I think at this point we can safely assume that we won't agree on this topic, but my main problem is something else: You are not able to discuss properly.
"Like a(n) 11 year old", "I'm not here 24/7 like you to have all that time", "... on a near nervous breakdown" and so on, you have to use personal attacks because you have no arguments. On this board this is no problem, because nothing you say could insult me, but i hope you don't use this in the real world, it would make you seem very uneducated. I would put it like this: Insulting someone is the easy way out, because you try to pull it onto a personal level, where arguments don't count, because you don't have any + by doing it you don't have to come up with real arguments and maybe face the possibility that you might be wrong.
- If you are not here 24/7, how exactly can you tell whether i am here 24/7 or not and how exactly would this have anything to do with our discussion anyway? You try to use the "i am not here 24/7 argument" in your favor, but basically you are saying "i don't have time to gather all the information i would need to lead a proper discussion", so actually your own argument strikes back here.
- I don't chose to highlight Fill's quotes, but you are trying to make it sound as if everyone agreed that the conditions were unfair, so i used his quotes to show that apparently it wasn't that obvious, but you are completely unable to acknowledge that. So the "... not just highlight the stuff that make(s) your argument semi-believable ..." argument also falls right back to you. I think it would be a great thing if this discussion would lead you to the conclusion that not everything is black or white as you try to make it seem.
- The "... not sure what exactly you find incorrect ..." part irritates me a bit to be honest. After leading this discussion for multiple hours, you still don't understand how i disagree with you? How can you try to lead a discussion with me, if you don't know how exactly we disagree?
Maybe they had different wind conditions, maybe not, the event is over and i think we can agree that the downhill results didn't have much of an impact anyway.
From the beginning my problem was that many people on here acted as if there was no doubt that the conditions were completely unfair, without having any proof/without adressing things that might contradict that (Fill's quotes, times of certain athletes). Here is how i would have liked the discussion to go:
- Someone should have explained, how exactly they knew that the wind had a negative effect and when exactly did it start? Why did everyone win time on Dreßen until the first intermediate and from the last intermediate to the finish?
- Why did Fill say that the conditions weren't unfair and why was Svindal only 0.07 behind Dreßen despite having a big mistake, if the conditions were unfair for him? Would you say that Svindal, despite making a big mistake, should normally still be ahead of Dreßen in an easy race that is only 1:19 minutes long? Shouldn't the training results and the most recent world cup results (Dreßen's win in Kitzbühel) lead us to the conclusion that they are about on the same level, so with a big mistake, Svindal should normally not be ahead of Dreßen?