- 5,674
- Ulricehamn
OK, I will give you an apology: I am sorry that I wrote redacted when I ment edited. English is not my first, or even second language.Oh boy here we go again with more assumptions.
Redacting? I never redacted anything. I added to some posts within minutes of posting, or longer for a few where nobody else has posted and I add to it to avoid double posting. Nothing was redacted, you made yourself look bad on your own.
This is the problem, you are quick to jump to assumptions. "AHA!! his post was edited, he must be redacting things to make me look bad!!" seriously?
"I am not calling you dirty,you did that all by yourself." You do realize this is just a cheeky way of calling someone dirty right? Judging with no evidence..... something you said would be wrong to do. You state youre talking about a attitude not a single incident, yet you chose to direct your attacks at me lumping me into the dirty drivers who barge through with what we both agree is a terrible attitude in racing.
The video simply proved your entire post baseless. If you wish to keep lumping me into that "attitude" category of dirty drivers without watching the video, then you are making yourself look like a fool who judges before viewing the evidence.
Bottomline is you misinterpreted what I meant and proceeded to scold me and call me dirty with zero evidence or context. I provided all the context including a video which proved you were wrong.
Racing in the middle/back, even if you qualified is always going to have light rubbing as drivers are jostling for position. I don't do it, but others are and it inevitably ties the rest of us in with it when they bump us. Thats the rubbing I was discussing and have clarified for you multiple times already. Yet you still miss the point.
BTW this was amended not redacted.
The fact is that I made my statement about the general statement YOU made about racing from the back and saying something like "there is bound to be contact when there is a 20 second difference in Qt".
I said nothing about your specific incident, because there where absolutely no mention of a single incident.
If you where refering to a spetincident it was not in any way clear from the beginning.
Now when you clarified I said that I can't speak of a single incident without a clip. Then you tell me this is wrong.
If you read my statement again you will see I speak of a general attitude. And because of your post, before the edit, I took it as if you where part of that attitude.
If not then fine. If you are then fine. I am not going to spend more time on this.
I stand for what I wrote, based on the original post.
I would apologize if I did what you accuse me off. But I didn't.
Now, I am done with this pointless discussion.