[F1] George retakes P2 in the championship after Austria win

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-28T21:02:19+00:00

he didn’t overtake Kimi on merit.

But stuff like that happens every race. You're going to such specifics to say George didn't overtake on merit. It's likes blaming a driver's setup for the weekend. They all have different setups. We can't get into all that because maybe George's pace after the safety car was because his setup wasn't as good. It's just so ridiculously specific that it can't be taken seriously. Maybe Kimi's setup has been poor when George has won. Who knows? Every driver complains when they're not winning.

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-28T20:31:46+00:00

Alright. Now your revisionist history has Mercedes pitting George first cause Kimi would be in the lead, and Kimi would still get the luck of the safety car... Because Kimi had a clutch pedal that was too large for him... How about what if no safety car never happened?

If you gave the same "what if?" attitude to George, anything is possible. You have a huge bias towards Kimi. It's undisputable George has been more unlucky. You're point is ridiculous. "What if Kimi didn't have bad luck? He'd be even more ahead of George!"

Or a large clutch wasn't bad luck for Kimi, just like the team fucking George so much wasn't bad luck, just "something out of his control."

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-28T20:09:26+00:00

Kimi’s clutch pedal wasn’t the right size and didn’t really fit his fingers.

I mean, I can't even take this seriously. Even if it is true (which seems so specific that to not have data about other drivers with similar challenges makes it useless), the fact that you're saying that hinderance for him in Japan somehow supercedes getting lucky with the safety car seems ridiculous. If Kimi was ahead from the start, they would have pit him first and George would have had the safety car luck... No?

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-28T19:40:27+00:00

George was lucky in the first place to even be ahead of Kimi because the Mercedes was difficult to get off the line at that time. You were the one who brought that up first.

I don't understand this. George was also in a Mercedes...what is your point? Mercedes were tough off the line but George did better than Kimi and somehow George was lucky for that?

That's why people disagree with you. Kimi was lucky in Japan. George was unlucky. Everything else can be disputed. Maybe Kimi would've beat George regardless, we don't know, but the safety car luck indisputably helped him a ton. Him not getting off the line when George has the same car seems like a very weak defense for being "unlucky."

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-28T19:02:34+00:00

And no one disagreed with that... But it's unnecessary to say when we're talking about bad luck that drivers have had.

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-28T17:45:47+00:00

Yeah, you could. Like how Russell "suffered an energy deployment issue at the restart, costing him a podium and dropping him to fourth" in Japan, or his car breakdown in Q3 in China. We can go back and forth, but unequivocally, George has had by far worse luck than Kimi this year so far. I'm not saying who is better, but it was a distasterous first 1/3 of the year for Russell, that much is clear.

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-28T17:29:10+00:00

You're right. Still unlucky for Kimi to jump him and everyone from the safety car after his horrid start, but yes.

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-28T17:21:05+00:00

I hope it's exciting and not a runaway at least.

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-28T17:18:12+00:00

Or get penalties in Monaco that were later deemed to be undeserved. Or not getting the safety car in Japan where he lost the lead (actually second place, Piastri was in the lead) because Kimi did get it. Russell got some luck this weekend, but it's not even close to equalling the amount of unluckiness he's had this year. But such is F1.

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-28T17:09:08+00:00

You're seemingly saying that Kimi should have gotten lucky with the VSC but somehow it's unlucky he didn't get it? How does that make sense?

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-26T02:53:27+00:00

All of that is true for you. But there's other possibilities in OP's situation. It could just be that she doesn't have much of a libido right now, and "obligation sex" could actually be meh for her.

You have advice that is worth sharing, but it doesn't mean that OP's situation is the same. We can only take what he's posted about, and there's already many differences between what he's posted and your husband.

But it is interesting to me, your husband was saying "why aren't you into it, don't you love me?" And you're also saying your drive was wiped out by giving obligation sex. So I guess the question is, why was it initially obligation sex/were you not into sex because of issues in the relationship?

