Grand Prix Rejects

Onxy Wrecked wrote:

Hound55 wrote:Not F1, but here it goes.

I really dislike oval races in Indycar. Not because I think the are too easy, but because it all seems stupidly dangerous. They are too fast, too fragile, and too prone to getting airborne for me to feel comfortable watching. Wheldon's crash at Las Vegas really reaffirmed my distaste for open wheelers on ovals. Honestly, I really wish Indianapolis weren't so important so that there wouldn't be races there anymore.

I'm really soft when it comes to amplifying the danger factor in motorsport. I felt incredibly nervous watching the Daytona 500 after watching Kyle Larson rip an enormous hole in the fence just the day prior. Call me a wuss, but I just don't feel comfortable with there being more danger than there needs to be.

I am lucky I grew up in the modern era of racing. I don't think I could have dealt with the amount of casualties in early racing.

The Indianapolis oval is very flat at 9 degrees of banking. Las Vegas has 18-20 degrees. The dangers of IndyCar increase with the banking in the corners. Higher banking means more pack racing and more airborne cars.

Thanks for posting that because I now totally understand why indy cars don't race at Daytona, talldega and Bristol motor speedway but IIRC Fontana has 12 degrees of banking yet Gil De Ferran lapped it at 240MPH back in 2000

roblomas52 wrote:

Onxy Wrecked wrote:

Hound55 wrote:Not F1, but here it goes.

I really dislike oval races in Indycar. Not because I think the are too easy, but because it all seems stupidly dangerous. They are too fast, too fragile, and too prone to getting airborne for me to feel comfortable watching. Wheldon's crash at Las Vegas really reaffirmed my distaste for open wheelers on ovals. Honestly, I really wish Indianapolis weren't so important so that there wouldn't be races there anymore.

I'm really soft when it comes to amplifying the danger factor in motorsport. I felt incredibly nervous watching the Daytona 500 after watching Kyle Larson rip an enormous hole in the fence just the day prior. Call me a wuss, but I just don't feel comfortable with there being more danger than there needs to be.

I am lucky I grew up in the modern era of racing. I don't think I could have dealt with the amount of casualties in early racing.

The Indianapolis oval is very flat at 9 degrees of banking. Las Vegas has 18-20 degrees. The dangers of IndyCar increase with the banking in the corners. Higher banking means more pack racing and more airborne cars.

Thanks for posting that because I now totally understand why indy cars don't race at Daytona, talldega and Bristol motor speedway but IIRC Fontana has 12 degrees of banking yet Gil De Ferran lapped it at 240MPH back in 2000

A better example would be Michigan, which is banked at 18 degrees itself. But then, Michigan is wider and more suited to IndyCars than Las Vegas, which was designed specifically for NASCAR.

At least, that's how I understand it.

At Dover downs speedway I got the previous Indy car to 215MPH on the straights and 180MPH on the bends
At Nashville super speedway i got 227MPH on the front straight and 178MPH on the bends

This thread coming off the first page signifies the death of the EvdP Forum.

TheBigJ wrote:This thread coming off the first page signifies the death of the EvdP Forum.

How? If anything it signifies that the EvdP forum is more alive than ever.

roblomas52 wrote:At Dover downs speedway I got the previous Indy car to 215MPH on the straights and 180MPH on the bends
At Nashville super speedway i got 227MPH on the front straight and 178MPH on the bends

14 degrees of banking at Nashville, sounds legit.

I've got a few:

Kimi Räikkönen is Mr. Congeniality
Chanoch Nissany is the best F1 driver to have ever lived.
Kimi Räikkönen is the closest to having an actual personality out of all the F1 drivers now.
Fernando Alonso is a really bad driver.
Ricardo Rosset was very talented, but amateurish.

go_Rubens wrote:I've got a few:

Kimi Räikkönen is Mr. Congeniality
Chanoch Nissany is the best F1 driver to have ever lived.
Kimi Räikkönen is the closest to having an actual personality out of all the F1 drivers now.
Fernando Alonso is a really bad driver.
Ricardo Rosset was very talented, but amateurish.

Unless you can actually back those up, that's just you coming up with random crap. Not actual opinions.

go_Rubens wrote:Kimi Räikkönen is the closest to having an actual personality out of all the F1 drivers now.

