Has David Starkey gone mad?
Discussion
Kambites in a car related thread said:
Yup, but just because a diesel has more peak torque doesn't mean it has more flexibility. It may well be that the gearbox in the petrol can do more to keep the engine in its power band than that in the diesel. In practice modern automatics have so many damned gears and turbocharged engines have such broad power bands that the 'box can usually do a pretty good job of maintaining peak power whatever the fuel.
I've never looked at the figures, but I'd bet if you look at the acceleration figures from, say, 30 to 60 (or pretty much whatever numbers you choose) through the gears including kick-down time, a 530i will be faster than a 530d.
I assume "damned gears" bears no malice towards the gears. I saw this in an unrelated thread and thought of Mr Starkey. I've never looked at the figures, but I'd bet if you look at the acceleration figures from, say, 30 to 60 (or pretty much whatever numbers you choose) through the gears including kick-down time, a 530i will be faster than a 530d.
zygalski said:
Yeah, because taking a negative word previously applied to an entire race of people and using the word in reference to a mechanical item thus trying to dilute its meaning makes perfect rational sense.
Congrats.
It aint natural for someone to be this triggered constantly.Congrats.
bhstewie said:
Starkey confirms what many on this thread speculated Starkey had meant with his comment.From the Beeb article:
Speaking about his use of the phrase "so many damn blacks", he said: "It was intended to emphasise, in hindsight with awful clumsiness, the numbers who survived the horrors of the slave trade. Instead, it came across as a term of racial abuse.
No promotion for Starkey, but a heavy 'price' for 'clumsy' language, as per the headline.
don'tbesilly said:
Starkey confirms what many on this thread speculated Starkey had meant with his comment.
From the Beeb article:
Speaking about his use of the phrase "so many damn blacks", he said: "It was intended to emphasise, in hindsight with awful clumsiness, the numbers who survived the horrors of the slave trade. Instead, it came across as a term of racial abuse.
No promotion for Starkey, but a heavy 'price' for 'clumsy' language, as per the headline.
I honestly don’t care either way, but he hasn’t confirmed anything other than the fact he’s not a total moron or a glutton for punishment. From the Beeb article:
Speaking about his use of the phrase "so many damn blacks", he said: "It was intended to emphasise, in hindsight with awful clumsiness, the numbers who survived the horrors of the slave trade. Instead, it came across as a term of racial abuse.
No promotion for Starkey, but a heavy 'price' for 'clumsy' language, as per the headline.
“Yeah, it’s a fair cop, I hold my hands up; I’m a massive racist” said no-one, ever.
DeWar said:
don'tbesilly said:
Starkey confirms what many on this thread speculated Starkey had meant with his comment.
From the Beeb article:
Speaking about his use of the phrase "so many damn blacks", he said: "It was intended to emphasise, in hindsight with awful clumsiness, the numbers who survived the horrors of the slave trade. Instead, it came across as a term of racial abuse.
No promotion for Starkey, but a heavy 'price' for 'clumsy' language, as per the headline.
I honestly don’t care either way, but he hasn’t confirmed anything other than the fact he’s not a total moron or a glutton for punishment. From the Beeb article:
Speaking about his use of the phrase "so many damn blacks", he said: "It was intended to emphasise, in hindsight with awful clumsiness, the numbers who survived the horrors of the slave trade. Instead, it came across as a term of racial abuse.
No promotion for Starkey, but a heavy 'price' for 'clumsy' language, as per the headline.
“Yeah, it’s a fair cop, I hold my hands up; I’m a massive racist” said no-one, ever.
don'tbesilly said:
bhstewie said:
Starkey confirms what many on this thread speculated Starkey had meant with his comment.From the Beeb article:
Speaking about his use of the phrase "so many damn blacks", he said: "It was intended to emphasise, in hindsight with awful clumsiness, the numbers who survived the horrors of the slave trade. Instead, it came across as a term of racial abuse.
No promotion for Starkey, but a heavy 'price' for 'clumsy' language, as per the headline.
Randy Winkman said:
The explanation makes no sense to me. It's not even an explanation.
If you remove the word damn" it makes sense to me rather than have it included, hes saying that if slavery was genocide there wouldnt be so many black still left in africa, presumably because genocide involves killing massive numbers.Thats how I read it but he made a balls up with his terminology for sure, unlike the awful gopal women who said it all very deliberately.
Dont Panic said:
Randy Winkman said:
The explanation makes no sense to me. It's not even an explanation.
If you remove the word damn" it makes sense to me rather than have it included, hes saying that if slavery was genocide there wouldnt be so many black still left in africa, presumably because genocide involves killing massive numbers.Thats how I read it but he made a balls up with his terminology for sure, unlike the awful gopal women who said it all very deliberately.
Dont Panic said:
Randy Winkman said:
The explanation makes no sense to me. It's not even an explanation.
If you remove the word damn" it makes sense to me rather than have it included, hes saying that if slavery was genocide there wouldnt be so many black still left in africa, presumably because genocide involves killing massive numbers.Thats how I read it but he made a balls up with his terminology for sure, unlike the awful gopal women who said it all very deliberately.
Doesn't actually change what was written or said though does it.
chrispmartha said:
yes removing words alters the tone and meaning, just like when you deliberately remove 'As white lives'.
Doesn't actually change what was written or said though does it.
You can argue that if you want, starkeys got no form for liking tweets calling blacks "vermin" gopal has for tweets saying whites are.Doesn't actually change what was written or said though does it.
Starkey made a poor job of an explanation, gopal made a clear indication of her feelings towards other races, you cant argue against that, neither can you argue that one has been treated disproportionately harshly where the others been lauded and promoted for spouting racist tripe.
Dont Panic said:
You can argue that if you want, starkeys got no form for liking tweets calling blacks "vermin" gopal has for tweets saying whites are.
Starkey made a poor job of an explanation, gopal made a clear indication of her feelings towards other races, you cant argue against that, neither can you argue that one has been treated disproportionately harshly where the others been lauded and promoted for spouting racist tripe.
Who's defending Gopal here? Starkey made a poor job of an explanation, gopal made a clear indication of her feelings towards other races, you cant argue against that, neither can you argue that one has been treated disproportionately harshly where the others been lauded and promoted for spouting racist tripe.
If her employers want to sack her that's fine with me she's an idiot using that language.
Cracking whataboutery though.
Dont Panic said:
Randy Winkman said:
The explanation makes no sense to me. It's not even an explanation.
If you remove the word damn" it makes sense to me Why do some on here go to such lengths to defend these characters?
bhstewie said:
Who's defending Gopal here?
I dont see anyone holding your views expressly calling her out as a racist, which se undoubtedly is.bhstewie said:
If her employers want to sack her that's fine with me she's an idiot using that language.
Only an idiot?bhstewie said:
Cracking whataboutery though.
Hardly, Im just pointing out the inconvenient divergence in treatment between the two examples.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff