Dungey's Latest Setback

Titan1 wrote:

I appreciate your opinion, and you make a valid point. the only thing I could possibly say to that, is that if they are "journalists" then...

I appreciate your opinion, and you make a valid point.

the only thing I could possibly say to that, is that if they are "journalists" then don't they have some sort of duty report "the truth" as they know it? Their "ethical' duty as a journalist is to dig for the truth and report it.

If the riders/teams don't want anything to get out, then they shouldn't tell ANYONE. If they tell someone, then THEY are the source of the leak, not their friend they told.

But I guess it all depends on the informatin...if Suzuki is bringing in a HUGE new sponsor, getting that leaked would be different that leaking the news about Dungey getting a DUI or something.

Anyway, my point is that if Riders want to have journalists in their inner circle then they need to be careful about leaking any info to them.

Of course, maybe the moto journalists aren't even journalists at all...maybe my standards are too high??? Maybe they are just "bloggers" and thus shouldn't be held to the high standard that true journalists should be held too (and if that's true, moto needs a true journalists).

Nerd wrote:

No one has told me how I'm supposed to get information about what broke on the inside of an engine without someone on the team or...

No one has told me how I'm supposed to get information about what broke on the inside of an engine without someone on the team or close to the team telling me what it is.

No answers?

And by the way, I did report something according to an unnamed source, and people then tell me I have to name the source or else it's "just speculation" or whatever.

Like I said, discussing these things with you guys is like discussing them with a woman who thinks we didn't land on the moon...

Titan1 wrote:

I think part of the problem is that a story is "broke" or written, and then you care enough to defend it on a message board...

I think part of the problem is that a story is "broke" or written, and then you care enough to defend it on a message board and/or care what the message board pundits have to say about your story.

Post your story, and leave it be.

Then you won't know-won't care-about all the no nothing message boarders saying it's "just speculation". Which brings up another of my long made points, in that the industry (from the riders and teams, to the journalists) are far to concerned/connected with the message boards. In my opinion the "industry" should do their thing, and let the message boards do theirs...message boards are incredibly insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Titan1 wrote:

Where did I say you "SHOULD" think you're too good for everyone? All I'm saying is that the industry (and apparently that includes you) needs to...

Where did I say you "SHOULD" think you're too good for everyone?

All I'm saying is that the industry (and apparently that includes you) needs to stop caring about the message boards. We don't know ANYTHING about ANYTHING. All we do is speculate, and share our worthless opinions and we comprise probably .0001% of the overall motocross fan base....stop caring what we think.

For industry folks to care/argue with us message boarders, is like a father arguing with his two year old about how best to manage the family finances. It's just stupid. The industry (like the father) knows what is best...the messag boarders (like the two year old) have a lot to say but know absolutely NOTHING.

Sure, it's cool to see DC, you, some pro riders, mechanics etc post here...but really, i think it's small time and back woods for the industry to even give message boards a second thought.

If you didn't follow the message boards, you wouldn't feel the need to justify/defend your articles and you wouldn't know they were being attacked. You'd just do your job the best way you know how to do it. write your articles post them on your website, and let them stand for themselves. Sure the message boarders will have their opinion about them...but you don't care about what we think because you know that we don't know what we're talking about. Just like a father isn't going to argue with his two year old...you aren't going to argue with message boarders.

Outsider wrote:

Message boarders are the only ones that read his opinions, how can he not care?

Titan1 wrote:

Because he's "in the know"...and we're not.

txmxer wrote:

[b]You're assuming they're using the same parts you are in any of those spots.[/b] Actually, no. I said, "Now, they might not be using the same...

You're assuming they're using the same parts you are in any of those spots.

Actually, no. I said,

"Now, they might not be using the same stock connector as I am"

But, on to your next point...

But the point I'm making is that my focus in covering AMA Pro racing is on the racing...

As far as the racing is concerned, it's a non-issue as far as I can tell.

It is an issue...as is everything they do to the bikes. If they use foam tubes, or certain bars, or they use hard terrain tires, or a slipper clutch, etc...that's critical to fans like you find on these boards and the people that read the magazines. The casual fan that will never see your article probably doesn't care about such things, but the "hard core" fans do. I think that's apparent in the discussions that occur on this and other boards on a daily basis. Just as knowing what caused RD to run out gas is important to the fans. It affected the outcome of the race...it's important.

Nerd wrote:

It matters to "hard core" fans, maybe, but those are not the majority. Not even close. I reported what caused RD's issue in Texas. And he...

It matters to "hard core" fans, maybe, but those are not the majority. Not even close.

I reported what caused RD's issue in Texas. And he didn't run out of gas. But whatever.

Even most fans who read my articles aren't "hard core". For that matter, how many people in this thread actually ride at all? And how many of them ride Suzukis? And how many of them ride Suzuki RM-Z450s?

