In leiu of recent events....

[Rookiesrock]

Is that Fatfreddy with a wedgie?

[lepage71]

I've accurately and reliably used the "mis" prefix. By definition, it describes Reef's feelings and MISperceptions perfectly.

That sentence wasn't insensitive; it was taken out of context. Either way, though, I wasn't aware that there was a sensitivity requirement for private messages. Am I really supposed to believe that? What makes it worse is that Reef was already familiar with the "guy behind me said this" situation due to an incident in the first race at Daytona. That kind of spinsmanship won't work as long as I'm around.

Rookie, speaking of insensitive, since that's apparently something we need to watch out for, you seem to have overlooked the following remarks:

I now see exactly were I stand in this position, I'm just guy number 3. Evidently my word means nothing. I just seem to be the guy who listens to everyone's gripes about rules and penalties. Nothing more. Find someone else to mold into your 1 sided, 1 way perspective. I'm done.

This was a reaction to a perceived insult from a sentence in a private message to someone else that I knowingly forwarded to Reef without any thoughts otherwise. This remains an accusation until evidence suggests differently.

Lately this place is becoming a joke. Rules are written, posted and then interpreted on an as needed basis by the ones who are supposed to be in charge. This is not the way to run a league. People give valid arguements to issues they have and they get shot down just because. I personally have seen this in action, and have been on the receiving end of it. Oh well. Fuck it.

I know posts can only be so long, but platitudes like this should warrant some evidence. He didn't have a problem providing misinterpreted evidence in the statement before this one. Where's the rest?

If this is to remain healthy then let's not skew the facts.

Didn't Reef skew the only fact that he provided? The rest was commentary. Where did I skew a fact? Reef or someone who agrees with Reef should start listing theirs.

I agree that this is a healthy dialogue. It's not, however, something that will improve my health because I know that I haven't done anything that I need to hide. Rather, this is a huge teachable moment for the rest of the league.

You're also missing an important point about this discussion. You're suggesting that this is one of those "two sides of a coin" disagreements. Sure, this is my side of the story, but I'm not making things up in order to sound convincing. Reef initiated this. I'm explaining his rant using words. Words mean things when they're applied to facts. The claim that I'm deliberately making this a "vocabulary debate" is just a smokescreen meant to discourage others from considering the concepts that I've explained.

As far as Skoty's concerned, you can ask him about this whole thing. He'll tell you what I'm telling you.

[Reef]

Here is my fact filled reply:

Fact: An incident occurred during a recent race in which a penalty was assessed.

Fact: After the official results were posted, one of the driver’s involved sent a p.m. to all admins stating his case.

Fact: I replied with a p.m. stating that I witnessed the incident happen during the race, and did not feel a penalty was warranted.

Fact: Penalty was upheld, and a lengthy literary reply was made about different replay views and perceptions, an explanation of what was “officially” perceived, and the comment that my perception of the incident was “certainly an interesting fact, but not an accurate or meaningful perspective for interpreting what happened after the fact.” Basically pointing the finger of fault at the first driver.

Fact: I took offense to the comment and posted my opinion and feelings on the matter, albeit over the top, and publicly, but having been on the short end of the stick with penalties and disagreements directly and indirectly over the past few races, I had had enough. If I need to explain, I can and will.

Fact: I sat back and let Lepage belittle me, my opinion, and my actions through several posts over several days, calling me “misread, misguided, misinformed, misinterpreting and with making up stuff “ as stated by Rookiesrock.

Fact: Not once did I make a reply, fuel the fire so to speak, I said my peace and that was that. Lepage continues to smear me.

Fact: Later in the week, the penalty was overturned only because the other driver in the incident stood up and told the real story of what happened. For that, I stand up and applaud that driver for doing the right thing.

Fact: This means that my perception of the incident was actually correct and accurate. Lepage’s long winded explaination of his replay perceptions and views were wrong, the “official” call was wrong, and his continual smearing of me and my opinion were wrong. If the other driver had not stepped up, the penalty would have been upheld and Lepage would have gotten his way. Some other motive perhaps? Who knows, I’m not one to speculate.

Fact: After overturning the penalty, no apologies were made, just a statement saying that the other driver “saved his ass” by stepping up. The attacks on me continued with long winded, Pulitzer Prize winning form, the whole time knowing that he was in the wrong.

If I missed anything, please let me know, I'm sure I can dig up another fact or 2 for ya.

