Daniel was attempting to be smart by pointing out that you made a spelling mistake (i.e. "replay" instead of "reply") in the first reply quoted above.
I don't think it's quite right, but am I close with a Honda P700?
Also the 'infamous' Irvine/Senna unlapping incident at Suzuka 1993, which led to Senna taking a swing at Irvine post-race.
This error indicates a failure in the processing of the card details entered by your friend. You can read this for some background information on the protocol. The most likely cause of a failure would be incorrect card details entered by your friend or something stopping the 3-D Secure verification step (e.g. a connection problem or something blocking JavaScript (e.g. NoScript)). Has your friend had any problems using the card to make other online purchases?
Sort of related: Keke Rosberg Spins at Long Beach 1983
Depends how you define "tank", but even 6 years ago it was possible to get nearly 50fps behind a full grid of BF1 AI.
Correct
One of my favourite rally cars in terms of sound.
Not a Stratos, but it does sound quite similar. This car also has a V6 engine.
It's a rally car, but not a Saab and it has a four-stroke engine.
Name this car...
(People from the #liveforspeed IRC channel are excluded from entering because they have an unfair advantage...
)
(People from the #liveforspeed IRC channel are excluded from entering because they have an unfair advantage...
)Related: Kevin Magnussen's Top 5 Drivers.
I'm going to ignore this part of your reply, since I think we're just at a point where we're essentially repeating ourselves and not making any impact.
Yes, I specifically chose that example as it could be considered a repressive piece of censorship for a developed country.
Here's where things have come to an abrupt stop. That you consider all censorship "evil by default" means there's simply an irreconcilable gulf between our positions. Does your position mean that you simply don't draw a line between the kind of censorship which would stop a TV presenter on a public free-to-air programme being broadcast at 5pm from using words like "n*gger", "c*nt" etc and the kind which would prohibit that same presenter from saying anything negative about the political leaders of the country? Or does it mean that you do believe there's a difference between them but you still consider them both "evil"? I'm honestly struggling to understand your position.
I believe it was racist though. Would you agree that insulting one racial group (using a racist insult) is racism? That insulting two racial groups (using racist insults) is racism? If you would agree with it when insulting one and two groups, by what special transitive power does it stop being racism as long as you insult all racial groups (using racial insults)? I've heard the argument of "<x> hates everyone equally" as a defence against claims of racism so many times and I simply can't understand it.
Top Gear is a free-to-air programme (essentially, I don't want to get bogged down in UK TV licensing) that airs before the watershed. UK broadcast TV has never been (and almost certainly will never be) a venue where pure/true free speech is possible. There are fairly strict and detailed guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable on UK broadcast TV and other mediums (such as broadcast radio and paid subscription/PIN access TV). Would you agree with me that free-to-air TV and radio should have restrictions on content, especially before the watershed?
As I mentioned in this post, my problem with the term "slope" was that it was being used as a racial insult, not that it was simply offensive. If there's a studio interview where a person says that, for example, the Dacia Sandero is the best car in the world and Clarkson calls them an idiot I don't have a problem with that. The word "idiot" is mildly offensive, but it would be clearly understood that it was for comic effect and it isn't directed at a specific group of people (based on race, sex, etc). See the start of this post for essentially an example of this distinction.
You may not believe me, but I do strongly believe in freedom of speech/expression. However, I think there should be sensible limits (as there are in all developed countries, as far as I'm aware). For instance, if you want to run a private comedy show which has an entrance fee and isn't being broadcast free-to-air then I believe you should be able to say pretty much whatever you like (including racist, sexist etc terms). That's why when I've mentioned comics who did this sort of thing (such as Roy Chubby Brown and Bernard Manning) I haven't said that I think they should be banned or arrested. I believe people should be free to do that sort of material but not on free-to-air public broadcast television (when it's against the broadcast regulations). That's the important thing. For instance (sorry, Godwin), I wouldn't be allowed to appear on German public television in a mock Nazi uniform with the Horst-Wessel-Song as background music and say that I thought Hitler was on to something and that he was a great guy who never really did anything bad. That's the sort of censorship that makes sense when you're on free-to-air public broadcast TV.
By the way, I'm obviously not comparing the use of the term "slope" with the above.
Last edited by amp88, .
Reason : corrected link
I just have a fundamental issue with the notion that by insulting everyone (whether it's on the basis of race, nationality, gender etc) you're not being offensive. It's just so totally illogical. How exactly does insulting everyone excuse you from the responsibility of your words?
If you say "black c*nt" you're obviously using the word "black" as part of the insult, surely? If the person you're referring to had just said "c*nt" that would still have been offensive, but it wouldn't have been racist. Similarly, if Atkinson had just said "lazy" rather than "lazy n*gger" that wouldn't have been racist (unless, as with Top Gear's Mexican remarks, the word "lazy" was being used in conjunction with the idea of a specific group of people (Mexicans or black people, for example)). Yes, I saw that people defended Atkinson in that case, but his remarks were still racist to me and to the people he worked for at the time, hence his dismissal(s).
Fair enough - one of the reasons I like Brooker so much is that he has a pretty broad range. He can go from a serious look at the way news is covered (as in Newswipe) to kind of immature punnery (as in A Touch of Cloth) with apparent ease.
Clearly it's a parody of Bernard Manning, yes. I find it the character funny because it's effectively the antithesis of Manning and proves you can be funny without being needlessly offensive (I wish Top Gear would try and learn that). If your point is that Manning is OK because his routines resulted in Righton then I disagree. I'd rather live in a world with neither Manning (or people whose comedy is like his) nor Righton than one with both.
This part of the reply is to both of the above quoted sections (as they appear to me to be making the same point, broadly):
I don't think Top Gear should make jokes about any groups based on race, physical/mental disability, sex, age, nationality etc. That is absolutely not the same as saying "don't make fun of Germans, but you can make fun of the French, people in wheelchairs and Asian women". I also fail to understand where the idea of "if you make fun of everyone you're not being offensive" comes from. By definition, if you make fun of everyone you're being offensive to everyone. If I gathered one person of each race/nationality/sex etc in a room and insulted each of them in turn would that not be offensive?
Certainly, it's possible for people to be overly-sensitive and look for offensive statements when they're not there. With Top Gear's track record, that isn't the case here though (in my opinion).
I'm not forcing you to listen to me. Ignore me if you wish. It's also strange that you think the notion of treating people fairly and trying to respect them is some form of militant moral superiority.
I agree (at least to an extent).
As I said before, I don't watch it any more, but I don't believe that means I give up the right to comment on it.
Last edited by amp88, .
Reason : fixed first quote
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG