"Ken Plotkin" <kplotkin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:0r8us3ll2020f50abai3krcofbl1mgkiko@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:02:14 -0600, "." <.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >Really? Ganassi and Penske are noted as paragons but not
> >AGR the team with both the greatest number of overall and
> [snip]
>
> Ganassi and Penske won the 500 their first time back.
Well of course Penske did, there was hardly any worthwhile
competition. Ganassi had an in place, already well developed
team. But of course neither of your excuses addressed AGRs
phenomenal team successes which eclipsed both of the afore-
mentioned individuals', just as Michael & Mario's driving had.
> >Really? Newman-Haas??!! What name is again so
> >glaringly conspicuous by its absence? As Mario
> >Andretti was its only driver "out of the box" doesn't
> >he deserve SOME credit or at least a mention?
>
> Part of being a good team is having good drivers. N-H has kept on
> winning, even after Mario retired.
But of course your original remark (that you oh so
conveniently deleted), that I was responding to, was
"Look at Newman-Haas's results out of the box
when they were formed in 1983" And sure they later
won, they also had Michael Andretti. But didn't Jones,
Fabi, Moreno, Fittipaldi ... just cleanup for them? Nigel
Mansell was the beneficiary of a car that the father-son
team had developed for years (though upon Michael's
return in the first event of the season, the latter provided
the former a driving lesson despite piloting an untested,
brand spanking new chassis. Then there were the Chump
Car years again lacking any real competition. And though
being in the far and away, consecutive champion****ps
winning best car (which yet again went on to win the
champion****p), poor Graham Rahal STILL never once
threatened a single win.
>
> [snip]
> >however unfortunately for CC that number never
> >amounted to so much as a handful of its participants.
>
> So much negativity. Don't underestimate anyone.
Odd how it's seemingly and exclusively my alleged "negativity"
that seems to garner and earn your sanctimonius umbrage.
I'd say that both your earlier comments, and responses when
confronted with them, is indicative of an unmistakably
disingenuous and hypocritical mindset.
>
> Ken Plotkin
|
