I'm curious too. Alonso on autosport pins the accident to a difference of speed, saying that the McLaren was a lot faster than the Renault, but he doesn't evaluate the accident further. That amounts to saying water is wet.

I haven't seen any commentary by Hamilton yet.

Edit: here it is:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66443

"I had the crash with Fernando which really lost us the race altogether. I'm always the first to blame myself and I feel that's the right way to go."

Hamilton also played suggestions that Alonso had brake-tested him when the two made contact.

"I have no idea. I was behind him I went to move to the right and he went to move to the right as well and I ended up on the back somehow. It's racing," he said.

Nothing conclusive, and I'm still curious.

Last edited by Albieg, Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:38.

Probably in the next issue of News of the World we'll learn that it means that he likes some peculiar extreme sex practices.

Probably he was having too many monkeys in front of him and not behind his back, so his brain screwed up badly and he thought he was still qualifying, with the monkeys being on their slow-down lap and not racing, as they actually were.

These ones should work, although it's no ITV and you need external programs to watch it (such as SOPcast or TVUPlayer).

http://livetv.ru/it/eventinfo/9490/

Trust me, I didn't predict or dictate to him any move

He just says pretty obvious (and reasonable) things for me, no matter if I like him or not.

Edit: it seems like Mosley wants the FIA members to judge the tape for themselves for the Nazi allegations.

CORRECTION: it's not Mosley, it's News of the World. My mistake.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66420

Meanwhile News of the World continues to build up what seems to be a blatant lie, reporting Mosley taped everything for his pleasure. Why he would have taped his entrance to the dungeon from outside, I don't know. The lack of quality of some cameras filming the action is also more consistent with manual hidden camera operation (with the operator unable to see the frames), so it appears (to me) that Mosley is likely to be able to clear himself from the Nazi allegations in a tribunal, no matter if it exposes more his tastes for sex with members of FIA. My guess is that it's likely that the FIA will give the boot to Mosley issuing a statement in which they clear Mosley from the Nazi allegations, condemn the intrusion in his privacy and recognises it as undue or illegal but in the end, for what I call 'reasons of opportunity', asks or orders him to leave.

Last edited by Albieg, Sun, 6 Apr 2008 14:40.

Quote from Shotglass :

fundamental rights are just a few bits of western ethics/morals/ideology that were considered the most important at some point which still makes them valid targets for individual list ordering

Let's avoid confusing values and rights. Fidelity is a value, privacy is a right, at least in Italy. Being sacked for being disloyal to your wife should only happen on very specific circumstances I already mentioned, and that's the point of my reasoning.

Quote from Shotglass :

i havent posted any oppinions of mine there

In fact you didn't. Sorry for that, I expressed myself really badly but I didn't really mean to suggest that this was an opinion of yours, but in fact I did and I recognise that in this case there's absolutely no way in which I could logically reach such conclusion. I apologise for this hoping you understand the bulk of my reasoning (referred to me, and not to you).

Quote from Shotglass :

ok makes sense now

Good. I hope you understand that my radical positions on individual freedoms are only due to respect of the rights of other people, no matter what I think about a subject or about a person. Not everyone is able to separate such issues. I do: on my own I am free to do what I want, and others are too, and as long as it's legal there's no way I can question those freedoms or use loathsome methods to discredit someone, no matter how hideous or repulsive I may find some things. Doing otherwise would be applying a totalitarian attitude, and Mosley isn't excluded from this basic form of protection.

Last edited by Albieg, Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:03.

Quote from Shotglass :

not a list about sam but a list that links immoral behaviours in general

Read better. Cheating on someone is immoral also for me, but I'm no moralist, my moral applies to me: I don't think that a person should lose his job or position because he cheated on his wife, except special cases I mentioned before.

Instead, privacy isn't a moral issue: it's a fundamental right. I'm not accusing SamH of putting things in the wrong order: I'm saying that his position on disclosure of private matters opens an enormous loophole on individual freedoms and is completely asystematic. That's hugely different.

