Jeremy Clarkson suspended

tuna55 wrote: What could possibly go wrong? (get it?)

On his first lap of the test track... down the first straight... "What? You mean I gotta TURN???"

In reply to 06HHR:

Did four of us just agree to something?

The dude can speak, can drive, and would probably be even more entertaining than Clarkson.

Plus, he's done 330 mph, been on fire, and been upside down many many many times.

His interviews would be fantastic.

tuna55 wrote: I don't really understand the hitting = firing mentality honestly, although I'd never hit anyone based on work. Ever. I'm a pretty gentle dude. I am also not sure if that attitude transcends the US. If I were a decision maker in this situation, and hittee didn't care or otherwise was made happy, I don't see how firing hitter makes sense. After all, it's sort of natural for guys to smack each other around a bit. Sure, if it's abusive, if hittee feels that he can't continue, won't work with hitter, etc anymore, there's no choice.

Really?

Sorry, outside of begin a professional boxer, wrestler or some other kind of fighter or Soldier, hitting some one has to be an instant sackable offence. What if he had hit a woman? Is that OK, an older person? A young intern? At what point does it become OK to say, sorry, I didn't mean to play with your breasts, I was trying to hit you so don't fire me. You can't say that if the person on the other end of the punch is OK with it then he shouldn't be fired, because that opens up a whole new avenue of abuse. You end up with people bribing, threatening and taking advantage those lower down the chain of command. "Say it was a misunderstanding and you're OK with me hitting you and I make sure you wife in accounting gets a promotion. Make a fuss of it and my buddy in HR will have her fired"

I like JC's attitude as a professional prick, I love Top Gear. I'm sure that top gear will not survive without him and I'll miss it. But if he did hit the guy, he has to go. Threaten to hit the guy? Verbal abuse? Then some kind of reprimand or suspension. Hit the guy and it's out the door.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I don't really understand the hitting = firing mentality honestly, although I'd never hit anyone based on work. Ever. I'm a pretty gentle dude. I am also not sure if that attitude transcends the US. If I were a decision maker in this situation, and hittee didn't care or otherwise was made happy, I don't see how firing hitter makes sense. After all, it's sort of natural for guys to smack each other around a bit. Sure, if it's abusive, if hittee feels that he can't continue, won't work with hitter, etc anymore, there's no choice.

Threaten to hit the guy? Verbal abuse? Then some kind of reprimand or suspension. Hit the guy and it's out the door.

Really.

Why is verbal abuse automatically different than physical abuse? They both suck and ought to be stopped.

I am simply saying that it's odd that one form is automatic. If someone hit me at work, and there were no real lingering issues, and I felt unabused, I would probably defend the hitter myself.

Tuna, if you really don't see how physically hitting someone crosses the line vs. verbal abuse, I don't know what to tell you. To me (and, I suspect, most people), that line is pretty crystal clear.

Tom_Spangler wrote: Tuna, if you really don't see how physically hitting someone crosses the line vs. verbal abuse, I don't know what to tell you. To me (and, I suspect, most people), that line is pretty crystal clear.

Well, to me, and only me apparently, that degrades people who have been seriously abused verbally.

But that's fine, I don't get to make decisions like that, so nobody should really care what I think about it. As I said before, I'm pretty gentle. I've never hit anyone other than in play. Ever.

We really live in a different world than I grew up in. There is no tolerance for anything anymore. Hitting someone isn't a good thing, but if the guy isn't hurt then what's the big deal?

Guys, we've got this all wrong. Bravenrace and I are supposed to disagree on everything. We need to shuffle the deck or something.

In reply to tuna55:

Really? We disagree on everything? I don't keep track of who I agree and disagree with, so I wouldn't know.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to tuna55: Really? We disagree on everything? I don't keep track of who I agree and disagree with, so I wouldn't know.

Not everything, but our average isn't very good. It's cool, you seem like a neat dude. I'll shake your hand if we ever meet.

And I promise not to hit you.

