139 replies to this topic

[FTodaro]

For what it's worth Denny...I dont know you but I like you  You make good points with few words and your subtle sarcasm and one liners are some of the best. But i liked you better as Rocky and Bullwinkle!

Can we have a list of Denny's AKA's Jim can you help us.

 

Denny quit being so sensitive. Just because we disagree on the forum does not mean we don't like some one. IF that were true Bench would have no friends at all, right Bench?

[MPR22]

Michael, do you really believe I hadn't looked at the entire tire contingency scope. By the way if I wanted to be pi$$y, you didn't include Runoffs tire contingency or the contingency tires the previous year Champion receives the following year. Was only keeping my post inline with scope of speedengineer's post.

You consistently post random facts with little to no argument behind the facts, hoping people will jump to conclusions based on the limited information presented.  I was trying to let those less informed of your tactics that you had excluded what would be salient facts to most reading this thread.  If you want your $5 per tire relief let me know, I will send you the rebate for every tire you buy this year.  I may be out $40 bucks but you might appreciate it more than I do. 

[Johnny D]

Sorry guys, I'm always ready for a vigorous debate. Someone makes a point, I counter-point. Someone else comes at it from a different angle I'll try to parry that. The next one adds what I think is a misleading twist or an analogy that doesn't fit, I've got to call them on it. On a site like this multiple people offer different versions of opposing views, I'm just responding to each, looking for a better way to express my opinion and hoping to draw more people into the discussion. But then it goes subtly personal with things like "you'll still deny it" as if the ultimate irrefutable truth has been presented and I rejected it repeatedly. :shrug: That kind of slight is an old but effective way to shut someone down. OK, I give. There are several recent posts just begging to be challenged, but the lines are clear enough that I'd just be preaching to the choir on one side and a granite wall on the other. But I do marvel at the perspectives of some amateur racers.

I'm not sure why some of you guys hang out here, but if healthy debate about important subjects isn't welcome then this site has a lot less value than it should. Maybe I should spend my 2 man hours searching for humorous YouTube videos to post and break up the monotony of serious discussion. (No offense Johnny!)

Meanwhile it will at least be interesting to sit back and see what happens with SRF. It appears that Skirmants made it happen and his reasoning was as simple as it is obvious. Apparently Hoosier has managed to figure out how to move money between pots as well, despite the skeptics. Oh, and it sounds like they have developed a new compromise rain tire for the class, which may be why they are readily open to coming up with one for SM. So maybe we'll get something positive out of this in an around about way.

Steve I welcome the debate (not with me in general) but I don't seem to hear you saying I see your point of view. There's 2 sides to every story.
The whole "I got crashed in practice and it's 100% not my fault". I don't really see how you debate that. You never moved off the 100%, correct?

If the result is always going to be "we agree to disagree" well why start. (IMO)
But we're not trying to shut you down.

As for what I do, yea I'm crazy. I'll debate both sides, stir the pot to say it mildly. But it does bring out ideas, points of view, different avenues to go down.

I missed the P3~8 one tire in Majors as well.

 

J~

 

[Bench Racer]

Denny quit being so sensitive. Just because we disagree on the forum does not mean we don't like some one. IF that were true Bench would have no friends at all, right Bench?

Right!!!

 

^ Understand Michael, narrow scope.

[Danny Steyn]

Can we have a list of Denny's AKA's Jim can you help us.

 

Denny quit being so sensitive. Just because we disagree on the forum does not mean we don't like some one. IF that were true Bench would have no friends at all, right Bench?

 

Bench has friends??????

[Tom Scheifler]

Steve I welcome the debate (not with me in general) but I don't seem to hear you saying I see your point of view. There's 2 sides to every story.
The whole "I got crashed in practice and it's 100% not my fault". I don't really see how you debate that. You never moved off the 100%, correct?

If the result is always going to be "we agree to disagree" well why start. (IMO)
But we're not trying to shut you down.

 

J~

 

 

"I see your point of view".  For me, that's always my unstated position unless I say otherwise.  I guess that's not the way everyone operates but if we all started our posts with "I see your point, but ..." it would be a lot of unnecessary typing and reading.

 

Now if you actually mean that he never changes his opinion, that's a different issue.  Having known Steve a few years, I can say he has and will change his opinion but not often.  He's usually pretty well informed on a subject and has given it more than a little consideration before voicing his opinion so it takes something new and significant to move him.  To some this makes him appear stubborn or even unmovable.  But he is genuinely interested in counter-points to his opinions.

[Johnny D]

"I see your point of view".  For me, that's always my unstated position unless I say otherwise.  I guess that's not the way everyone operates but if we all started our posts with "I see your point, but ..." it would be a lot of unnecessary typing and reading.
 
