U
UCLAN
I gave you your requested info. Where's my meal?
TNZ has a couple of days to think it over.
TNZ has a couple of days to think it over.
M
~misfit~
UCLAN said:
I'm sure I was the last to post in the thread?
Anyway, after your anecdote about the <forgets name of American 'sport'>
thing I wasn't sure it'd be productive to further discuss certain aspects of
the AC, specifically the appeal. Especially as I've found out quite a bit
more about that.
Race 6 was a nail-biter. Came down to whoever picked the right side, either
by "reading" the weather (pretty had to do accurately in those conditions)
or by luck. Race 5, what can I say? A blown gennaker (sp?), losing the end
of the second once it had been attached to the halyard and the grinders
started hoisting too soon due to confusion, then not having another halyard
for the third kite so having to retrieve one...
IMO there's nothing really to think over. It's just go out there and race.
The promised sea breeze hasn't made a proper appearance so it's a crap-shoot
as to who has the right side of the course and has made the best sail
choice.
Certainly looks like Alinghi have had most of the luck so far and will
probably progress to win the cup.
Cheers,
U
UCLAN
~misfit~ said:
You asked me questions about the protest (not an appeal) and promised a
dinner if the protest talked about the crewman's leg. I posted a great
deal directly from the protest that basically earned me that dinner. It
is stored at Google Groups if you wish to read it.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
175 lines so get comfortable.
Consensus was that Dean Barker tacked before TNZ was back to full speed
on the second windward leg. He could even be heard saying "Sorry, guys"
to his crew. Alinghi took the lead, and held on to it on the last
leeward leg. Butterworth's decision not to match TNZ's last jibe to port
was also mentioned. He increased the lead to back over 100 meters, where
he had been losing about 25 meters per jibe.
I'm sure a lot of "shoulda" and "coulda" thoughts are going through
their heads. I'm sure that the TNZ brain trust would rather be out
racing rather than thinking of the misfortune for two days.
M
~misfit~
UCLAN said:
Apologies. It didn't make it to my ISP's news server. I just read it via
Google. You like your steak the same way I do. Shame I haven't had one for
while, I'll share my 2-minute noodles with you though. <g>
You're right, I was wrong, it was about the kick. And make no mistake, the
sail was kicked to make it release from the lock. Most people who say the
incident agree. NZTV (based in Valencia) was showing a replay of it after
the jury decision and an AC representative instructed the director to cut
the replay just after Pieter Van Nieuwenhuyzen spread his arms. He actually
stopped the footage being re-shown. Why would he do that one wonders? I have
it on tape as i wanted to re-view the insident. Just before the kick it cut
back to the studio and caught the commentator unawares. He said that it'd
happened because the director had been given instructions to stop the replay
and mused, wondered if we'd ever see the footage again.
As for your comment about one of the jury being a New Zealander, once again
you're being disingenuous. Brad Butterworth is a New Zealander, does that
mean he would agree with a TNZ protest? There's no doubt about it, there's
been a cover-up. The idea of being able to drop the mast without a man aloft
is a safety issue right? Surely then Alinghi's asking for permission to put
a man aloft so he could attach the spinnaker halyard to the mainsail as an
uncontrolled drop could be dangerous shows that their emergency mainsail
drop wouldn't *be* safe.
Ho-hum.
Yeah, that symetrical spinnaker was a beauty to jibe compred with Alinghi
doing their usual outside jibe in fairly light winds. Funny that they
persist with that when all the syndicates in the LV cup were doing inside
jibes in conditions under about 8-9 knots as it proved to be several seconds
quicker than floating the kite out and around.
Oh, did you know what damaged the kite that blew out? TNZ had just had a new
coat of non-slip paint put on the foredeck and it was friction against that
which caused the initial hole.
It's a tough call to have to win three in a row. Oh well, either way, both
boats are skippered by a New Zealander so, in a way, we win whatever the
outcome. <g>
U
UCLAN
~misfit~ said:
"Most people" ? Or "most people" in New Zealand? Methinks you are
getting too much of a NZ slant on this incident. Outside of your
comments, I have seen no cries of a bad decision by The Jury, and
certainly no cries of a cover-up.
And this is according to whom? And confirmed by whom?