The majority of message-board hard-core fans don't even ride. They just want to be critical of whatever part did break, or whatever, and try and talk like they know what could've prevented it. It's simply a curiosity that has no real bearing on the racing itself, because whatever it was that caused the issue will never cause it again since it's on the team's radar for good now.

So, we disagree. Sorry. Dirt Rider does tech stuff like that all the time. Check them out. That's their thing.

I also reported that Reed's Honda and Barcia's Honda both expired for the same heat-related reason in the first race. Does it matter what particularly broke or failed? Not really. It was heat-related, and it was the same problem from bike to bike. That's notable and usable info. What actually broke really isn't.

txmxer wrote:

[b] It matters to "hard core" fans, maybe, but those are not the majority. Not even close.[/b] Who do you see as a "hard core" fan...

It matters to "hard core" fans, maybe, but those are not the majority. Not even close.

Who do you see as a "hard core" fan (how would you define the term?)

My definition would be anybody that reads your article IS a hard core fan. As far as people that post on here not racing or riding, I think you are wrong about that. Most aren't any good (me), but they do have bikes or had bikes and they do ride.

You may be correct that people want to be critical and thus the reason for knowing the part...but, that doesn't really matter their motivation. The majority of people that read your article are interested in knowing what the actual problem was.

With regards to the fuel issue, I don't recall anything definitive on it. A lot of "smoke and mirrors" about what happened.

Finally, you say that noting the bikes died of heat related issues is notable, but a more detailed answer is not. I disagree. I think most people on here and the vast majority of people that read your article are interested in knowing what failed. Obviously there are degrees of knowing--a certain seal was the issue, or a bearing burned up, etc. would be adequate...but, that's just my opinion. You have your opinion and will continue to provide what you think people want. I'm giving you feedback on what I want and what I think a lot of the readers want. You could do a poll...

txmxer wrote:

[b] It matters to "hard core" fans, maybe, but those are not the majority. Not even close.[/b] Who do you see as a "hard core" fan...

It matters to "hard core" fans, maybe, but those are not the majority. Not even close.

Who do you see as a "hard core" fan (how would you define the term?)

My definition would be anybody that reads your article IS a hard core fan. As far as people that post on here not racing or riding, I think you are wrong about that. Most aren't any good (me), but they do have bikes or had bikes and they do ride.

You may be correct that people want to be critical and thus the reason for knowing the part...but, that doesn't really matter their motivation. The majority of people that read your article are interested in knowing what the actual problem was.

With regards to the fuel issue, I don't recall anything definitive on it. A lot of "smoke and mirrors" about what happened.

Finally, you say that noting the bikes died of heat related issues is notable, but a more detailed answer is not. I disagree. I think most people on here and the vast majority of people that read your article are interested in knowing what failed. Obviously there are degrees of knowing--a certain seal was the issue, or a bearing burned up, etc. would be adequate...but, that's just my opinion. You have your opinion and will continue to provide what you think people want. I'm giving you feedback on what I want and what I think a lot of the readers want. You could do a poll...

Nerd wrote:

Had bikes? Okay, sure. Have bikes? Not very many on this board. Especially not the vocal bunch. I described what the problem was with the fuel...

Had bikes? Okay, sure. Have bikes? Not very many on this board. Especially not the vocal bunch.

I described what the problem was with the fuel. It boiled and caused a vapor lock within the system and the engine was unable to get enough fuel to keep going. Adding displacement to the fuel tank simply makes it harder to boil the fuel late in a moto in the same way that it takes longer to boil five gallons of water than it does to boil a half-gallon of water. He wasn't "out of fuel" in Texas, and I pointed this out in a "What Really Happened" at the time, although some supposedly smart people here said they never learned anything from any of them and have read them all.

Weird, huh?

It's almost like people are full of shit and just spouting off because like to.

Almost.

And finally, I tried to explain it once, but apparently you're not getting it. I'm writing about what affects the racing, not about what affects how you tune your bike. But I still will give you the information that I'm able to get. No one has answered me yet, so maybe you can: How do I find out information that no one who knows is willing to tell?

txmxer wrote:

Fair enough on the fuel deal. If I recall, we had a rep for the company that makes the fuel say that didn't happen--I'm not saying...

Fair enough on the fuel deal. If I recall, we had a rep for the company that makes the fuel say that didn't happen--I'm not saying that to say you are wrong, I'm explaining my statement that I didn't believe we had a definitive answer.

bottomline, if you cannot get the info, you can't answer the question of what specifically happened. That's part of reporting--we asked the question, we got now answers.

with regard to this, "I'm writing about what affects the racing," I can see where you are coming from now in the content you choose. I still want to know more details, but I understand why they might not be available.

brakkeman_ wrote:

Don't hate on Cox, he's paid his dues.

