Jim, guys,
I did not say TAC. I did not mean TAC. I'm sorry I said "certified". You'll
have to trust me on this one, or not, as you choose. The value here may be
that this provoked a further examination of the issues. At least it helped
me understand a few things a little better. In any case, rest easy Jim,
nothing has changed wrt the TAC policy, at least as far as I know.
Bob
At 10:02 PM 8/23/98 -0700, Jim Parent wrote:
>With regard to:
>
>"I have been told that the car has been inspected by certified
>"experts"(not Norm) and the physical evidence clearly shows that Norm
>is correct.
>So, Henry, I believe your "innocent until proven guilty"
>philosophy......."
>
>I thought that the ONLY thing that TAC noted was cars that were, in
>thier opinion, authentic. How is it then, that in this case, that TAC
>is confirming a conversion? Has the TAC policy changed? This is a
>big step as far as liabilities are concerned.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim
>B9470139
>
Robert L. Palmer
Dept. of AMES, Univ. of Calif., San Diego
rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu
rpalmer@cts.com
|