Oh, Lepage, see ya next week :ezboardwink

[kyle]

nicely done, fine job reef

[lepage71]

I see the wheels on the spin machine are rolling on in earnest. It would be wonderful if you could be intellectually honest about one thing in your original rant. Instead, after I explain why you're wrong, you move on and make up something else.

If this is all you can come up with, however, then you're going to have a hard time weaseling out of your meltdown. But as you know, I won't stop explaining the facts when there's an unjust cause that feels the need to be perpetuated.

Fact: An incident occurred during a recent race in which a penalty was assessed.

Fact: After the official results were posted, one of the driver's involved sent a p.m. to all admins stating his case.

These don't need to be here. You're just padding a facts list that's curiously heavy on faulty premises.

Fact: I replied with a p.m. stating that I witnessed the incident happen during the race, and did not feel a penalty was warranted.

This is supposed to help you? This makes it worse. The sentence that you misinterpreted merely pointed out that the third-party perspective is unreliable. It doesn't really matter who provides it. You were even aware of this logic due to a previous incident. We've never assessed (or not assessed) a penalty due to someone else's spontaneous perspective during the race. We always consider what the involved drivers may have to say and then look at the replay in order to make a decision. I think that you may be cleverly attempting to confuse this simple wisdom with us IGNORING your replay-based perspective. Ha. You never had one. You're dancing your way around this ugly fact: you never even consulted the replay and were well on your way to melting down LONG before anything else. On the specific subject of the misinterpreted sentence, this is the biggest condemnation of what you're asserting.

Oddly enough, I didn't know about your private message until now. To me, it makes your rant seem less responsible and more reactionary. If you actually had a replay-based opinion about the incident, then why didn't you share it with Skoty and I? Isn't the entire point of administrating to discuss objections with one another?

The problem remains the same, however, because if you had a legitimate beef, which you didn't, you still never looked at the replay nor consulted with us in the proper manner appropriate. Instead, you combined your anger about a misperceived sentence with your discontent about other topics (which I submit are shoddy in their own rights) and it resulted in your boiling over. Tell me where I'm wrong about this. I'm just a weatherman who notices it's raining and says so.

Penalty was upheld, and a lengthy literary reply was made about different replay views and perceptions, an explanation of what was "officially" perceived, and the comment that my perception of the incident was "certainly an interesting fact, but not an accurate or meaningful perspective for interpreting what happened after the fact."

Again, this is more dead space to make your list look compelling. Yes, Skoty and I looked at the incident in question and decided to assign a penalty. A driver asked for an explanation and I provided a straightforward and clear response.

Basically pointing the finger of fault at the first driver.

Obviously, we've faulted someone for something when we assess a penalty. When has anyone received a penalty where this wasn't the case?

Fact: I took offense to the comment and posted my opinion and feelings on the matter, albeit over the top, and publicly, but having been on the short end of the stick with penalties and disagreements directly and indirectly over the past few races, I had had enough. If I need to explain, I can and will.

Go ahead. We've done nothing to you that was unfair. I'd actually like to see, in detail, these mysterious abuses that you keep referring to. As usual, we're still waiting for the evidence.

Fact: I sat back and let Lepage belittle me, my opinion, and my actions through several posts over several days, calling me "misread, misguided, misinformed, misinterpreting and with making up stuff " as stated by Rookiesrock.

Okay, anyone, is there a more disingenuous statement in Reef's response than this one? After he ranted in a post filled with baseless allegations and insults, I choose to defend the integrity of the league, explain precisely where he's wrong, and use adjectives (words) to call it for what it was, and Reef turns around and calls it "belittling." A for effort for trying to spin that one, Reef.

Like I said earlier, these words accurately describe your emotions. I feel like we're all back in first grade again. Words mean things when they're incorporated with sound reasoning. Here, rather than explaining how they've been misused, you're offering more of the same: grand statements and little substance. As far as I'm concerned, I haven't used these words enough to describe your anger.

Fact: Not once did I make a reply, fuel the fire so to speak, I said my peace and that was that. Lepage continues to smear me.

Um, point out specifically where I have smeared you or erred in these posts. These are more vague statements about nothing. Once again, sticking to your theme: where's the evidence?

Later in the week, the penalty was overturned only because the other driver in the incident stood up and told the real story of what happened. For that, I stand up and applaud that driver for doing the right thing.

