia...>>>
12-lap qualifying was the first of the modern stupidities enacted in>>>the name of "leveling" the field.>>>
Qualifying should be one-hour, drive all you want, or don't.>>>
...And stop fucking whinging when someone from another country beats>>>you.>>>
What I really should have said is that I prefer the 12 lap system over the>>one they are using now.>>
I am one of the people who long for the old days before the demasculation>>of F1. Don't get me wrong.. the improved safety of today's cars has it's>>benefits. Like not watching one of your heroes die every other race.>>However, I still think F1 should be all out racing, no cost limitation.>>They can increase qualifying to 3 hours all out as many laps as they want,>>for all I care. Give the fans some moneys worth. Let them use as many>>engines as they want. Let them use as many tires as they want. Open up>>the rules and stop complaining about the high cost. If Honda, Fiat,>>Renault, Mercedes, Ford, Toyota and BMW want us to buy there crappy road>>cars, let them foot the bill. If they don't want to be in the game,>>because it costs too much, let them leave.>
FIAT Auto are not involved in F1.>
That's one of the most incredibly dickheaded statements I've seen you make, Mark.
FIAT not involved in F1? Which company owns Ferrari? Which company bank-rolled Ferrari through the lean years? Which company's name is one of the most prominent on the nose of the 2004M?
F2004: 15 of 17*В·** 10 March 2005 08:14:39 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:32:40 -0000, "Probert" <nick.wf1commdept2@btinternet.com> wrote:>"F2004: 15 of 17*В·**" <Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote in message >news:iduu21tst70nd8h5gfkbjgl84ovkm3ihtv@4ax.com...>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:14:29 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com>> (Andre Denis) wrote:>>>I am one of the people who long for the old days before the demasculation>>>of F1. Don't get me wrong.. the improved safety of today's cars has it's>>>benefits. Like not watching one of your heroes die every other race.>>>However, I still think F1 should be all out racing, no cost limitation.>>>They can increase qualifying to 3 hours all out as many laps as they want,>>>for all I care. Give the fans some moneys worth. Let them use as many>>>engines as they want. Let them use as many tires as they want. Open up>>>the rules and stop complaining about the high cost. If Honda, Fiat,>>>Renault, Mercedes, Ford, Toyota and BMW want us to buy there crappy road>>>cars, let them foot the bill. If they don't want to be in the game,>>>because it costs too much, let them leave.>>
FIAT Auto are not involved in F1.>
That's one of the most incredibly dickheaded statements I've seen you make, >Mark.
Wait, you get better...
FIAT not involved in F1? Which company owns Ferrari? Which company >bank-rolled Ferrari through the lean years? Which company's name is one of >the most prominent on the nose of the 2004M?>
Grow up, Mark, for God's sake.
You don't know the difference between FIAT Holding and FIAT Auto and yet you presume to call another "dickhead", fuckwit?
...Buy a fucking clue, shitstain, "for God's sake".
"F2004: 15 of 17*·**" <Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote in message news:7div21p6k6v68u07g9beogmr5jjdodnb4t@4ax.com...> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:32:40 -0000, "Probert"> <nick.wf1commdept2@btinternet.com> wrote:>>"F2004: 15 of 17*·**" <Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote in message>>news:iduu21tst70nd8h5gfkbjgl84ovkm3ihtv@4ax.com...>>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:14:29 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com>>> (Andre Denis) wrote:>>>>I am one of the people who long for the old days before the >>>>demasculation>>>>of F1. Don't get me wrong.. the improved safety of today's cars has >>>>it's>>>>benefits. Like not watching one of your heroes die every other race.>>>>However, I still think F1 should be all out racing, no cost limitation.>>>>They can increase qualifying to 3 hours all out as many laps as they >>>>want,>>>>for all I care. Give the fans some moneys worth. Let them use as many>>>>engines as they want. Let them use as many tires as they want. Open up>>>>the rules and stop complaining about the high cost. If Honda, Fiat,>>>>Renault, Mercedes, Ford, Toyota and BMW want us to buy there crappy road>>>>cars, let them foot the bill. If they don't want to be in the game,>>>>because it costs too much, let them leave.>>>
FIAT Auto are not involved in F1.>>
That's one of the most incredibly dickheaded statements I've seen you >>make,>>Mark.>
Wait, you get better...>
FIAT not involved in F1? Which company owns Ferrari? Which company>>bank-rolled Ferrari through the lean years? Which company's name is one of>>the most prominent on the nose of the 2004M?>>
Grow up, Mark, for God's sake.>
You don't know the difference between FIAT Holding and FIAT Auto and> yet you presume to call another "dickhead", fuckwit?
