This is chucklesome (warning: Seb/Webb content)

This is chucklesome (warning: Seb/Webb content)

Post by Bobste » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:19:48


http://thepitstopblog.com/2013/03/24/orders-are-orders-but-who-was-in...

"After 40 action-filled laps of the race, Webber was in front, and
managed to squeeze in a pit-stop without even losing a position.
However, just as he came out, he ended up alonsgide Vettel, who then
disobeyed team orders to let the Australian stay in front."

So THAT is what Seb was apologising for. He let Webber into the lead
against team orders.

No wonder he had some explaining to do.

You have to admit, it's a novel interpretation.

 
 
 

This is chucklesome (warning: Seb/Webb content)

Post by Edmun » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:09:59

Quote:

> http://thepitstopblog.com/2013/03/24/orders-are-orders-but-who-was-in-
the-wrong/

> "After 40 action-filled laps of the race, Webber was in front, and
> managed to squeeze in a pit-stop without even losing a position.
> However, just as he came out, he ended up alonsgide Vettel, who then
> disobeyed team orders to let the Australian stay in front."

> So THAT is what Seb was apologising for. He let Webber into the lead
> against team orders.

> No wonder he had some explaining to do.

> You have to admit, it's a novel interpretation.

Don't worry next race RB will switch off Webbers Kers again! and take his
front wing off again!, just to make sure he never wins.

Edmund

 
 
 

This is chucklesome (warning: Seb/Webb content)

Post by AC » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:45:33

Quote:

> http://thepitstopblog.com/2013/03/24/orders-are-orders-but-who-was-in...

> "After 40 action-filled laps of the race, Webber was in front, and
> managed to squeeze in a pit-stop without even losing a position.

This is F1. The pits know the exact position of every car on the track.
They know where their cars will return to the track. There is no managed
to squeeze about it.

Quote:
> However, just as he came out, he ended up alonsgide Vettel, who then
> disobeyed team orders to let the Australian stay in front."

So, Vettel was ordered to go for a racing over take while Webber was on
cold tyres, right? He was *ordered* to do so? Horner was on the radio,
ordering that? Then later on Horner was back on the radio telling him
the opposite?

Or does this "order" really mean his engineer encouraging him to go for it?

Quote:

> So THAT is what Seb was apologising for. He let Webber into the lead
> against team orders.

Yeah, right.

Quote:

> No wonder he had some explaining to do.

> You have to admit, it's a novel interpretation.

Novel? It's the biggest book of shit I have read yet. Shame, 3 days ago
it might have been funny!!!!!

--
AC

 
 
 

This is chucklesome (warning: Seb/Webb content)

Post by ~misfit » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 20:12:20


Quote:
> http://thepitstopblog.com/2013/03/24/orders-are-orders-but-who-was-in...

> "After 40 action-filled laps of the race, Webber was in front, and
> managed to squeeze in a pit-stop without even losing a position.
> However, just as he came out, he ended up alonsgide Vettel, who then
> disobeyed team orders to let the Australian stay in front."

> So THAT is what Seb was apologising for. He let Webber into the lead
> against team orders.

> No wonder he had some explaining to do.

> You have to admit, it's a novel interpretation.

I'll admit that the sentence-structure of that blog is a bit strange but I
fear you've misinterpreted it. Vettel *then* disobeyed team orders [which
were*] to let Webber stay in front - by passing him two laps later. (As the
blog goes on to explain.)

[*] I added as the writer left it out, thinking it could be taken as read.
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

 
 
 

This is chucklesome (warning: Seb/Webb content)

Post by Bobste » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 20:33:25


Quote:

> >http://thepitstopblog.com/2013/03/24/orders-are-orders-but-who-was-in...

> > "After 40 action-filled laps of the race, Webber was in front, and
> > managed to squeeze in a pit-stop without even losing a position.
> > However, just as he came out, he ended up alonsgide Vettel, who then
> > disobeyed team orders to let the Australian stay in front."

> > So THAT is what Seb was apologising for. He let Webber into the lead
> > against team orders.

> > No wonder he had some explaining to do.

> > You have to admit, it's a novel interpretation.

> I'll admit that the sentence-structure of that blog is a bit strange but I
> fear you've misinterpreted it. Vettel *then* disobeyed team orders [which
> were*] to let Webber stay in front - by passing him two laps later. (As the
> blog goes on to explain.)

Nah. "who then disobeyed team orders to let the Australian stay in
front" is clear enough. Though there is a contradiction between that
sentence and the one further down that you refer to.

Most likely scenario: The blogger needs a clue fairly badly.

 
 
 

This is chucklesome (warning: Seb/Webb content)

Post by Bigbir » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 23:22:58

http://thepitstopblog.com/2013/03/24/orders-are-orders-but-who-was-in...

Quote:

> "After 40 action-filled laps of the race, Webber was in front, and
> managed to squeeze in a pit-stop without even losing a position.
> However, just as he came out, he ended up alonsgide Vettel, who then
> disobeyed team orders to let the Australian stay in front."

> So THAT is what Seb was apologising for. He let Webber into the lead
> against team orders.

> No wonder he had some explaining to do.

> You have to admit, it's a novel

mis-interpretation.
 
 
 

This is chucklesome (warning: Seb/Webb content)

Post by AC » Sat, 06 Apr 2013 09:50:43

Quote:


> http://thepitstopblog.com/2013/03/24/orders-are-orders-but-who-was-in...

>> "After 40 action-filled laps of the race, Webber was in front, and
>> managed to squeeze in a pit-stop without even losing a position.
>> However, just as he came out, he ended up alonsgide Vettel, who then
>> disobeyed team orders to let the Australian stay in front."

>> So THAT is what Seb was apologising for. He let Webber into the lead
>> against team orders.

>> No wonder he had some explaining to do.

>> You have to admit, it's a novel

> mis-interpretation.

FFS. OK then, a book....

--
AC

 
 
 

This is chucklesome (warning: Seb/Webb content)

Post by larki » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:25:39

Quote:


> http://thepitstopblog.com/2013/03/24/orders-are-orders-but-who-was-in...

> > "After 40 action-filled laps of the race, Webber was in front, and

> > managed to squeeze in a pit-stop without even losing a position.

> > However, just as he came out, he ended up alonsgide Vettel, who then

> > disobeyed team orders to let the Australian stay in front."

"disobeyed team orders to let the Australian stay in front" - as in "disobeyed team orders [by letting] the Australian stay in front"

OR

"disobeyed team orders to let the Australian stay in front" - as in "disobeyed team orders [which were to let] the Australian stay in front"

I think it's clear which was meant.  But no wonder some people find English a difficult language to fully grasp the subtleties of.

Matt