No, just realistic. You are claiming that your theory is valid based
upon the non-unanimous vote of The Jury. I am merely pointing out that
since The Jury contains a New Zealander, your claim is not necessarily
valid. Having both a Kiwi and a Swiss official on The Jury just about
guarantees all the protests will have non-unanimous votes.
Brad Butterworth was hired by the opposition. Same as Chris Dickson.
They both have different loyalties now. Graham McKenzie has no such
loyalty dilemmas.
Are you suggesting that Graham McKenzie voted against the protest?
And maybe Switzerland's Henry Peter voted in favor?
There's plenty of doubt about it outside New Zealand. NOT ONE news
organization outside of NZ has even mentioned the possibility of a
cover-up. And even inside NZ, the theory of cover up is far from
widespread. [NZ media is easily accessible via the Internet.]
The great AC cover-up, right along side the lunar landing cover-up,
the "grassy knoll" theorists, the 9/11 conspiracy wackos, and even
the "Amazing Race producers intervened" whiners. And about something
that had ZERO to do about the races themselves.
My feelings, too.
Considering the fragile nature of the sails (in the name of reducing
weight), one could cause havoc with a well placed pellet gun or even
a slingshot in the spectator fleet. Talk about your conspiracies!
The winning boat will have a US sailor at the helm. <g>
M
~misfit~
UCLAN said:
Most people interviewed by the TVNZ crew in Valencia. They say that, fair
enough, it wasn't upheld, but that there was certainly a case to answer.
Obviously there are certain things that they can't say,
Acording to the anchor in the TVNZ studio who was live on-air when it
happened. The replay was cut off and the feed went back to the studio. I
have it on VHS, (I don't think I've taped over it..) if you like I can try
to put it on DVD, then rip it to Xvid and put it somewhere for you to watch?
Grrr! Just checked and I left the tape in after looking at it last night
before replying to you, I taped a BBC world programme overnight over it.
(Click) No, I'm not a liar, but say what you will. From your previous
comments I expect some derogatory comparison....
They say that you can tell a lot about a person by the way the judges
others. It's obvious that you think that it's inconcievable that Graham
McKenzie voted against the protest because of where he was born. That
there's no way he could have voted the other way.
My take is that there are quite a few people in the world who can rise above
things like that and vote their conscience, regardless of nationality.
How we see the world shows others how we think of ourselves.
Exactly! Unless I get this whole jury concept wrong. Is it supposed to be an
impartial international jury or a group of advocates? If the former then,
yes, the scenario you posit is quite feasible. If the latter then you're
probably right.
The NZ media aren't stupid. As the stopping of the replay coverage showed,
if you don't play the game with the AC officials you get cut off. They
didn't come right out and say that there was a cover-up, they just presented
a lot of evidence and allowed the viewer to make up his own mind. I'm not
talking about internet or print media here, I'm talking about the grew in
Valencia, the live TV broadcast.
In the post that I didn't see here, that I Googled, you said:
"The US television gets the same pool audio and video feeds as everyone
else. It would be a mess if each country fitted the yachts with their own
cameras and microphones. We hear (and see) the course change announcements,
as well as the acknowledgments. Our commentators vary from day to day, but
Peter Isler is there every day, Paul Cayard spent a day or two there, there
are two commentators in a boat following the action, and interviews with
crew members of various AC teams."
Obviously you don't realise then that you're wrong. Yes, we probably all get
the same feeds off the boats. However, do you have a large chunk of the
commentary done by Peter (PJ) Montgomery and guest presenter (for the last
four races it's been Jimmy Spithill, previously it's been many folks,
including Torvin Graele (sp?) and Russel Coutts (sp?)) from on-board the
boat Northstar? Is your commentary team lead by John MacBeth? Do you see and
hear PJ putting in cellphone calls to Peter (Luigi) Reggio (the guy who sets
the course etc) and getting information from him? (They're obviously
friends, they call each other "PJ" and "Luigi").
The answer is no, I'll provide it for you in case this is one of the parts
of my message that you snip. We get a different feed from the rest of the
world. Some of the footage of the race is obviously the same but the
commentators are different and the sections where they cut to Northstar are,
I think, exclusive to NZ. I could be wrong about that last part. Have you
had Jimmy Spithill commentating?