It seems like today's society is increasingly concerned about what is considered appropriate behavior, and that seems to stem from what is politically correct. My thinking is to always look at the result and not just the action. You can verbally abuse someone in a setting where it is appropriate behavior (like when I was a truck mechanic. That's just the way those people communicated) or inappropriate. I'm not sure how to describe it, but it seems to me like people now just want to apply one rule for appropriate behavior universally.
If someone verbally abuses me and it doesn't bother me, then what difference does it really make? If they punch me, whether they hurt me or not, and I'm okay with it, then what difference does it make? People need to grow some skin if you asked me, but I'm just an old fart, so whatever, but don't expect me to change.

06HHR wrote: I think Force would give May heart palpitations and flat out scare Hammond to death, I'd pay to see that too

No worries on that, the other two said they will not do the show without Clarkson.

In reply to yamaha:

Besides, Force likely wouldn't need any help filling up the allotted time.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to yamaha: Besides, Force likely wouldn't need any help filling up the allotted time.

I think I'd actually pay the money to fly to the UK to watch a taping of that just for the opportunity to kick Force in the balls until he finally STFU. Jeebus dude, stop with the amphetamines already.

tuna55 wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote: Tuna, if you really don't see how physically hitting someone crosses the line vs. verbal abuse, I don't know what to tell you. To me (and, I suspect, most people), that line is pretty crystal clear.

Well, to me, and only me apparently, that degrades people who have been seriously abused verbally. But that's fine, I don't get to make decisions like that, so nobody should really care what I think about it. As I said before, I'm pretty gentle. I've never hit anyone other than in play. Ever.

Same here, and I also don't go in for verbal beatdowns. But there is a difference. I'm not saying that verbal abuse doesn't have consequences, but which one will land you in jail straight away and which one won't? That would seem to indicate to me that, as a society, we consider physical abuse to be beyond what is permissible or acceptable behavior.

In Ohio, if there is an altercation where one person has contacted another enough to make a mark (even just a temporary red mark), they arrest the aggressor, regardless of what the other person wants. I see why they do that, as it takes the judgement call out of the equation for the officers, but I can also think of many situations where that outcome is extreme.

I agree with Bravenrace, again, strangely. I understand that's how the laws are written. I understand that's culture right now. What I am saying is that it can be extreme in some cases and teaches folks to comparatively ignore other forms of abuse.

If I am having a crappy time on a site and things are going wrong everywhere and everyone is stressed out and I say something annoying and a guy hits me, chances are we'll laugh about it the next day and everything's fine.

On the other hand, if someone is constantly abusing you by calling names, marginalizing, demeaning, etc, that can be far more damaging to the person than hitting would be, and yet there is no automatic punishment.

The dude who bit my Mom in the ass was just moved to another location, and that was mostly because my stepfather held him up against a wall (feet in the air and everything) and explained to him that he wouldn't survive any more abuse that he dished out.

My Mom had put up with abuse like that for months and nobody cared. Is that fair?

I think the guy Jezza hit deserved it.

I like JC's attitude as a professional prick....

Wow. Prick isn't in the filter?

bravenrace wrote: I think the guy Jezza hit deserved it.

We can only guess right now...but if it's really over not having hot food available, that's no reason to hit someone.

I have heard it said that one of the problems with today's society is that people aren't afraid of getting punched in the nose! That lack of fear lets us say things that shouldn't be said, and is opens the door to cyber and other forms of verbal bullying. I'm not saying that punching someone else is right, but perhaps we should always act as if they might.

We are only getting the information on this incident that the media has given us. Assuming even ~they~ got it right to begin with. There might be more to the story than we understand.

And if everyone was fired for every mistake or poor choice they made, we would ALL be unemployed.

jimbob_racing wrote:

I like JC's attitude as a professional prick....

Wow. Prick isn't in the filter?

Probably because it's an actual word, too. Prick your finger, etc.

E36 M3 is an actual word too.. E36 M3 your pants, E36 M3 the bed, etc.

SkinnyG wrote: And if everyone was fired for every mistake or poor choice they made, we would ALL be unemployed.

So we're almost there then