ROFL
Ignoring the massively pointless and crackers degree of hair-splitting you've introduced - there is no such company as "FIAT Holding", nor is there one called "FIAT Auto" - not even in the US (because they don't sell FIAT cars in the US).
The holding company is called FIAT Group. Within FIAT Group there is a car manufacturing division that includes, as separate, but wholely owned companies, FIAT (bog standard volume cars), Lancia (mid-range sport and exec cars), Alfa Romeo (slightly more up-market sport and exec) and Maserati and Ferrari.
I assume that I don't have to tell you what the acronym means - which would make the (non)name "FIAT Auto" idiotic.
Still, even if you were right (and you're not), the large FIAT logo on the nose of the 2004M does make a bit of a nonsense of your previous assertion that 'FIAT are not involved in F1'. They own Ferrari, they bank-roll Ferrari, and they have on-car sponsorhip branding on the Ferrari race car.
It's a bit like saying BMW aren't involved in F1 - because, actually, it's BMW Motorsport that design and build the engines; or that Ford weren't involved in F1 until this year because Jaguar was the racing team's name, even though it was Ford that pulled the plug; just as FIAT - especially Gianni Agnelli after Enzo's death - threatened numerous times to pull the plug on Ferrari's F1 activities.
Like I said, this is one of the most dickheaded arguments I've seen you make - and that takes some doing.
...Buy a fucking clue, shitstain, "for God's sake".
F2004: 15 of 17*В·** 10 March 2005 18:34:27 [ permanent link ]
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:07:23 -0000, "Probert" <nick.wf1commdept2@btinternet.com> wrote:
"F2004: 15 of 17*В·**" <Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote in message >news:7div21p6k6v68u07g9beogmr5jjdodnb4t@4ax.com...>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:32:40 -0000, "Probert">> <nick.wf1commdept2@btinternet.com> wrote:>>>"F2004: 15 of 17*В·**" <Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote in message>>>news:iduu21tst70nd8h5gfkbjgl84ovkm3ihtv@4ax.com...>>>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:14:29 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com>>>> (Andre Denis) wrote:>>>>>I am one of the people who long for the old days before the >>>>>demasculation>>>>>of F1. Don't get me wrong.. the improved safety of today's cars has >>>>>it's>>>>>benefits. Like not watching one of your heroes die every other race.>>>>>However, I still think F1 should be all out racing, no cost limitation.>>>>>They can increase qualifying to 3 hours all out as many laps as they >>>>>want,>>>>>for all I care. Give the fans some moneys worth. Let them use as many>>>>>engines as they want. Let them use as many tires as they want. Open up>>>>>the rules and stop complaining about the high cost. If Honda, Fiat,>>>>>Renault, Mercedes, Ford, Toyota and BMW want us to buy there crappy road>>>>>cars, let them foot the bill. If they don't want to be in the game,>>>>>because it costs too much, let them leave.>>>>
FIAT Auto are not involved in F1.>>>
That's one of the most incredibly dickheaded statements I've seen you >>>make,>>>Mark.>>
Wait, you get better...>>
FIAT not involved in F1? Which company owns Ferrari? Which company>>>bank-rolled Ferrari through the lean years? Which company's name is one of>>>the most prominent on the nose of the 2004M?>>>
Grow up, Mark, for God's sake.>>
You don't know the difference between FIAT Holding and FIAT Auto and>> yet you presume to call another "dickhead", fuckwit?>
ROFL>
Ignoring the massively pointless and crackers degree of hair-splitting >you've introduced - there is no such company as "FIAT Holding", nor is there >one called "FIAT Auto" - not even in the US (because they don't sell FIAT >cars in the US).>
The holding company is called FIAT Group. Within FIAT Group there is a car >manufacturing division that includes, as separate, but wholely owned >companies, FIAT (bog standard volume cars), Lancia (mid-range sport and exec >cars), Alfa Romeo (slightly more up-market sport and exec) and Maserati and >Ferrari.>
I assume that I don't have to tell you what the acronym means - which would >make the (non)name "FIAT Auto" idiotic.>
Still, even if you were right (and you're not), the large FIAT logo on the >nose of the 2004M does make a bit of a nonsense of your previous assertion >that 'FIAT are not involved in F1'.