Nerd wrote:

By the way, what I was talking about when I said that (this quote is out of context, but you can go listen to the show...

By the way, what I was talking about when I said that (this quote is out of context, but you can go listen to the show again and hear it for yourself) is that I pay over $1k per race to be at the races reporting, whereas the other guy had gone to ONE RACE and lied about all of the rest of them up to that point, thus saving the $1k per race through dishonesty, and I think I'm right in saying if you're going to say you're at the race, pay your dues (the $1k) and actually be there instead of taking the chicken-shit way out and lying to everyone.

Now, knowing the context of that quote, do you still feel the same way about it?

The best part is that you guys kiss his ass just because he's "nice". But in reality he's not that, either, he's just good at making people believe things that aren't true. I have no interest in such a thing.

Titan1 wrote:

Because he's "in the know"...and we're not.

Nerd wrote:

I'm trying to help fix that problem, but you guys would rather argue.

Grieby54 wrote:

This article didn't bring a single person "into the know," and that's the thing. You didn't report anything new, only your own, personal speculation. Now your...

This article didn't bring a single person "into the know," and that's the thing. You didn't report anything new, only your own, personal speculation. Now your other articles was interesting and provided a different perspective (and is the only article of yours that I've read that has done such) that was actually factual.

Grieby54 wrote:

This article didn't bring a single person "into the know," and that's the thing. You didn't report anything new, only your own, personal speculation. Now your...

This article didn't bring a single person "into the know," and that's the thing. You didn't report anything new, only your own, personal speculation. Now your other articles was interesting and provided a different perspective (and is the only article of yours that I've read that has done such) that was actually factual.

Nerd wrote:

Tell me what about what I wrote in this thread's article wasn't factual.

I'll wait here.

Grieby54 wrote:

The same thing I've said about 15 times in this thread. I'm not going to post it again, go look it up. You said "Dungey is...

The same thing I've said about 15 times in this thread. I'm not going to post it again, go look it up. You said "Dungey is feeling X." We have since established that he did NOT tell you this, therefore it's not fact.

Hope you enjoyed your wait.

Grieby54 wrote:

The same thing I've said about 15 times in this thread. I'm not going to post it again, go look it up. You said "Dungey is...

The same thing I've said about 15 times in this thread. I'm not going to post it again, go look it up. You said "Dungey is feeling X." We have since established that he did NOT tell you this, therefore it's not fact.

Hope you enjoyed your wait.

Nerd wrote:

Hmmm... Interesting logic. So, facts are determined not by whether or not they're true (ie: factual) but rather by who told them to you? I'm going...

Hmmm... Interesting logic.

So, facts are determined not by whether or not they're true (ie: factual) but rather by who told them to you?

I'm going to have to check my bullshit meter on this...

Grieby54 wrote:

Your incompetence is mind blowing. If he did not tell you, then you don't know, factually, that he's feeling that way. Therefore it is speculation or...

Your incompetence is mind blowing. If he did not tell you, then you don't know, factually, that he's feeling that way. Therefore it is speculation or opinion, and by definition not factual.

I would post a cute little .gif of a stupidity meter, but you broke it (and I care far too little to look one up, but we'll stick with the former reason).

Sherwood wrote:

The way you talk down to people is the same thing TFS did. My opinion is you think your better than everyone. Sorry you don't like...

The way you talk down to people is the same thing TFS did.

My opinion is you think your better than everyone. Sorry you don't like that.

Nerd wrote:

Whether or not something is factual is not affected by where the information came from, or even whether anyone knows at all. The theory of evolution...

Whether or not something is factual is not affected by where the information came from, or even whether anyone knows at all.

The theory of evolution is factual, for example. In the year 600 AD, it was also factual. No one knew it. And if someone came up with it, they may have speculated that it was true in 600 AD, but that does not make it automatically not true because they speculated.

Your error is the insistence on uniting truth with conception. Truth is truth regardless of how one comes to that conclusion.

So, wrap your head around that for a minute, and when you realize you're yet again in error, I'll accept an apology.

Grieby54 wrote:

Facts can be supported by proof. Go grab yours.

I'll wait here.

Sherwood wrote:

The way you talk down to people is the same thing TFS did. My opinion is you think your better than everyone. Sorry you don't like...

The way you talk down to people is the same thing TFS did.

My opinion is you think your better than everyone. Sorry you don't like that.

Nerd wrote:

People talk down to me and I respond in kind. Talk to them about being respectful toward me and I'll do the same toward them. I'll...

People talk down to me and I respond in kind. Talk to them about being respectful toward me and I'll do the same toward them. I'll leave you in charge of that one.

Sherwood wrote:

I don't have enough time in the day to do that, but I would say lowering yourself to that level is dumb. If people dislike your...

I don't have enough time in the day to do that, but I would say lowering yourself to that level is dumb. If people dislike your work they dislike your work.