Hey Joe.... Well said.... oh and great chat room last night.. again without
your reminder I would have missed it.... ( Yeah Joe that's the Key to not
letting me in )
Keith.... ( and yeah I talked to Darrel yesterday and beat him up bout not
disagreeing with anything lately... I missed the opportunity to laugh with
him)
----------
> From: Joe Amo <jkamo@rapidnet.com>
> To: dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com
> Cc: landspeedracer@email.msn.com; land-speed@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: rules
> Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 12:15 PM
>
> Doug, you and this forum has NOT beat the rules interpretation to death,
this
> is what makes this forum so powerful. This current door panel thing is a
> perfect example of how rules can be misconstrued, and ultimately MADE
BETTER.
> Because it is like reading the BIBLE, except that GOD is the comittee and
is
> here on earth, reachable and there to make changes as needed. It is our
duty
> as racers to bring up this things like you did Doug. I can tell you it
is no
> different on the bike side either, often the racers in a particular
category
> have a stronger grasp of the rules than many of the rules committee, and
that
> is NOT a slam on the rules people. I mean we are the ones who ponder
each and
> every detail for a year or years, preparing. Keep up the debates thats
what
> makes this site and country so great. Without the site, less
communication,
> and more disgruntled folks at tech. Joe Amo :) :)
>
> dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com wrote:
>
> > i guess i would personally have a tough time in tech inspection if i
rolled
> > in with a production entry with some nice, well crafted, polished or
> > anodized beadrolled aluminum doorpanels and i started getting flack
about
> > them from the rules commitee, while another production entry with old ,
> > ratty, mildewed original cardboard factory doorpanels slipped right
thru,
> > with the rulebook written as is. (like having original doorpanel
upholstery
> > is necessary to classify a car in the production category - come on !)
i
> > think we have beaten the rule interpretation issue to death on this
forum.
> > obviously one cannot build a legal entry just by reading the scta/bni
> > rulebook, since i wouldnt even think that this doorpanel issue would be
an
> > issue at all. rather , it appears that every aspect and detail of
vehicle
> > construction must be approved another groups consensus or jury rule
> > committee on a case basis via their interpretation, and not what the
> > rulebook says verbatim . whatever ------------------
> > ill shut up now- i dont even have a production ride
> > POSITIVE regards, doug @ black radon engineering
>
>
>
|