Quote from Shotglass :

to tie in with the previous statement that means on your list reenactments of nazi history for pleasure are more immoral and the occurence of these overrides a persons right for privacy in your oppinion correct?

So, in your opinion, if a child denounced he was molested by a presumed paedophile no investigation could occur. Correct?

The same principle applies here. That's why I'm interested only in peculiar allegations that have very specific consequences on his public figure, I don't care about cheating (but then again, no one knows if Mosley's wife knows and agrees) or s&m, and I said that a thousand times. It shouldn't be difficult to comprehend.

Quote from Shotglass :

hm didnt you accuse sam for bringin his personal feelings from his marriage into this?

Yes. But my positions about privacy don't allow me to crawl under his sheets to see what he's doing. His positions seem to allow and encourage what I consider an undue investigation on private matters.

Quote from Shotglass :

also at the risk of insulting you (trust me im not trying to) where does the selfishness of valuing your own privacy higher than that of others rank for you?

No, you're not insulting me. I value my privacy more than others?
You're wrong. My privacy is equal to yours, SamH's, Mosley's. But I'm not willing to fight for other people if they're unwilling to fight for themselves. So, to refer to a personal episode, my colleagues can do what they want, regardless of my position, just as Mosley, SamH and you. Doing otherwise would be imposing my own battles upon other people, and I'm not that kind of guy. I defend my beliefs and rights but not at the cost of imposing my will upon others. My political opinions don't allow me to do such things.

Quote from Shotglass :

sam and albieg youre both making the same mistake of compiling a list of immoral behaviours order them and then accuse the other of having them in the wrong order

and albieg dont you find it a bit bizarre that you value privacy so highly but then in the next sentence you point out that were lacking evidence for the nazi claim ad that you would happily look at the full 2 hour privacy invading tape?

Point me in the right direction about the list of immoral behaviours I compiled about SamH and I'll gladly correct my position. If you can't, you're accusing me of something I haven't done.

For the second thing, I don't find it bizarre. I already said there's no way I can obtain the tape legally. I'm only evaluating a situation and certainly I'm not using against Mosley any of his private facts, unless you have - once again - proof of the contrary. Besides that, I'm concentrating on the only aspect that I deem important for his public role in this case: the nazi allegations, and I already stated that only such issues would render his private matters public, in my opinion. So there's no incoherence at all.

Edit: I have to say something more about my position about privacy. It has been quite a difficult week for me exactly for such matters. In the firm I work for, the owners have decided to use a system that tracks down entries and exits at work. I already told them that if such a system was applied to me I would have quit my job. Nevertheless they went on and decided to use the system also with me, saying it at a meeting. As soon as they told so, I raised my hand saying that I would have immediately quit as I told them. I've been personally attacked by an owner and I left the room, preparing my stuff to leave, while other people were saying "stop him, if he leaves he won't ever be back". So the meeting went on while I was emptying my desk taking away my personal stuff, with the person in charge of the human resources carefully watching me and preventing me from reaching the exit door, while asking me to wait and saying that he understood, "but you know what they think...". I was later told that other workers were supportive and that they had no troubles in me being an exception. So I was then asked to stay, and I accepted to stay. It was something personal, for me. I didn't require anyone to be supportive of my position since I only have to answer to my conscience, and nothing more.

I don't live just breathing. I have bills to pay and food to buy, so I need my job, and no matter if you're good, the IT market is tough. I could have been jobless for three or four months, and that would have been a problem for me. But the cost, in this case, wasn't important. My family was informed about my decision and about the possibility of me being jobless for some time. I explained my reasons, and no one questioned them. You may think your privacy is a little thing, but in reality it is fundamental for your individual freedoms.

Last edited by Albieg, Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:26.