Some people like him, some people don't, but both sides agree he has a noticeable personality....

go_Rubens wrote:Chanoch Nissany is the best F1 driver to have ever lived.

If this is your actual opinion, you're either drunk, stoned or certifiable.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

go_Rubens wrote:I've got a few:

Kimi Räikkönen is Mr. Congeniality
Chanoch Nissany is the best F1 driver to have ever lived.
Kimi Räikkönen is the closest to having an actual personality out of all the F1 drivers now.
Fernando Alonso is a really bad driver.
Ricardo Rosset was very talented, but amateurish.

Unless you can actually back those up, that's just you coming up with random crap. Not actual opinions.

Riccardo Rosset was very talented at being amateurish, so that is NOT just random crap. For shame.

go_Rubens wrote:I've got a few:

Kimi Räikkönen is Mr. Congeniality
Chanoch Nissany is the best F1 driver to have ever lived.
Kimi Räikkönen is the closest to having an actual personality out of all the F1 drivers now.
Fernando Alonso is a really bad driver.
Ricardo Rosset was very talented, but amateurish.

Is it opposite day?

Onxy Wrecked wrote:

go_Rubens wrote:I've got a few:

Kimi Räikkönen is Mr. Congeniality
Chanoch Nissany is the best F1 driver to have ever lived.
Kimi Räikkönen is the closest to having an actual personality out of all the F1 drivers now.
Fernando Alonso is a really bad driver.
Ricardo Rosset was very talented, but amateurish.

Is it opposite day?

I am opposite. Since my opinions are opposite of others, my opinions are unpopular, right?

[quote="tagaki_for_the_win]If this is your opinion, you're either drunk or certifiable.[/quote]

I was trying to joke, but I obviously haven't remembered that joking is undetectable on the Internet without an emoticon of some sort, so I apologize for that.

go_Rubens wrote:

Onxy Wrecked wrote:

go_Rubens wrote:I've got a few:

Kimi Räikkönen is Mr. Congeniality
Chanoch Nissany is the best F1 driver to have ever lived.
Kimi Räikkönen is the closest to having an actual personality out of all the F1 drivers now.
Fernando Alonso is a really bad driver.
Ricardo Rosset was very talented, but amateurish.

Is it opposite day?

I am opposite. Since my opinions are opposite of others, my opinions are unpopular, right?

I don't believe those are your actual opinions.

[quote="BlindCaveSalamander"II don't believe those are your actual opinions.[/quote]

As I told tagaki_ for_ the_ win, I tried to joke about one of them (Nissany.) Read my reply to Tagaki.

As for others, I don't see how they're not believable.

go_Rubens wrote:As I told tagaki_ for_ the_ win, I tried to joke about one of them (Nissany.) Read my reply to Tagaki.

As for others, I don't see how they're not believable.

Kimi Räikkönen is the closest to having an actual personality out of all the F1 drivers now.
Fernando Alonso is a really bad driver.

Really? Really now?

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

go_Rubens wrote:As I told tagaki_ for_ the_ win, I tried to joke about one of them (Nissany.) Read my reply to Tagaki.

As for others, I don't see how they're not believable.

Kimi Räikkönen is the closest to having an actual personality out of all the F1 drivers now.
Fernando Alonso is a really bad driver.

Really? Really now?

What I'm trying to say is that most if not all F1 drivers don't have a personality

What I'm also trying to say is Alonso is bad. Why, you might ask? Alonso is good on the racetrack, but I think he fails almost everywhere else. In an interview after the Crashgate saga, he said he still deserved the win, which ticked me off because no one should win a race the way he did. In interviews elsewhere, he has been fairly arrogant. Arrogant race drivers I don't like at all and he is arrogant. About the only things he can do well is drive.

go_Rubens wrote:What I'm trying to say is that most if not all F1 drivers don't have a personality

If there's one thing that gets on my nerves it's people who say F1 drivers lack personalities. To quote myself on this subject:

Not everybody in F1 is going to be super interesting because, holy crap, not everybody in the world is super interesting! It's almost like they're actual people and not, you know, actors playing a part! Who knew! And besides, there are plenty of distinguishable personalities on the grid - Jenson Button, Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel, Mark Webber, Fernando Alonso, Kimi Raikkonen, Michael Schumacher, Pastor Maldonado... need I go on? If anything, I think there are more distinguishable people on the grid now than most other periods in F1.

go_Rubens wrote:What I'm also trying to say is Alonso is bad. Why, you might ask? Alonso is good on the racetrack, but I think he fails almost everywhere else. In an interview after the Crashgate saga, he said he still deserved the win, which ticked me off because no one should win a race the way he did. In interviews elsewhere, he has been fairly arrogant. Arrogant race drivers I don't like at all and he is arrogant. About the only things he can do well is drive.

