Amici,
OK, this time I'll try a bit harder to think
before hitting the send key - and hopefully this
will make more sense than my earlier post did. I
don't intend to ruffle feathers, and I will apologize
in advance if I do so. I will, however, attempt to
explain what I thought we were all about. I may be
all wrong, and you all can let me know if I am wrong.
I do feel that I need to do a better job of explaining
myself.
At 08:37 PM 12/10/99 -0000, jonmac wrote:
>John Lye wrote:
>
>Not too sure exactly what you mean, John
Well, I wasn't all that clear, I'm afraid.
>but in the event my own contributions are helping to take
>the list off the course you had foreseen before I was invited
>to join, I won't be in the least offended if you propose and are
>seconded to have me thrown out.
I wouldn't dream of singling you (or anyone else) out for such
treatment. You know, and have lived through, more Triumph history
than I will ever know. More importantly, this "club" was founded
on the principles of "no dues, no meetings and no rules" so there's
no way to remove you, even if I was so inclined. The only way to
get kicked off is if you kick yourself off due to lack of interest,
lack of time, or whatnot.
>While I am entirely unaware of the original concept for FOT
The original concept, or at least my understanding of such, was
that it was to be a place where Triumph racers could talk about
racing related topics, whether they be current road racer, vintage
racer or autocrosser. As Joe mentioned earlier, the FOT list was
to be a place where those of us who had met in competition could
continue our "paddock chats" after we'd left the track. There
were to be no rules, but the unspoken assumption was that there
would be a strong focus on racing and on Triumphs since that was
our common bond. Tangents as such are not a problem, and in fact,
they can be quite useful in that they can let us know the person
behind the visor - that is, until such tangents take over and dominate
the conversation.
>and long may it continue -
>may I just make one observation which is to be taken as
>entirely constructive and in no way critical of you or other
>FOT listers. The lists existence is totally global.
Hmmmm, maybe, maybe not. As far as I know, there are very few FOT
members who aren't in North America. I can think of you and Paul
R. right off, of course, and there is an Australian racer on the list.
I suspect that there may be one or two more overseas members that
I'm forgetting, but the point is that the FOT "club" is primarily
North American.
<snip>
>To that extent, US competition regulations,
>classifications and other such may well have as much meaning
>and dare I say it, interest to FOTers outside the US as
>ancient Hebrew has to a street mugger.
I did not mean to imply in any of my comments that rules and
regulations should be a primary topic of conversation (although
rules questions have come up in the past). When I mentioned
"technical Triumph-racing-related" topics, I was thinking more
of performance questions: engine preparation, suspension tweaks,
where to get shocks dynoed - that sort of thing. These sorts
of things are likely to be of interest to anyone who races a
Triumph, whether US-based or overseas, I would suspect. The
history of Triumph in competition is also a strong interest for
many of us, of course.
>As Mark Bradakis said in another post today - change is
>constant.
Indeed it is - and it may well be that I am in the minority
in wishing to keep this list a bit more focussed than the
main Triumphs list or the autocross list, etc. If so, I'll
be quiet and go back into lurk mode for a while (you don't
think that I can refrain from talking forever, do you?).
>I suppose that whether we like it or not at an
>individual level, the FOT list can go one of two ways. It
>can decide to return to its roots as essentially US
>competition oriented (and I would applaud it if it went that
>way)
I would prefer to amend that to "essentially competition
oriented" and drop the US based part. So, yes, that is, in
fact what I'd like to see, but I may be in the minority in
that view. In the end, it doesn't really matter what *I*
want to do, or what *I* see as the "original vision" for the
FOT - it'll do and go wherever the conversation takes it.
That's both the beauty and the problem with a free form
mailing list like this. When the noise becomes too much for
someone to take, they'll simply disappear quietly.
>OR it can expand into other automotive/non-automotive
>realms.
I don't see the point in that, since there already is a list
with that as its charter - and the signal to noise ratio there
is pretty low. I still read that list (in digest mode), but
find only a little of interest to me there.
>As I see it, there would still be a strong Triumph
>bias but it should possibly avoid the topics more commonly
>found on the restoration scene in other same name lists. I
>think all of us to a greater or lesser extent derive some
>abstract form of elitism by being members of this special
>Triumph fraternity - and what's wrong with elitism?
True enough - there aren't all that many of us left who love
these silly little cars - and there are even fewer of us who
like to race them. If that isn't elitist, I'm not sure what is.
I hope that I've explained myself a little better, and hope
that there aren't too many folks pissed off at me now. Feel
free to tell me that I'm all wrong, ar that I'm crazy but please
don't don't get the impression that I'm trying to tell anyone
here what they must or must not discuss. This is a special group
of friends (some of you I've met in person, and some of you I've
not yet had that pleasure) and all I'm trying to do is to let you
know what it is that I think is so special about this group.
I sure hope that's the last you will hear about all this
from me,
John Lye
'59 TR-3A, '62 TR-4, '70 GT-6+
email: rjl6n@virginia.edu
homepage: http://avery.med.virginia.edu/~rjl6n/homepage.htm
|