Play in a simulated football league - find great movies and TV shows - play Werewolf - play video games (try our Minecraft server) - argue about politics - listen to music - keep up with science news - play board games - just gasbag - discuss true crime - and so much more.
https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/daniel-ricciardo-formula-1-red-bullA few words from me. Go a couple layers deep here
I walked to the fridge, grabbed a beer, and laid down in bed. It was possibly the best beer of my life. Helps it was one from my brewery too, lol. Monaco F1 winner, Daniel Ricciardo. Now that’s what it’s all about.
I backed up with facts so there's nothing wrong with the 'reasoning'. You can go on nostalgia if you want but I like my history from the perspective of accuracy.I remember now. I didn't see any "reasoning" in Roland's reasoning. Hence, I didn't bother to respond to all of that and let it go. I got sucked into it again!. I defy anyone else who even vaguely remembers the 08 season to back him up.
Gee that's some dribble.Honestly, I think its an absurd decision to hire a driver who hasn't raced in 8 years and was never proven to be that great at his peak. Luca Badeor in 2009 made more sense. But its pretty consistent with Williams' decision making in recent times.
Well, I wasn't going to present information to suit your pov lol. The whole forum is presentation of facts (or other) to suit the poster's pov so your statement could have been talking about anyone on any topic.Please tell me where I went wrong? Should I spend 3 hours dismantling roland’s “points”, or am I better off going “I just cbf”.
Just the way you worded it I suggest, by saying they’re just facts to suit his POV is saying there are reasons that can be proved as to why Kubica is not that great.I actually want ot know now if I said anything bad, or if drd is a campaigner?
I think it was pretty obvious to all and sundry that he was suggesting if one looks hard enough you can find a number of statistical anomalies to suit any predetermined agenda.Just the way you worded it I suggest, by saying they’re just facts to suit his POV is saying there are reasons that can be proved as to why Kubica is not that great.
Which is opposite to your opinion.
Don’t dissagree, just suggesting why drs May have disliked the phrase.I think it was pretty obvious to all and sundry that he was suggesting if one looks hard enough you can find a number of statistical anomalies to suit any predetermined agenda.
It is a common occurrence on this board after all, player X averages 2.1 more yadayada.... therefore they are better!
Solid improvement by Haas this year, not only in quali but race results too. Will be impressive if they can continue to gain that sort of improvement for next year as well.Interesting graphic I saw posted on the F1 subreddit
Here is the thread if you want to know more info/data behind it.