Now if you actually mean that he never changes his opinion, that's a different issue.  Having known Steve a few years, I can say he has and will change his opinion but not often.  He's usually pretty well informed on a subject and has given it more than a little consideration before voicing his opinion so it takes something new and significant to move him.  To some this makes him appear stubborn or even unmovable.  But he is genuinely interested in counter-points to his opinions.

J~

[Bench Racer]

Why divide by the number of drivers who did one race?  Did they buy a set of tires?  I see no scenario where Hoosier hands out money to those that don't buy a set of tires.  

 

If you are trying to show the benefit to the division by turning the contingency $$ into savings it should be on a per tire purchased basis.  144 x $184ish = 26,500 ish.

 

That is just for the Majors in one division, it does not include the regional/national races which would be 6 tires per weekend.  

 

The entire thing should be divided by tire purchased, my guess only Hooiser has any idea what that number is on a national level, doubt they can break it down to a division level as we all buy tires from different places.  

Your point 1. play with me for a moment please. If I raced on Hoosier S7 tires and were talented enough to finish to receive a tire contingency, do you believe Hoosier will ask for a receipt for the S7 tires I raced on?

 

Your point 2 is the same as my comment in my post #114 except I didn't show cost per tire.

 

Your point 3 was referenced in another of my posts.

 

Your point 4 if were looking at, do we do continue to dole out contingency tires or do we reduced cost of tires to all (SRF)  I'd take the $184ish x total number of contingency tires doled out and divide by the total number of different log booked cars that raced year 2015. Of course negotiated with Hoosier. Hence taking the previously mentioned Northern Conference numbers of $26,500ish divided by 96 different log booked cars equals potentially a reduction in tire cost $276 per log booked car. Yes, this scope is 2015 Majors races Northern Conference only.

 

As far as other comments, I don't require your $5.00 or contingency or reduced tire coats. This is contingency/reduced tire coast is conversation, nothing more, nothing less.  

[Bench Racer]

Bench has friends??????

Friend or foe, 7 pages on the thread topic. I found it interesting reading an article on what mild mannered Matt Kenseth had to say about friends within NASCAR after the skirmish with the Penske drivers. 

 

Happy Holidays to all  

[Cnj]

Steve I see no need to apologize for anything

On the contrary I thoroughly enjoyed his apology. Feel free to do it weekly Steve.

CNJ

[Steve Scheifler]

Steve I welcome the debate (not with me in general) but I don't seem to hear you saying I see your point of view. There's 2 sides to every story.
The whole "I got crashed in practice and it's 100% not my fault". I don't really see how you debate that. You never moved off the 100%, correct?
If the result is always going to be "we agree to disagree" well why start. (IMO)
But we're not trying to shut you down.

As for what I do, yea I'm crazy. I'll debate both sides, stir the pot to say it mildly. But it does bring out ideas, points of view, different avenues to go down.

I missed the P3~8 one tire in Majors as well.

J~

At the risk of doubling down on a losing hand, back on the first page I did lead a post with "speedengineer, I respect your opinion but..." Other than a polite response by speedengineer conceding that I had a valid point (also followed by a "but..."), I do not recall anyone saying they see MY point of view. Double standard? Indeed, was it not you who immediately jumped on my early posts implying that I'm not happy with anything?? A false polite preface would not have changed the real meaning to anyone paying attention. As for shutting someone down, it's more about diminishing credibility or "value" of their opinion. Comments such as yours implying I am just a malcontent, or others that I am a unreasonably argumentative or habitually deny irrefutable facts, cumulatively do exactly that. It may not be intentional in your case, but it is an age old tactic to effectively silence people with opposing opinions and any attempt to counter it just makes it worse.

[Steve Scheifler]

I don't see anything on specracer.com forum about the loss of contingencies. Odd. Is there another forum that they use?

[Johnny D]

At the risk of doubling down on a losing hand, back on the first page I did lead a post with "speedengineer, I respect your opinion but..." Other than a polite response by speedengineer conceding that I had a valid point (also followed by a "but..."), I do not recall anyone saying they see MY point of view. Double standard? Indeed, was it not you who immediately jumped on my early posts implying that I'm not happy with anything?? A false polite preface would not have changed the real meaning to anyone paying attention. As for shutting someone down, it's more about diminishing credibility or "value" of their opinion. Comments such as yours implying I am just a malcontent, or others that I am a unreasonably argumentative or habitually deny irrefutable facts, cumulatively do exactly that. It may not be intentional in your case, but it is an age old tactic to effectively silence people with opposing opinions and any attempt to counter it just makes it worse.

You have some good points. Tom was correct.
Fair enough.
Malcontent (which I didn't say) I guess it still remains to be seen if you wish to continue this.
There's nothing wrong with debating. I know you enjoy it.
My tactic is only to make things entertaining, not silence people, and get others opinions. (stir the pot)

Honestly, you had me thinking for a while on how I wanted to play it.
Not many threads right now, people are viewing the drama.
I may go a few rounds with you, but not now. Everyone's welcome to join it BTW.