(See:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/sport_minisite_index_skin/sport_americas_cup_group
for a shot of the studio that our commentary comes from and details of what
we see.)
In short we have a large contingent of TVNZ camera men and sundry broadcast
crew in Valencia, we get a considerably different feed to the rest of the
world.
They interviewed a whole bunch of folks, including the international
commentary team. Apparently a NZ guy on the international English-speaking
commentary team has been "warned" about his comments about the protest.
These guys obviously can't speak their minds and, as the replay being pulled
showed, can't broadcast what they want to either.
Once again you resort to subtle argumentum ad hominem. It does you no
favours.
Why do you insist on this innuendo? I'm not talking about a conspiracy. TNZ
had the bow section of the boat painted and anti-slip coated the night
before the spinnaker blew out. In their de-brief and investigation they
examined the blown sail and, from the scuffing of the sail and the position
of the initial hole their shore crew concluded that they new, rough
anti-slip coating combined with the speed that the sail was hoisted caused
the sail to be holed and subsequently blow out.
Conspiracy? What are you on? If your argument isn't good enough to stand on
it's own without incessant references to anecdotes about horses and JFK then
that says a lot in itself.
Perhaps so.
U
UCLAN
~misfit~ said:
Hmmm...trying to decipher that last sentence. Who are these people
that can't say something. Are these spectators, or participants?
Crew members or support staff? From NZ? From where? Odd that no other
media besides TVNZ found these people.
The anchor said that an AC rep came into the studio and prohibited them
from completing the replay? TVNZ has lousy security if they let anyone
into their studio.
You have on VHS an AC official telling TVNZ to stop showing a replay?
Shucks. I thought I'd have a DVD of A) TVNZ's security allowing a non
employee into their control bay, and B) the same individual telling
TVNZ what they can and cannot show on their program.
Not what I said. I said *your* claim that the protest must have had
merit because "one or two of the jury members agreed" with you is not
a realistic claim since the Jury had a NZ member. Whether Mr. McKenzie
is fair and impartial is irrelevant. Over the last 4 or so ACs, you can
count on one hand the number of times a Jury member has voted against
his own country. Did it happen this time? Dunno, but I really doubt it.
The same as any jury. Listen to the evidence provided, decide who you
believe and who you don't, and issue a verdict based upon the law (or
in this case, the rules.) The BIG difference is two of these jury
members have to fly home and live with one of the sides. Makes their
decision on who to believe a little less straight forward. Why they
have residents of the competing countries on the jury is the big
question.
I'm talking about ANY media: TV, radio, newspaper, magazine, ANYTHING.
Usually a good conspiracy theory is not as stealth as is this one. And
until you get a little more specific than "as the stopping of the replay
coverage showed" (I still would like to know what YOU actually saw), I
will be very slow to warm to this one.
As you stated earlier, just the facts please.
That was what I was relating.
Our main "celebrity" commentator is Peter Isler, veteran of many ACs and
victor in two. He is a long time friend of "Luigi". In fact, he went to
college with him and sailed with him then and many times since. As I
wrote above, Paul Cayard was the guest commentator for one or two races,
and there have been others as well (I didn't know it was necessary to
keep a list.) Two other commentators (I haven't paid attention to who
they are, but one is an Aussie) follow the action in a boat. And yes,
we get Reggio's explanations of on water foul rulings once the action
calms down. As far as watching "PJ" dialing his cellphone, we are
spared that splendor. Luigi probably calls us. And the relevance of
all of this is...???
Yes, the commentators are different. The on-the-water commentators
use different boats, too. I'm still waiting for an explanation of the
relevance of this. The NZ station has it's own commentators? Well,
congratulations! [We probably couldn't understand what they were
saying, anyway.]
Apparently? What did he say in that regard? And why the NZ guy?
Yes, the AC Committee has such power that TVNZ's own website didn't
even mention the incident, or anything about a cover-up.
I just find it curious that you tell me "The facts only please", but
insist that believers of this cover-up are being silenced by the AC
Committee somehow. I had no idea that they had that much influence
on the world's print media.
???
Relax. Sit back, take a deep breath, remove your sense of humor from
that bag you keep it in, and re-read what I wrote. There...feel better
now? Methinks you need to catch-up on your sleep.