Yes, I'm obviously wasting my time. I don't question your right to do cynical and humorous remarks, anyway, but in this case I felt the need to respond because I don't think it's well directed, at the cost of being considered a less than humorous person. It's a really small price to pay when people you know and meet assess you as a funny guy with a very serious edge in your 'real' life.

Back on topic, spying - even with hidden cameras - is so easy that unless you're paranoid it's really difficult to assess Mosley as naive. I'd need more information for such judgement.

I forgot to say that I'm answering to those who have a very clear opinion about facts they think they know. I'm questioning that knowledge asking for conclusive evidence. So far, it hasn't appeared. If people have such a strong opinion about those facts they must have very strong evidence, don't you think so?

Last edited by Albieg, Sat, 5 Apr 2008 16:23.

I suppose the error is due to the ability of some soundcards to recognise that a device has been plugged in. This happens with cards which can use their connections alternatively as outputs (for a 5.1 setup) or inputs. As long as the result is unaffected you can consider it only an aesthetical error, or - if applicable - you could manually adjust the input level to mic input if it's recognised as a line input, but I think that the input level is already more or less correct.

Different soundcards have completely different preamp stages, so there's no general rule. For instance my WaveTerminal 192X has only balanced line level inputs, I can't plug in a microphone and expect it to work as it does on my M-Audio Fasttrack Pro. And since you're using a dynamic microphone (in no way a condenser mic could cost about 5$) that's normal since dynamic mics aren't preamplified on their own, so the input level, unless you scream or sing at an appropriately loud volume, is normally low.
There's however some difference in preamplifying something and boosting the level in postproduction or editing, and that difference mainly affects dynamic range of the sound.

At your level of practice and knowledge there are, in my personal opinion, a lot of things you should read and decide before committing any money to a better system/microphone.

Some time ago a magazine did a practical test, giving low quality mixing equipment to professionals and high quality gear to to hobbysts like me. The pros had much better results at mixing conventional stuff than the hobbysts. So, in your case, it would be probably best to know and understand the limits and abilities of your equipment before investing any money in something that may not give the better results you're expecting.

Gear is important, but it's not everything. For example, for the stuff I'm doing right now, a $4000 Neumann U87 would work much worse than the $2 piezo capsules I'm using as contact mics, but a quieter external preamp would work much better than the preamps of my FastTrack Pro since I'm recording nearly at the limit of silence, and I pick up a little too much unwanted hiss generated by preamps. Not that I would dislike owning an U87, anyway

Quote from xaotik :

Perhaps you'll dedicate some more time into acquiring a complete copy of the video and thus sate your thirst for complete understanding of the sexual escapades a 70 y/o rich British public figure has indulged himself in and so stupidly allowed to be recorded and circulated?

He didn't know about the cameras. They are hidden and sometimes manually operated, there's at least one camera concealed in an object, you can clearly distinguish the typical hidden camera operation in some sequences. This could happen to anyone, regardless of his or her activity.

And if I could get my hands on the video I'd be happy to spend some time analysing it for my trivial mental exercises, but obviously I can't get my hands on it, at least easily or legally. It's just as LFS or any other activity that can make my brain work.

Edit: and your remark about analyses concerns me, since I seem to be one of the few willing to question the allegations of a newspaper without accepting it blindly. Is my way of spending my time so important for you? I'll waste it as I like regardless of your opinion, thanks. As long as I don't go off-topic or break any rules you shouldn't be concerned.

Last edited by Albieg, Sat, 5 Apr 2008 14:06.

What should we discuss about, given the fact that people are willing to assume things for certain when they have the evidence needed to decide, since that is the same evidence that a newspaper uses to support its claims? Have you got something better, xaotik? Feel free to share. I'm eager to have a better understanding, or better evidence. And I'll decide for myself whenever I can, without relying solely on third party commentary.

Edit: s&m clips not relevant to this case aren't accepted as something better, of course. I'm interested in the story but seeing Mosley spanked doesn't exactly get me aroused. It's just part of it and I'm able to look at it emotionlessly, but just as part of something bigger.