J~

[Bench Racer]

Steve, enlightening, entertainment, agree or disagree your posts are great reading.

[Ron Alan]

^^^agreed! Ignore and dont reply to the valueless posts full of air Steve(I will take claim to some of these on occasion!). For what its worth...I completely understand your point of view!! As a cheap fuccer I should be right there with you hoping to save a few bucks...but alas i like prizes...and seeing those who can drive their ass off win them! That simple as I to said way back as well...

[MPR22]

Sorry guys, I'm always ready for a vigorous debate. Someone makes a point, I counter-point. Someone else comes at it from a different angle I'll try to parry that. The next one adds what I think is a misleading twist or an analogy that doesn't fit, I've got to call them on it. On a site like this multiple people offer different versions of opposing views, I'm just responding to each, looking for a better way to express my opinion and hoping to draw more people into the discussion. But then it goes subtly personal with things like "you'll still deny it" as if the ultimate irrefutable truth has been presented and I rejected it repeatedly. :shrug: That kind of slight is an old but effective way to shut someone down. OK, I give. There are several recent posts just begging to be challenged, but the lines are clear enough that I'd just be preaching to the choir on one side and a granite wall on the other. But I do marvel at the perspectives of some amateur racers.

I'm not sure why some of you guys hang out here, but if healthy debate about important subjects isn't welcome then this site has a lot less value than it should. Maybe I should spend my 2 man hours searching for humorous YouTube videos to post and break up the monotony of serious discussion. (No offense Johnny!)

Meanwhile it will at least be interesting to sit back and see what happens with SRF. It appears that Skirmants made it happen and his reasoning was as simple as it is obvious. Apparently Hoosier has managed to figure out how to move money between pots as well, despite the skeptics. Oh, and it sounds like they have developed a new compromise rain tire for the class, which may be why they are readily open to coming up with one for SM. So maybe we'll get something positive out of this in an around about way.

I think the time you posted your video of your Road Atlanta practice day video is the root of this problem that people think you just want to argue and won't listen to their side of the argument.  At no point did you accept any responsibility for the accident.  

[Steve Scheifler]

I think the time you posted your video of your Road Atlanta practice day video is the root of this problem that people think you just want to argue and won't listen to their side of the argument. At no point did you accept any responsibility for the accident.

Second reference to that now in this topic, must have made a real impression. No doubt I'll still get more black marks for responding, but I'll keep it relatively short.

As I recall, a number of people sided very strongly with my interpretation including at least one very notable driver. But in terms of 100%, it all depends on your definition of fault. There is almost always something you could have done differently, but I apply a reasonableness factor. Roles reversed I would have felt entirely at fault. But if the fact that theoretically I *could* have seen him dive in so late and at least tried to move over puts me at some percentage of fault in your estimation then I accept that. I just think on balance it is overwhelmingly one-sided and yet a lot of people saw it quite differently. I think Todd Green did the best job of explaining the pertinent FACTS and my interpretation of them. The key is watching my mirror, my hands and my head.

But in case you missed it, here is an excerpt from one of my posts at the time. Not to be argumentative, but I think your last statement is incorrect. No worries, most had tuned out by then.

... Yes we need to divide our attention to do all of those, and in this case I didn't put enough of that focus behind and to the left of me. I accepted that from Chris, after correcting his factual misstatements, and went on to question only his 50% assessment. I still question that, particularly on a test day.
...

[MPR22]

Second reference to that now in this topic, must have made a real impression. No doubt I'll still get more black marks for responding, but I'll keep it relatively short.
As I recall, a number of people sided very strongly with my interpretation including at least one very notable driver. But in terms of 100%, it all depends on your definition of fault. There is almost always something you could have done differently, but I apply a reasonableness factor. Roles reversed I would have felt entirely at fault. But if the fact that theoretically I *could* have seen him dive in so late and at least tried to move over puts me at some percentage of fault in your estimation then I accept that. I just think on balance it is overwhelmingly one-sided and yet a lot of people saw it quite differently. I think Todd Green did the best job of explaining the pertinent FACTS and my interpretation of them. The key is watching my mirror, my hands and my head.
But in case you missed it, here is an excerpt from one of my posts at the time. Not to be argumentative, but I think your last statement is incorrect.

Fair enough, you were partially at fault and have learned a valuable lesson. You are not being argumentative by providing proof, my apologies for not taking the time to read that thread before I chimed in. However incorrect my statement may be, I believe that one thread has colored the perception of you as argumentative. I am as well so frack' em.

[Cnj]

I am as well so frack' em.

You? Argumentative?

CNJ

[MPR22]

You? Argumentative?

CNJ

You South Amerikans stick together, good thing we like you so much.  Danny likes everyone of your posts and vice versa.  You two should do an enduro together.