gcdugas wrote:Emotion? Really? Can one not comment on the divine irony of Max having his own abuses come home to revisit him. Taken in context with his hypocritical complaining about "illicitly obtained" evidence, when Max himself casually dismissed such concerns in legal proceedings he chaired, and in context with the numerous abuses of office, it seems rather "fitting". Now one can take pleasure in that forgetting that he too is flesh and blood or one can look at it and shudder lest his private transgressions be visited with the same Providence. But I would not call it emotional. - gcdugas
Emotion is an essential
part of the impression left on me by much of your contribution on this matter - it is an integral part of denoting and connoting the turn of phrase, vocabulary, imagery, persistence, the entirety of the effort and whatnot of the author. This is not a value judgement on my part as I'm firmly of the mind that all manifestations of the human consciousness are indeed equal in every sense of the word. I certainly take appreciative enjoyment in the many patterns weaved into the cloth of your thought, emotion (
like pleasure) being but one.
The thing is, however, that I didn't use that particular word -
emotion - in relation to your thought (
or as a direct reference to mine) but to the thought of the object of your attention, Max Mosley. Obviously I'm not an expert in what makes him tick (
and he has even professed to getting some enjoyment in reading the handiwork of his many detractors online) but it is not inconceivable that portraying an event about to befall someone in the most dire and disconcerting fashion will make him resist it that much harder.
So pragmatically speaking, there's an ever so slight chance that portrayals echoing doom, perpetual ignominy or indeed a sort of a fire & brimstone Divine justice are in fact contarary to (
what I took as) your primary objective, namely expediating the removal of Mr. Mosley from office. My avoidance of making a direct reference to this effect followed this logic in recognising that, ironically, spelling it out would change the dynamics of the situation once more ...
... Mostly underlining the surreal dimension of my continued effort in displaying what is a vanishingly vague rationale in expanding on this, really. But since mute points aren't celebrated all that often, I'll throw caution to the wind and let this all but self-defeating reasoning fly anyway. Monty Python should rest easy, all is not lost. I probably also underestimate the range of effects severe tongue-lashings may have on the more or less unwitting recipients, which could be yet more cause for concern to the dispensers of said verbalistics rather than myself.
OK, ignore the convoluted attempt at humour there, the first two (
and a half) paragraphs are actually written in all sincerity, just for the record. The rest was borne out of aimless boredom.
Coming back to the issues, if I can. I gather the context you refer to here is mainly the so called "spy case". In fact at some point I remarked that there were "
karmic comeuppances" still on the way for those involved. I certainly didn't think in terms of an S/M related affair and still caution against drawing any direct parallels between the two, despite murmurs to the contrary. Even more so since those noises seem to have emanated from what is believed to be "Max's camp", whatever that may signify. Not to mention Dennis's boisterous denial.
Furthermore I must point out that FIA's "International Court of Appeal" (
and professional practitioners of law are welcome to help me out here or set the record straight), despite its imposing name is nothing more than a voluntary framework. The teams are signatories to an agreement in which they relinguish ultimate power in sporting matters to the ICA should they wish to race in F1. In this regard their legal standing and adherence to due process, compared to state (
or internationally) sanctioned courts, isn't any different from, say, taking a piss.
Morally, it is another thing as to what effect Mosley employed ICA's status in said situation but I trust McLaren's representation did their best to challenge any procedurel errors nonetheless. Besides, I can't quite remember what the problem with Polizia Postale delivering its findings to the proceedings was. Certainly by that time the content of some incriminating emails had already been volunteered. Twice in fact, first unofficially to Ecclestone and again by request to Mosley in exchange for escaping otherwise collective sanctions.
So, continuing on the theme, if one holds that Mr. Mosley misused his powers in this and other matters in a consistent fashion I guess it represents some sort of proverbial "Hammurabic (
in?)justice" if his tenure ends "equally unfairly". This attitude, I gather, will yet further complicate the effort of getting him to vacate his office without more unnecessary ado. And since when did one injustice undo another? Under Mosley's watch?
No, if the above paragraph applies (
and equally if it doesn't), isn't it more "fitting" that he be challenged fairly, head on and overtly, with all the force of undeniable causality? Again, it is not all about the current president, but the future of FIA, much of motorsport and many motorists. But perhaps it's just as well. I shan't lose track of those, you won't lose track of Max Mosley - it's an arrangement that agrees with me just fine.