So what you're saying is he's a bad person, but a good driver. In other words, exactly the opposite of what you purport is your "opinion". I think you'll find this is also far from an unpopular opinion.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

go_Rubens wrote:What I'm trying to say is that most if not all F1 drivers don't have a personality

If there's one thing that gets on my nerves it's people who say F1 drivers lack personalities. To quote myself on this subject:

Not everybody in F1 is going to be super interesting because, holy crap, not everybody in the world is super interesting! It's almost like they're actual people and not, you know, actors playing a part! Who knew! And besides, there are plenty of distinguishable personalities on the grid - Jenson Button, Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel, Mark Webber, Fernando Alonso, Kimi Raikkonen, Michael Schumacher, Pastor Maldonado... need I go on? If anything, I think there are more distinguishable people on the grid now than most other periods in F1.

go_Rubens wrote:What I'm also trying to say is Alonso is bad. Why, you might ask? Alonso is good on the racetrack, but I think he fails almost everywhere else. In an interview after the Crashgate saga, he said he still deserved the win, which ticked me off because no one should win a race the way he did. In interviews elsewhere, he has been fairly arrogant. Arrogant race drivers I don't like at all and he is arrogant. About the only things he can do well is drive.

So what you're saying is he's a bad person, but a good driver. In other words, exactly the opposite of what you purport is your "opinion". I think you'll find this is also far from an unpopular opinion.

He is a bad F1 driver in general. All aspects put together.

go_Rubens wrote:Fernando Alonso is a really bad driver.

go_Rubens wrote:Alonso is good on the racetrack

go_Rubens wrote:He's a bad F1 driver in general. All aspects put together.

go_Rubens wrote:About the only things he can do well is drive.

aaaaaaaa my head whyyyyyyyy


All the things you are saying against Alonso relate to off-track conduct. Last time I checked, what made a good F1 driver wasn't how he acted, it was his on-track results. Which, as you have already stated, are generally very good.

I think Ricardo Zonta is a very unlucky driver. He was basically stuck in not so good cars in BAR and Toyota. He is a good sportscar driver and was pretty good during the junior years.

Ben Purse wrote:I think Ricardo Zonta is a very unlucky driver. He was basically stuck in not so good cars in BAR and Toyota. He is a good sportscar driver and was pretty good during the junior years.

I agree.

Indycar is more competitive than F1.

darkapprentice77 wrote:
Indycar is more competitive than F1.

It's Penske vs. Ganassi every year for the most part. This recent season with Ganassi's poor performance is an aberration. More passing, but the same two teams as leading contenders all the time.

If Williams had retained the same package for 1998 as they'd had in previous seasons Jacques Villeneuve would've beaten both Schumacher and Hakkinen to the title.

CoopsII wrote:If Williams had retained the same package for 1998 as they'd had in previous seasons Jacques Villeneuve would've beaten both Schumacher and Hakkinen to the title.

Villeneuve would've lost them the title. He almost did so in 1997. He is a very ordinary driver.

Besides, the McLaren that year was awesome.

TheBigJ wrote:

CoopsII wrote:If Williams had retained the same package for 1998 as they'd had in previous seasons Jacques Villeneuve would've beaten both Schumacher and Hakkinen to the title.

Villeneuve would've lost them the title. He almost did so in 1997. He is a very ordinary driver.

Besides, the McLaren that year was awesome.

There was no way Williams could have kept their 1997 package into 1998, because of the big technical changes that happened at the end of the season, what with the grooved tyres and narrower width of the cars.

East Londoner wrote:There was no way Williams could have kept their 1997 package into 1998, because of the big technical changes that happened at the end of the season, what with the grooved tyres and narrower width of the cars.

Well I know that matey but thats why I said 'If'. Im still a believer (or should it be Villeneuviever?) that at that point in his career Jacques was still a good driver and 'if' the Williams car had maintained its level of superiority he couldve competed with the Ferrari and McLaren.