Last edited by Albieg, Sat, 5 Apr 2008 14:22.

Quote from ajp71 :

Given his history the fact he is getting sexually aroused at it really is pretty horrendous.

Again, review the clip. If you're able to distinguish that from a generic s&m prison themed role play, you're invited to show evidence. I commented on YouTube saying the same things and a professional s&m mistress agreed that it wasn't possible to distinguish it, although she condones nazi fantasies in domination and replied she had an orthodox jewish customer asking her to dominate him in such a fantasy.

As for Mercedes and BMW, executing orders wasn't a good excuse for Porsche. Just take a look at the Nurenberg trials, and see what happened to Speer for his usage of slave labour forces. Porsche wasn't tried at Nurenberg, but he did however have his share of prison time for his deeds.

Edit: http://www.cracked.com/article ... brands-nazis-gave-us.html . Via a link provided some time ago by my girlfriend. Interesting trivia.

Last edited by Albieg, Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:30.

Okay, I'll be a scumbag in your eyes. I'm fine with that, as I'm fine with the fact that Mosley is a scumbag in my eyes for cheating on his wife if his wife doesn't consent or like his cheating, but that's another thing you seem to assume without knowledge.

And no, I'm no moralist: I don't apply my morals to you. That's a huge difference since you don't have necessarily to adhere to my moral standards. But I'm still willing to defend your right not to be harassed in your private life. You seem to accept it because the results are fine for you. Sorry, but that's not what I do.

And what kind of assumption did I do about you? The fact that you're fine with what happened to Mosley? The fact that you justify it, or accept its logical consequences, then you blindlessly point your finger at me saying I insulted you? That's rubbish. Mine's not an assumption, it's a certainty. My guarantees are clear: I won't attack Mosley, so I won't attack you on the same ground. You can't do the same thing, it's in your own words.

(Re-edit for clarity. Being attacked just because I defend anyone's right to privacy is one of the most stupid things I've ever endured in this forum.)

Last edited by Albieg, Sat, 5 Apr 2008 15:12.

Quote from SamH :

No, I wasn't being sarcastic, I was being sardonic. I didn't ever say I was happy about it, but as you point out there is a CCTV culture in the UK, like it or not.


Using your logic, YOU cannot be trusted to not cheat on your partner, because you accept and defend Mosley cheating on his wife

The fact that I never behaved or that I wouldn't behave like Mosley seems completely lost on you. I can personally condemn Mosley for what he did, but that's none of Mosley business. He can do what he likes, it's none of my business.

You're not using logic or reason, you're making assumptions about my morality by applying your moralistic positions to me. And if I ever cheat on my girlfriend and get caught, this would be none of your damn business, once again, unless you prove to me it should be. Get out of my bed, stay in yours, I'm not calling my girlfriend or telling her about this, she would be upset at you because of your stupid assumptions. And stop using my private life as an example, you don't know anything about it.

Last edited by Albieg, Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:40.

You don't have to be jewish to be outraged because of the Holocaust, or similar displays of cruelty. But I suppose that Mercedes and BMW did so because they have good reasons - given their past - to strongly distance themselves from the accusations against Mosley. That's why Mosley complained about BMW and Mercedes not asking him about the allegations, which analysing the clip seem to be unfounded or impossible to prove with certainty: he says that given Mercedes and BMW past they should have been more cautious. However Mosley did it without a careful wording, thus offering his flank to some more (probably undeserved) attacks.

Last edited by Albieg, Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:19.

Quote from nihil :

A waste of flesh, not because of "loose morals", but because he represents a degenerate system of privilege. That's my opinion, but I will defend him here because to do anything else would be to lay down rights that people I love and respect fought vigourously for.

Fully agreed.

Quote from SamH :

Really?

Ask some other moderator or forumer you trust as a reasonable person, if you don't trust me.