I didn't say that, fuckwit.
They own Ferrari, they bank-roll >Ferrari, and they have on-car sponsorhip branding on the Ferrari race car.
Indeed, the overarching holding company, NOT the FIAT auto manufacturing group.
It's a bit like saying BMW aren't involved in F1 - because, actually, it's >BMW Motorsport that design and build the engines; or that Ford weren't >involved in F1 until this year because Jaguar was the racing team's name, >even though it was Ford that pulled the plug;
...Not at all.
just as FIAT - especially >Gianni Agnelli after Enzo's death - threatened numerous times to pull the >plug on Ferrari's F1 activities.
FIAT, the auto manufacturing concern, as distinct from the family owned holding company, did nothing of the sort.
Like I said, this is one of the most dickheaded arguments I've seen you >make - and that takes some doing.
Stop drinking from Newnham's cup.
...Buy a fucking clue, shitstain, "for God's sake".>
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:21:15 GMT, "F2004: 15 of 17*В·**" <Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote:
"If Honda, Fiat, Renault, Mercedes, Ford, Toyota and BMW want us to>buy there crappy road cars, let them foot the bill. If they don't>want to be in the game, because it costs too much, let them leave."
So the substantive difference between the position of FIAT, Mercedes and BMW (and Toyota, I suspect) in relation to F1 is what, exactly?
When you're in a hole, stop digging...
Och, it's Mark. Keep us a spot for Melbourne next year when you get there, won't you?
F2004: 15 of 17*** 11 March 2005 20:05:52 [ permanent link ]
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:43:30 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com (Andre Denis) wrote:>Let me try to clear up my original intent. All of the manufacturers that I>mentioned in my statement bankroll to a great extent all of the F1 teams>currently in the game.
FIAT automotive does not.
I wasn't trying to be witty. I really don't care>about the semantics. They don't support the teams out of the goodness of>their hearts. They do it because they use F1 as a marketing tool to sell>their road cars. So, if Honda, Fiat, Renault, Mercedes, Ford, Toyota and>BMW don't want to be in the game because it costs too much, let them leave.>That goes for all of the other sponsors of the F1 cars too. >
Anyway somewhere along the way, the original qualifying format disscusion>got left by the wayside to fight over whether Ferrari is Fiat. "A rose by>any other name".
Wrong. Fiat automotive group does not, and never has, owned Ferrari.
It's a good thing I didn't call that Lemans winning Bentley a Volkswagen ;)
"F2004: 15 of 17*·**" <Ron.Dennis@LyingCheatingSwine.com> wrote in message news:lgg331d9ipnvo9eu41d8viuv10ns7nrkrd@4ax.com...> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:43:30 GMT, adenis1234@rogersNOSPAMTODAY.com> (Andre Denis) wrote:>>Let me try to clear up my original intent. All of the manufacturers that >>I>>mentioned in my statement bankroll to a great extent all of the F1 teams>>currently in the game.>
FIAT automotive does not.>
I wasn't trying to be witty. I really don't care>>about the semantics. They don't support the teams out of the goodness of>>their hearts. They do it because they use F1 as a marketing tool to sell>>their road cars. So, if Honda, Fiat, Renault, Mercedes, Ford, Toyota and>>BMW don't want to be in the game because it costs too much, let them >>leave.>>That goes for all of the other sponsors of the F1 cars too.>>
Anyway somewhere along the way, the original qualifying format disscusion>>got left by the wayside to fight over whether Ferrari is Fiat. "A rose >>by>>any other name".>
Wrong. Fiat automotive group does not, and never has, owned Ferrari.>
It's a good thing I didn't call that Lemans winning Bentley a Volkswagen >>;)>
That's the first truthful thing you've said.>
So, how hot is it near the earth's core, Mark? Hot enough to melt your shovel? Hope you didn't forget your asbestos gloves.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