Of course, if we continue the fantasy for another season that puts Ralf into a championship winning opportunity So perhaps its best I stop!

Gilles Villeneuve was overrated. Before you criticise me for that, just think about how many mistakes he made.

Belegur wrote:Gilles Villeneuve was overrated. Before you criticise me for that, just think about how many mistakes he made.

Well he won roughly 10% of the races he started so if he'd had a full career, mistakes or not, he was looking good for titles and records. Of course, because of his well known driving style and the fact we lost him young his legend perpetuates.

But then, you knew all that, didnt you?

CoopsII wrote:

Belegur wrote:Gilles Villeneuve was overrated. Before you criticise me for that, just think about how many mistakes he made.

Well he won roughly 10% of the races he started so if he'd had a full career, mistakes or not, he was looking good for titles and records. Of course, because of his well known driving style and the fact we lost him young his legend perpetuates.

But then, you knew all that, didnt you?

Looking at Gilles's record, it does seem that he wasn't necessarily that much more accident prone than some of his contemporary drivers either.

A quick look at StatsF1 shows that Gilles was listed as retiring due to driver error 9 times in his career, or about 13.2% of the time - fairly high, but on the other hand Jody Scheckter, his team mate at Ferrari, retired from 14 of his 114 races due to driver error, so his error rate of 12.3% is only marginally better (and, as a young man, Scheckter was considered the more dangerous driver of the two - the GPDA wanted him banned from F1 at one point and he was nicknamed "Sideways Scheckter" because of his wild and ragged driving style early in his career).

Alan Jones , Clay Regazzoni and Nelson Piquet were other fairly competitive drivers at or near the front of the field at about the same time with fairly high accident rates too - Jones on 12.0% (14 from 117 races), 13.6% for Regazzoni (19 from 140 races) and 13.9% for Piquet Sr. (29 from 208). So, even despite his reasonably high accident rate, with a competitive enough car he could also have stood a fairly decent chance of taking the title too given that quite a few other drivers either took the title or came quite close despite having similarly high, or even marginally higher, accident rates across their careers too.

If the definition of being 'good' is not making errors and collecting a rack of points for the championship, then it must be said Gilles never even wanted to be 'good'...

giraurd wrote:If the definition of being 'good' is not making errors and collecting a rack of points for the championship, then it must be said Gilles never even wanted to be 'good'...

This. There is more than one way to be a good F1 driver.

Belegur wrote:Gilles Villeneuve was overrated. Before you criticise me for that, just think about how many mistakes he made.

Bruno Giacomelli:

“You have to make the distinction between early in his career and later. Those who talk about Gilles as crazy, I think they got it wrong. You must remember that he had no real experience when he first came into F1. I mean, he didn’t even have international experience, just Formula Atlantic in Canada & North America. He had to learn so much more than the rest of us brought up on racing in Europe. If you think, he came to F1 without any international experience, he had to learn the tracks as well as all about F1 – and with all the pressure of being a Ferrari driver.

Of course he made mistakes! There were only two possible outcomes in that situation, no matter how talented you were. You would either not have been quick enough or you would have accidents. And if you’re not quick enough, you’re not going to get to stay in F1. So there was only one option. I think he did incredibly well. Jesus, he almost won one of his first races! (Long Beach 1978)”

Source: Motor Sport Magazine, April 2002, page 27.

I’ll try & keep this short & sweet, since I’ve written a few posts in the past in response to similar concerns about Gilles. But I’ll quote an previous post of mine;

ibsey wrote:And here’s a few quotes from the people who really matter (i.e. those in F1) on how they saw, for example GV;

"Gilles was the last great driver. The rest of us are just a bunch of good professionals."
- Alain Prost, 1982


"I have just been defeated by this Villeneuve. He is really extraordinary, you should employ him"
James Hunt, to the Marlboro racing manager


"He is a bit strange but he surely is a phenomenon."
- Nelson Piquet


"I think Ferrari has a great driver".
- Enzo Ferrari after battle with Arnoux


"He was the craziest devil I ever came across in Formula 1... The fact that, for all this, he was a sensitive and lovable character rather than an out-and-out hell-raiser made him such a unique human being".
- Niki Lauda


"This is typical of Gilles. We are to recognize that he never surrenders."
- Alan Jones after the Canadian GP