Weather for Tuesday:
Starts south southeasterly 10-12 knots early in the afternoon then
builds to 13-15 knots and backs to southeast. Later in the afternoon
continues to build 15-16 knots as the direction returns to south southeast.
Looks like spotting the shifts will have utmost importance.
[I don't *think* you can read anything sinister into that.]
M
~misfit~
UCLAN said:
No. The NZ anchor listened to his earpiece after the surprise cut-off and
said "Well, that's interesting" the local director who they were getting
their feed from had been told to not play it again just as he was halfway
through replaying the kicking incident.
Ha ha ha haa haaa!!!! Found my humour. Funny, normally I don't have to go
looking for it, it finds me if something is amusing.
C
CBFalconer
~misfit~ said:
This thread has been quite interesting (got no complaints) but
highly off-topic here. I trust it is going to come to an early end
now that the races are complete.
M
~misfit~
CBFalconer said:
Hey CB,
Yeah, highly off-topic. I did preface my first comment with an apology to
the group and never expected the discussion to go on this long. My main
reason for posting was I found it strange that someone would put "Beat the
Kiwis" in their sig (turned out with two different teams). I'm familiar with
supporting a team but it seems odd to me that someone would openly back
whoever was running against the Kiwis. That's not support, it's the
opposite. Odd behaviour unless one is holding a grudge for some reason.
<shrug>
Anyway, yeah, I expect it's about done now. :-(
That last race was a nail-biter though, it would have to be a classic, a
margin of between 1 and 2 seconds *after* TNZ completed a penalty turn. The
lead changed more often than I've ever seen in a LV/AC race.
Cheers mate,
U
UCLAN
~misfit~ said:
As explained *much* earlier, my reason was *not* a dislike of the Kiwis,
per se, but a hope that the competition would *not* return to NZ in
general, or the Hauraki Gulf in particular.
I hope Dean Barker found his sense of humor. He's gonna need it. His
decision to not duck below Alinghi just before the last windward mark
was crucial, considering how well his boat fared in the first leeward
leg. That and doing his penalty turn about two boat lengths too soon.
Even a 160 degree wind shift couldn't save him.
M
~misfit~
UCLAN said:
Methinks their maybe something wrong with usenet twixt thou and I.
I didn't remember you saying that at all (and my remember usually works
quite well). So I just trotted over to Google and saw the post, the last in
the thread renamed to "OT: Boat Races". It never made it to my news server,
hence I never replied to it. It was the one where you admitted that you were
wrong (yeah, right!) about saying repeatedly that TNZ got _most_ of it's
money from Emirates after I had to write a huge post explaining how
sponsorship worked. I thought that the lack of a (received) reply was just
your reaction to being proved wrong. I was incorrect, you had other tactics
for that.
(You brushed it off with "I should have used a different word....
Semantics". Umm, yeah, words and phrases have particular meanings,
especially simple ones like "most of". [BTW, it means 'more than half'
<shrug> I thought most 8 year-olds knew that.] I find it ironic that you
said "Semantics." when *that* word means "the study of meanings". When
you're being challenged on the usage of a word over several posts you'd
think that you'd be *sure* of what you were saying rather than try to make
out it was "semantics" when you're proven wrong. Still, you can get the
measure of a man by how he reacts to proof of his fallability. Some admit
they're wrong, others try to wriggle out of it.)
TTFN,
U
UCLAN
~misfit~ said:
Funny, but I was never "proven" wrong. You have not provided any sort of
proof that the original statement was wrong, regardless of semantics.
At worst, I failed to provide proof that my assertion was correct using
my original choice use of words. For you to claim I was *proven wrong*
is simply not correct.
I suggest you grab a dictionary. My Websters says:
most /moÊŠst/
–adjective, superl. of much or many with more as compar. 1. in the
greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most
votes.
So your insistence that "most" means "more than half" is blatantly
incorrect as well. As I suggested: semantics.
Try for an 0-3 day?
J
Jon Danniken
~misfit~ said:
I, for one, was not the least bit disturbed by this thread.
)Jon
M
~misfit~
Jon said:I, for one, was not the least bit disturbed by this thread.
Thanks Jon, good to hear it. I'd hate to upset the gang. I figured that most
people here are not shy in coming forward if they think our group is being
abused so thought there might be a few readers, or tolerant folks.
Cheers,