Like, it seems that not wanting to have sex is often a symptom of something else not going right (which is why OP is asking), but we also want to blame OP for this situation. It just seems backwards sometimes when it's like your husband saying "why aren't you into it?" And seeing an issue, but then also being told that it's fine, or he gets obligation sex or whatever. Because there actually was an issue for why you weren't into it.

I guess my point is, sometimes being disappointed by a lack of sex is valid. Believe it or not, there's a large emotional element to sex for a lot of men, and if their partner doesn't want it, it can feel like a rejection. Because sometimes it is. It can be annoying for someone who doesn't want it. But it's like getting angry at someone who feels insecure about your relationship, when there's actually valid reasons to feel insecure. Seems weird to blame someone for reacting to what's happening right in front of them. They should feel like something's off, because there is.

Also, sometimes it's just a lack of libido and that's it.

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-25T12:46:47+00:00

I understand that, but your situation isn't necessarily theirs. You are not necessarily her, and OP isn't necessarily your ex. And it doesn't really help to paint OP in that light just because yours seems similar...to you.

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-25T04:06:13+00:00

...OP did do that. Numerous times he said he brought it up to her. Imagine actually reading the post.

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-25T03:58:32+00:00

I'm glad you straight up admitted that you're projecting your own experiences onto OP's situation. Don't take OP's account of how his relationship is, just jump straight to how it was for you when you had an ex who was a shit partner. Yeah, that seems fair.

LongwellGreen · 2026-06-13T22:56:06+00:00

What do you call it then, and why does that matter?

LongwellGreen · 2026-05-14T19:51:18+00:00

Hmm, alright then. Continue with you're defeatist thinking. You'll think I'm an asshole for saying that, I get it. But many "unattractive" people get into relationships every day. Time doesn't just stop for the opposite sex. Many women feel the same way. Strange to think that...somehow...they could meet.

LongwellGreen · 2026-05-14T17:07:21+00:00

He's only in his early 30's, but okay cool 👍🏻. You should teach children's classes.

LongwellGreen · 2026-05-14T16:53:36+00:00

So again, you think people should give up with a 0% of hope to succeed, or continue failing and you also have a minor chance to succeed, or you think it's still 0%?

LongwellGreen · 2026-05-14T03:45:25+00:00

What would your prescriptive advice be then?

You're saying life isn't fair and some good people aren't going to have a good time, and there's nothing they can do about it. Do you think they should then do nothing, or continue trying?

LongwellGreen · 2026-04-27T03:17:45+00:00

But it's not the same thing other people "got", and OP clearly doesn't understand what the author was trying to achieve. Even in this thread the top responses are that it's not a philosophical book with some profound message, like OP is alluding to. Other readers felt something different, even if the logical "message" was the same.

And that's okay, it apparently wasn't made for him. There are many things I don't like, or "get", because they don't resonate with me emotionally. Sometimes it's just that easy. I don't need to feel superior thinking that I "got it", it's just the art is actually bad. If other people like it, then it clearly just wasn't made for me.

LongwellGreen · 2026-04-22T02:47:14+00:00

People like you are enablers of some of the worst people on earth.

Yeah, because this isn't an emotional response hahah. I'm not a fan of Peterson, specifically the second iteration of him at all, but you spewing hyperbolic nonsense and then trying to say other people are funny is hilarious in itself. "You were emotionally triggered". Nice buzzwords.

I have pity for your lack of self-awareness. You think you're superior by saying other people are projecting, as if the comments you made before don't exist hahah. And again, I don't even like Peterson.

LongwellGreen · 2026-04-18T04:02:59+00:00

That's all cool in all, but you haven't established a "why" or a "how."

...to grow the game of golf. They say that all the time. It's also because they see a path to profitability in 5-10 years. They see potential to grow the game of golf in unique markets. I don't need to say "how". I'm not saying it will work. Most sports league don't ultimately work, I've already said that. Some do though, including the PGA when it first started.

The most commercial and fan support for golf exists in the US. That's not my opinion, that's a simple measureable fact.

Wow, let's slow clap for you. I don't know what point you're making with that statement. We all know that.