"I will miss Gilles for two reasons. First, he was the fastest driver in the history of motor racing. Second, he was the most genuine man I have ever known. But he has not gone. The memory of what he has done, what he achieved, will always be there."
- Jody Scheckter's eulogy

"He will remain as a member of the family of the truly great drivers in auto racing history. He did not race to finish. He did not race for points. He raced to win. He was small in stature, but he was a giant."
- Juan Manuel Fangio


"I know no human being can do miracles but Gilles could really surprise us sometimes."
- Jacques Laffite

Like I say they are all from people in F1, therefore those whose opinion really matters. The thing is during Gilles time in F1 he & along with most F1 insiders knew he was the quickest & most talented driver around. As stated in my earlier post that was all that really mattered to him.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3559&hilit=gilles&start=1240

So did all these people (most of whom don’t usually give out compliments easily) all overrate Gilles as well?

mario wrote:A quick look at StatsF1 shows that Gilles was listed as retiring due to driver error 9 times in his career, or about 13.2% of the time - fairly high, but on the other hand Jody Scheckter, his team mate at Ferrari, retired from 14 of his 114 races due to driver error, so his error rate of 12.3% is only marginally better (and, as a young man, Scheckter was considered the more dangerous driver of the two - the GPDA wanted him banned from F1 at one point and he was nicknamed "Sideways Scheckter" because of his wild and ragged driving style early in his career).

Alan Jones , Clay Regazzoni and Nelson Piquet were other fairly competitive drivers at or near the front of the field at about the same time with fairly high accident rates too - Jones on 12.0% (14 from 117 races), 13.6% for Regazzoni (19 from 140 races) and 13.9% for Piquet Sr. (29 from 208). So, even despite his reasonably high accident rate, with a competitive enough car he could also have stood a fairly decent chance of taking the title too given that quite a few other drivers either took the title or came quite close despite having similarly high, or even marginally higher, accident rates across their careers too.

In regards to the above interesting stats kindly provided by Mario, it is worth remembering that out of all those drivers mentioned Gilles is the only one amongst them to have his career cut short early. When he was relatively young. IIRC Gilles was 32 years old when he was killed. Clay was what 40 years old when he had his career ending crash? And the others drove until they were around 40 years old (ish).

Therefore since one would expect a driver in his earlier years to make more mistakes, than in comparison to his latter years. Not least because of the lack of experience. Schetcker & Alesi being prime examples of this (i.e. on the face of it they seemed much less mistake prone in their latter years). Therefore I would suggest that above comparison is not quite a fair one.

Since the statistic of Gilles’ retirement rate due to driver error of 13.2% is likely to be abnormally higher than it would have been, had Gilles driven in F1 until he was around 40 years old (like all those other drivers in the above comparison). In other words, Gilles is the only one amongst them never to have got to his ‘latter’ (more experienced thus less mistake prone) years. Also worth remembering that Gilles had less than 5 years F1 experience when he was killed. Whereas all those other drivers in the comparison had much greater of experience F1 than Gilles.

As we have considered Gilles’ mistakes, now let’s consider this; Watkins Glen 1979; wet qualifying as Wikipedia states; ‘Villeneuve was fastest by over nine seconds! Scheckter, second fastest, thought he was mad, but was also quite in awe of the Canadian's performance in the conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Unite ... Grand_Prix). Not aware of another qualifying session where one driver is 9 seconds quicker than anyone else on a 3.37 mile circuit?

Monaco 1980; a late race downpour. Villenuve was faster than anyone else by 5 seconds – in the hopeless 312T5. He also got the T5 up to 3rd place at Zandvoort 1980 (in a field of FW07s, BT49s, Ligiers & Renualts) and led with it at Brazil 1980 setting the second fastest lap. Remember the reigning WDC Jody Schecker failed to qualify the T5 at Canada 1980, that’s how bad that car was.

In 1981 Gilles outqualified Pironi by an average of 0.62 seconds. Five times that year he put more than a second between himself and Pironi in the acid test of quali. At Monaco it was 2.48 seconds!. Gilles also finished a lap ahead of his teammate, on his way to victory at Monte Carlo in 1981. Recently got the 1983, 84 & 85 F1 mods for rFactor (not sure if any 1980 / 1981 / 1982 F1 mods exist?).

