Howard Kveck wrote:
> Mark N wrote:
>> So what did Tom actually say?
>
> (Snip a bunch of Mark's fantasized conversation as Tom)
>
> Here's one: Maybe T3 saw someone small in leathers in the pits at Laguna and in a
> conversation 2 1/2 years later remembered it as Pedrosa. Even you think that seeing a
> small guy in leathers in the pits at a GP race isn't too hard: "You could hardly
> throw a stone in the GP paddock without hitting one..."
Oh, Howard. Let's look at the setting. Tom has only been to one of the
current generation of GPs, and that was in 2005. 250 doesn't race there,
and Pedrosa was in 250 that year. Tom knows enough about GP racing to
know Pedrosa wasn't there racing, he surely knew Pedrosa wasn't in
MotoGP in '05. He knew who the guys were who were in MotoGP in 2005, and
beyond that Pedrosa wasn't likely really on his radar, as it doesn't
seem he has much interest at all in the support classes.
So we're not talking about someone thinking he saw someone at a race who
would normally be there, not realizing the guys wasn't there that
weekend. We're talking about someone who follows racing quite closely
and has represented he saw someone who should NOT have been there, who
wasn't racing that weekend, or any other weekend in MotoGP. What
leathers would he have been wearing? What team would Tom have mistakenly
thought he was racing for? Pedrosa was racing in Telefonica colors in
250, so was it Gibernau (5-10, 155 pounds) or Melandri (5-5, 142
pounds), the guys in Telefonica leathers that year, who he thought was
Pedrosa (5-2, under 110 pounds)? Or did he fantasize that Pedrosa was
already on the Repsol team?
And on top of that, there wasn't anyone in the MotoGP paddock in '05 who
is nearly as small as Pedrosa - the MotoGP paddock then was completely
different that a full GP paddock today. Then once having made the
mistake, he would have had to have gone on the rest of that year
thinking Pedrosa was in MotoGP, and I'll bet one could find posts later
that year where Tom talks about Pedrosa coming into MotoGP in '06. I
mean, we're talking about someone who almost certainly has never been
within a thousand miles of Pedrosa, and knows that. And who made that
statement in June 2006, nearly two years after the supposed sighting,
meaning he would have had to go all that time without realizing his error.
Your suggestion simply strains credulity, and way past the breaking
point. Earlier you said, "You really need it to be a "lie" rather than
someone just being mistaken." Well, I can say the same thing, you really
need it to not be a lie. Or rather, it almost doesn't matter, your
personal vendetta here has nothing to do with whether or not Tom lied,
it's almost better that he so obviously was lying - that way when nobody
challenges you on your bullshit the statement is boldly made - "No one
care that you're right, no one cares that we're wrong, nobody cares that
I am lying here, we've voted you off the island, and you're gone. That's
all that matters here".
>> You know what would make this a whole lot easier? If Tom would just tell us about
>> his honest error and then we wouldn't be left guessing. But so far he seems
>> to be avoiding that like the plague - I wonder why...
>
> Maybe he's tired of you?
Oh, I'm sure he is, and more. I would guess that someone who regularly
misrepresents and lies in a public forum and pursues vendettas would be
quite irritated with anyone who points a finger at such despicable
behavior. Fortunately for him, he has his defenders, assumedly
like-minded people...
>> Yeah, I guess it's weird that anyone would actually expect or even
>> desire that others conduct themselves in an aboveboard manner around
>> here, it's usenet after all. Questioning someone's honesty and veracity
>> could get really ugly and just isn't acceptable behavior, I guess you're
>> right. I mean, how would you hold up under such a spotlight? I shudder
>> to think of it...
>
> So why didn't you ask Tom about it when it happened? Oh, that's right, it might
> have undermined your argument and you wouldn't have been able to stick it to him
> later.
I told you why I didn't bring it up then, but of course you choose to
distort what I said - that's what mobs do, after all. There was nothing
about calling Tom on his lie then that would have undermined my argument
at all, all it would have done is undermine his credibility, and all
that might do is isolate my argument. Or, rather, the reasonable man
might think it would undermine his credibility, but it seems obvious now
that some people in this group don't even care about such things, or are
simply too stupid or corrupt to recognize lying when it runs over them
like a truck.
> And that's all.
One can only hope.
>> Stay informed about: Noyes on AMA. Again 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
