And as I just pointed out, it's the only comparison we have to go on. It's either compare it to the past and take the fact it's the past into consideration and weigh it accordingly, or just take a shot in the dark. Which seems the more logical to you? My humour (or more aptly, sardonicism) doesn't translate well to the written word. And for that I apologise. Actually, my first message that you responded to specifically mentions F1 at ovals and only F1 at ovals. And your reply didn't clarify the road course, thus implying you were responding to my claim that F1 wouldn't work at ovals. You didn't bring up the road course until several posts later. And I was being sarcastic with my 'serious offence' remark. Though now I'm doubting that, seeing as how it's bothered you enough to reply with paragraph after paragraph trying to disprove me. In fact you specifically mention it bothered you in the message I'm quoting at this very moment. Way to go, contradicting yourself a sentence after you say something. My argument was originally against the superspeedway yes, because you didn't clarify that you were talking about the road course until several posts into this discussion. Forgive me for assuming you were referring to it because I specifically mentioned it and you didn't mention the roval until later. At which point I switched my argument to be against the road course as well. You'd know that if you bothered to read beyond the first sentence of my post, which you clearly didn't. Also noticed you didn't address your hypocrisy, but that's neither here nor there.