But anyway driving those 1980’s F1 turbo beasts, only then does it becomes apparent just how massive an achievement Gilles 1981 Monte Carlo victory was. As the turbo lag means throttle response is massively reduced. IIRC according to GV’s biography the 126CK turbo lag was in the region of 1 second. Which is not what you want on a track like Monte Carlo where instance throttle response is absolutely vital. I cannot even begin to describe the level of concentration that must of been required in Monaco 1981.

Also worth remembering that in 1981 Pironi never once made it onto the front row or achieved a podium. Villeneuve’s respective tallies were twice & thrice among them perhaps F1’s most improbably back to back victories. In my experience, driving a good car to victory is not nearly as difficult as dragging out a performance from a poor car (hence why I have focused on 1980 & 1981 above).

If you think any of that is going to change my view, you're sadly mistaken. He's only revered now because he's dead. Just like Senna, who somehow changed from the dirtiest cheat in the history of the sport to suddenly a godlike figure.

These are all opinions, after all. Unpopular ones. Just accept the fact that neither you, nor any external party, can alter them in any way, and move on.

Belegur wrote:If you think any of that is going to change my view, you're sadly mistaken. He's only revered now because he's dead. Just like Senna, who somehow changed from the dirtiest cheat in the history of the sport to suddenly a godlike figure.

These are all opinions, after all. Unpopular ones. Just accept the fact that neither you, nor any external party, can alter them in any way, and move on.

Somehow I doubt you ever saw Gilles race. But whatever.

I've watched Gilles race in many different races. On many occasions did he surprise me and was just an extraordinary driver.

Some people actually think that Gilles killed himself because of his feud with Pironi, which I think is unpopular and it sounds wrong in every way. I simply don't understand that opinion, one which I don't have.

Belegur wrote:Just like Senna, who somehow changed from the dirtiest cheat in the history of the sport to suddenly a godlike figure.

I think he was revered by many, many people in Brazil alone before his death but perhaps you missed that.

Nobody wants to change your opinion; you post an opinion and people respond. That's how it generally goes. Chill your boots.

Belegur wrote:If you think any of that is going to change my view, you're sadly mistaken. He's only revered now because he's dead. Just like Senna, who somehow changed from the dirtiest cheat in the history of the sport to suddenly a godlike figure.

These are all opinions, after all. Unpopular ones. Just accept the fact that neither you, nor any external party, can alter them in any way, and move on.

In which case, strictly speaking, what you are arguing is what you perceive to be axiomatic rather than an opinion, since the very definition of an opinion is that it can be changed by the presentation of new information that leads to a different conclusion.

mario wrote:

Belegur wrote:If you think any of that is going to change my view, you're sadly mistaken. He's only revered now because he's dead. Just like Senna, who somehow changed from the dirtiest cheat in the history of the sport to suddenly a godlike figure.

These are all opinions, after all. Unpopular ones. Just accept the fact that neither you, nor any external party, can alter them in any way, and move on.

In which case, strictly speaking, what you are arguing is what you perceive to be axiomatic rather than an opinion, since the very definition of an opinion is that it can be changed by the presentation of new information that leads to a different conclusion.

Axiomatic? Never heard of that. Guess you do learn something new everyday after all...

Belegur wrote:If you think any of that is going to change my view, you're sadly mistaken.

In which case, please don’t let my facts get in the way of your warped views then.

Belegur wrote: He's only revered now because he's dead.

You seriously think that? Then perhaps you would like to explain to me why Jacques Laffite who according to Nigel Roebuck was ‘plainly moved’ by Gilles abilities during quali at Watkins Glen 1979. Said the following, when Gilles was very much alive;

"Why do we bother? He's different from the rest of us - On another level..."

There are plenty more quotes or stories like this (all of which where made when Gilles was alive) I can point to if you want. Furthermore Depaillier, Paletti, De Angelis & Ratzenberger also were killed in F1 cars. Yet they don’t seemed to be revered quite to the same level as Gilles. Care to explain this also?

Belegur wrote:These are all opinions, after all. Unpopular ones. Just accept the fact that neither you, nor any external party, can alter them in any way, and move on.

Don’t worry I won’t lose any sleep about it. I just find curious why you posted what you did then, if you are going to be like that? It screams of trying to seek attention to me. How you interpret the facts I have provided, is up to you.