Oh well..... just another fellow classic cars guy, who seems to become yet another hater of me. Just another day... I am making friends successfully.
Oh yeah you are right about the piece of debris, but I don't think it had that much of influence. To me the situation looks more like attempt to overtake or get into better position. Because there were other ways to avoid contact, like actually braking and not turning into someone by the side. It wasn't best decision to keep on accelerating and trying to squeeze through. Also the whole manoeuvre took more than a fraction of a second.
Senna crash is totally irrelevant argument. There is nothing in common with this subject. Also Petersons accident is also different subject, I have not said anything about those, and you just using your fantasy creating an unfair imaginable argument.
Listen. I don't care what the most people do. It does not affect me. It is obvious that the crash was very dramatic, and a miracle happened that it did not become a tragedy. The point is that driver of the day should be about performance, good sportsmanship. Everybody with clear mind would rate Grosjean negatively in that aspect. Yet the sympathy for him surviving is driving votes, but that has nothing to do with sport, it is a plot thing. But that is not surprising because I wonder how much this sport is actually driven by the plot and how much by actual sport reasons. F1 has become mini reality TV project.
You are being very rude telling me that I have an empty head, and that I don't matter anymore, call me b*******.... At this point it does in fact apply to you, you are being very irrational, and I partially regret for replying to you as it is obviously going nowhere at this point. Our perceptions are clearly very different, and so are our intelligence levels.
You are probably right about this.
Braking would probably be dangerous as well,
What you have written in the second paragraph... some parts... that's it for me as well. To avoid contact into getting a better position.
Senna and Peterson arguments are not irrelevant. You told Grosjean crash was caused of his driving style. By that logic, Senna could it be for you and Peterson probably are. Peterson and Grosjean's crash are very similar, with the sad difference Peterson died.
The objective fact is that driver of the day is (which is different than a should be) used for point a driver because of something remarkable (most of the time). The biggest win that Formula One had today is having Grosjean surviving. I can agree with what you say about what
Driver of the Day should be for, but fans have their own criteria. As I pointed before, there is nothing written. The difference between
what should be and
what is it.
My rudeness has been proportional to your cynicism. Nothing more. If there is a next time but you quote me and is just a regular answer, probably I could write the samepolite way.
I can understand you blaming Grosjean, but to say that Formula 1 fans encourage him to be fast because we like to see aggressive drivers who tend to cause these types of accidents or who vote him as a driver of the day because they like to see humans simply leaping out of the fire, out of destroyed car and then comment above that the Spa accident (which was objectively Grosjean's fault) is probably the reason why the halo has been implanted (to put more weeds) is not only ugly, even psychopathic.
Imagine telling something like your second comment to a relative from Grosjean. You wouldn't care at all, I know, but imagine it. What would they think of you? Well, probably something similar that I think of you: what atrocity are you saying? But who do you think you are? If you were punched, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Or maybe in the future Grosjean talks about the crash and tells that it was his fault. In that case, great for you, and I am will be honestly sorry for my rudeness. At the moment, I see it as a racing incident where I cannot pinpoint culprits.
Oh well..... just another fellow classic cars guy, who seems to become yet another hater of me. Just another day... I am making friends successfully.
I think there is a difference between telling that your comment is disgusting and answer in consequence, and seeing me as someone who hates you. Too short-sighted, like people who see Austin Ogonoski as a mere troll in this community. My bad impression of your comment and what I saw about you doesn't define you. Or yes? It shouldn't and I don't think so. On the other hand, you don't know me at all; that makes you irrelevant to me, just as I am irrelevant to you. This specific part of your comment is probably showing a projection of yourself. That need of telling in the first place that you are used to making haters (by arguing) and that you make friends successfully...
(?!)
Take care, I guess.