As for the other quote, that's only the logical consequence of your reasoning. You accept the outcome, you accept the method.

Edit: I mean to say, the principles I apply to Mosley are the principles I apply to you. They are universal. I don't care about your sexual life, it's not a business of mine, and I make no exception, save for politicians (for example Spitzer) who have a strong moral position about the sexual life of others, which they don't apply to themselves. That makes their position untenable, but I don't think the same about Mosley, although he'll likely go for these reasons. These reasons for me are far from being good, or justifiable. I consider the right to live my private life in peace more important. This is definitely a guarantee I can offer.

Last edited by Albieg, Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:00.

Again, you're confusing personal positions and attacking me on personal matters without even knowing me, while I'm considering the outcome of your personal position as intrusive of other people's privacy. I never cheated my girlfriend, never indulged in s&m, never paid for sex. These are things I'm unwilling to do, but that doesn't matter. If you think private relationships should be public when Mosley didn't have a public stance to defend about cheating, prostitutes or s&m, I have a good reason to think you're just blinded by personal experience and emotional matters. Sorry, but these reasons aren't good for me. I prefer newspapers staying out of my sexual life, no matter if I'm famous or not, and I apply the same principles to Mosley. Is it so hard to understand?

At least you know that I'm not willing to crawl into your bed to attack you for different reasons. I can't say the same for you judging from your words. You give no guarantee. Sorry.

Quote from SamH :

Is this some kind of moral high horse you're riding?

Yes, it is. But I'm not defending Mosley's morals, although you seem to believe it's so. It should be pretty clear if you read the whole thread. I'm defending my morals, and what I'm willing to do to achieve a result. Intruding in the sexual life of someone who isn't a pedophile or sexual predator isn't part of what I'm willing to do, this is something that regards only Mosley and his family. Conversely, avoiding such intrusions regards myself, not Mosley.

Quote from SamH :

I suspect my position is going to be similar to the F1 sponsors

That says it all, for me. Keep your millions of Euros if you have them (like the sponsors do), I don't have them. I'll keep what I have, and - believe it or not - it's more important than millions of Euros.

I'm already doing it for reasons that go well beyond defending Mosley personally and although I shouldn't say such a thing about myself, I think I'm doing pretty well. My aim isn't that of defending Mosley but to have a better overall understanding, and this should be clear also to you. If you want to be happy about the outcome of methods you seem to despise, go ahead. You know what you're sacrificing, and I know too. That's why I refuse those methods.

Well, what you think about FIA, I think about all the F1 circus. We've had enough proof last year. But that doesn't make me willing to accept such methods or even to be happy about their outcomes because of my personal likes and dislikes. For me there's more at stake than Mosley, and if I have to defend what I consider important I also have to defend Mosley as a victim of an ugly system he's part of. I see no justice, neither social nor poetical, in what happened to him.
As for the happiness part, being happy for something presumably positive obtained with such methods would be like being happy because peace was obtained exterminating your enemies with an H bomb, to use a hyperbolic comparison. That would never make me happy, or relieved. Noble ends, noble means, and that's not idealism, just coherence.

Social justice? Your idea of social justice and how to obtain it is pretty scary, to be honest.

For more than a reason it reminds more the aberrations of the jail system, where paedophiles are beaten and treated badly by the other inmates. But that's not a form of justice if you ever talked to an intelligent former prisoner: as a friend of mine said, "it's a form of vengeance masqueraded as spontaneous justice that develops between people who are considered shit, and then you turn against someone who is considered more shit than you. It's not justice, even when they call it so, it's the reproposition of the outer social system inside the prisons: I am shit but paedophiles are more shit than me, so I beat them, and everyone - including guards - turn their heads the other way."

I hope you understand that's not a form a justice, but if this is your idea I guess you're fine with what happened to Mosley. Luckily my disillusions don't allow me to consider such aberrations a form of justice.

Last edited by Albieg, Sat, 5 Apr 2008 07:19.