You're expecting to get away with this assertion? You have no idea what you're talking about. This wasn't some case of a driver standing up and fighting against administrator abuse. We reverse penalties all the time, but never because we've made something up. Remember, we can only interpret what we see on our replays. We often see something else when we are presented with another replay. That's part of the reason why we have secondary reviews. You, above all, should know this. After the driver requested a review, we watched his replay and ended up reversing our decision for a specific reason.

The original penalty was due to our perception that this driver did not take much care in passing another car, washed up into it exiting a turn, and created a chain reaction when that car spiraled out of control and collected three random victims. Our interpretation of the "washing up" hasn't changed, but we discovered that the car that was "washed up into" actually regained control and subsequently crashed on its own. When two drivers collide and we believe one was at fault, we usually only deduct points when the victim hits the wall, spins, or other. When the victim just bounces off and nothing happens as a direct result of the perpetrator, then we generally don't deduct points from the offending driver. That's the difference that we discovered in our secondary review. Sure, a driver can disagree about his status as a perpetrator, but that's just the nature of penalties.

Ultimately, there was no creative license applied to the penalty in order to unnecessarily blame the driver who received it. We did everything by the book and no shenanigans were involved. They never are.

This means that my perception of the incident was actually correct and accurate. Lepage's long winded explaination of his replay perceptions and views were wrong, the "official" call was wrong, and his continual smearing of me and my opinion were wrong. If the other driver had not stepped up, the penalty would have been upheld and Lepage would have gotten his way. Some other motive perhaps?

No, your recollection of the incident was WRONG. The driver who you defended actually came up into the other car more than that car came down into him. That's not what you said during the race. That's why, in the sentence that you misinterpreted, I pointed out the unreliability of a spontaneous account from a third party about an incident. For you to refuse to even consider the replay and admit this basic logic is bewildering.

The rest of this quoted passage is sort of like a microcosm of your original rant. I haven't been smearing you. I've been presenting reasoning based on YOUR words and the appropriate facts. That's why you haven't - and can't - point out something specific and explain where I'm wrong. Instead, you've once again reverted to the predictable allegations-without-evidence routine. Unfortunately for you, I can see that coming from a mile away.

Who knows, I'm not one to speculate.

I hadn't noticed.

After overturning the penalty, no apologies were made, just a statement saying that the other driver "saved his ass" by stepping up. The attacks on me continued with long winded, Pulitzer Prize winning form, the whole time knowing that he was in the wrong.

Are you trying to experiment with precisely how loose can you get with the facts? Rather than moving from one imagined crime to the next, why don't you consider what has actually happened? The driver wanted an explanation about his penalty and I responded with our reasoning. He then wanted a secondary review and we provided one and reversed the penalty based on the intracicies explained several paragraphs above. We explained this to the driver in question, he was satisfied, and nothing more. What's this other stuff? Yet again, this is not factual at all, it's just your commentary. Perhaps the notes from your smear list are getting mixed up in your facts list. Or maybe it's a hope that it'll stick against the wall.

I do agree that I should receive an award for these brilliant, well-thought-out series of essays. It's difficult to jump into the fire and take a stand for the truth, but I have no problem doing so.

I'm sure I can dig up another fact or 2 for ya.

I'd love to see some actual facts. 5-for-10, with those 5 being simple observations about what has transpired in this thread, isn't going to cut it. But Reef, if you do have some facts that you don't intend to alter or misrepresent, then I encourage you to post them. As I've said too many times, we've done nothing to you to deserve your misguided display. You can't get yourself out of the hole you've created and may try just about anything at this point.

[SpeedyExiter]

readingcomprehension.jpg

[Petty43]

Ladies and Gentlemen. This intermission is Sponsored by Gillette Razors. "Where you thought 7 Blades was a lot...stay tuned for the the 10 blade The Rendevous Razor! Not only does it give you a closer shave, it also is so delicate that even the ladies will use it. Delicate enough for those private areas. With it's 5 aloe strips you will always get a soothing cool feeling that one always hopes for in a razor. Find it, and use it today! Popcorn at the counter is available upon request. Extra Butter is 10 cents a squirt. Please dispose of litter in it's proper place. Keep it clean for the next patron. Thank You. Please come again.
Okay let's go racing!

[bover907]

LMAO @ Petty!

[Reef]

For those of you who awaiting my rebuttal, please be patient, I am gathering facts and putting them in order, so I am not accused of displaying an inaccurate time line.