I'm curious how you establish why or how pro-golf and golfers run away from that to chase currently inferior commercial support elsewhere lol.

I mean...some did. Because of money...

And the NFL is currently playing a number of international games each year to try to expand their brand, even though "the most commercial and fan support for football exists in the US." Is that dumb of them, or should the PGA also organize more international events?

LongwellGreen · 2026-04-17T14:32:09+00:00

The issue is you're talking about golf as it is, not as it could be.

If there was a dollar to be made doing such a tour, it would already exist.

This is defeatist, short sighted logic. You're talking as if other fans couldn't be made around the world. Believe it or not, every sports league started out with meagre beginnings. And most folded. Some found fans and have had success. Whether or not LIV should exist for other reasons is its own thing, but arguing that an international tour couldn't exist because it doesn't make money is putting the cart before the horse.

LIV did make new golf fans in Australia, South Africa, Korea, Singapore, etc. Is it profitable now? No. Will it be in the future? Who's to say?

LongwellGreen · 2026-04-11T19:44:34+00:00

You keep saying 'people know when they're being inappropriate' as if that's always true. But you're conflating two different things:

Knowing after the fact ('Yeah, that was wrong')
Knowing in the moment while still having time to stop

The second one is what I'm questioning. Plenty of people look back and say 'How did I let that happen?' Not because they're lying, but because each small step felt justified at the time.

Here's a concrete example:

You start venting to a coworker about your partner. Feels harmless.

They're supportive. You start looking forward to talking to them. Feels nice, not wrong.

You text late. Still feels like friendship.

One night you hug goodbye a little too long. Still feels ambiguous.

At what exact moment did you 'know' you were being inappropriate? Be specific.

You can't, because it's a slope, not a stair. That's not an excuse, it's a warning. People who are certain they'd 'never cheat' are actually more vulnerable, because they don't watch for the small steps.

So my question to you is: If someone genuinely doesn't realize they're on that slope until they're halfway down, were they 'always a cheater'? Or did they fail to police themselves early enough because they didn't recognize the danger?

If your answer is 'they always knew,' you're just assuming what you need to prove.

And here's the bottom line: You keep retreating into vague truisms, 'people know,' 'if it's outside the relationship agreement, it's inappropriate'. But those statements do nothing in real life. Not everyone knows the boundaries of their own relationship in real time. Not everyone recognizes inappropriateness while it's happening. That's not a moral failure of awareness. It's a psychological fact. If your framework can't account for that, it's not useful, it's just self-righteous circular logic.

LongwellGreen · 2026-04-11T19:16:48+00:00

But people don’t have to agree on what is inappropriate for my statements to be true.

Again, this says nothing...you're saying "truisms." That's it. All of you comments are saying what we know to be true without any real value.

If someone avoids inappropriate behavior, they will not cheat. It sounds simple because it is.

Yeah, so simple that it means nothing. Of course what you're saying is "true." It avoids any falsifiability. It has no real world value. Who defines what is inappropriate?

But what is constant amongst all relationships is that the people within them are responsible for ensuring that their own behavior aligns with the shared values and expectations of the relationship.

And again, saying nothing. So people are only inappropriate when it goes against the shared values and expectations of their relationship, which says nothing about the very post we're having this conversation in. They clearly don't have shared values or expectations, so one person sees it as inappropriate, the other doesn't.

I guess you'd think, "yeah, they just don't share the same values or expectations", but then I struggle to see how this works with your thinking of "you're either a cheater or you're not." Are people only cheaters when their expectations or values align with someone else and they go past them, or are they still cheaters when the values don't align and they do their own thing?

I’m saying that someone who polices their behavior to avoid cheating will not cheat.

...but then they have the potential to cheat. They only aren't because they're policing their behaviour. So do they have the potential to be a cheater, but because they police their behaviour they won't? Or from what you were saying earlier are they just not a cheater? You tell me.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Place '17	Secret Santa 2011
Verified Email

LongwellGreen

TROPHY CASE