autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New thoughts on an old rule...

To: Eric Linnhoff <knuckledragger@kcweb.net>,
Subject: Re: New thoughts on an old rule...
From: "Patrick Washburn" <washburn@dwave.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 07:46:58 -0600
I am told (I wasn't there so it's all heresay and legend to me) that the
reason you and I had to run DS with our covers in place is because someone
filed a protest on that very same thing.  Is this not right?  The reason it
matters is because someone said it matters by filing a protest.  (or
threatened to do so.)  Your "we" are "they" statement is exactly my point. 
We (as competitors) protest meaningless and trivial (dare I say "weenie"?)
things, and then wonder why the rules don't cover every possible maniacal
interpretation.  The answer to your question is not so much "why is there a
rules contradiction?" as "why do we allow this extremely insignificant
contradiction to matter?"  My take on it anyway.

> Waddaya mean "someone took it to a rediculous level"?  Who?  Remember, "we"
> are "they".  My only question is that once again it would seem (to me) that
> the rules contradict themselves.  Which one takes precedence?  And why?
> That's all I want to know.  I have no problem running with the stupid tire
> cover in place as it affects nothing, but in the case of the Neons and
> similarly set up cars, why?
> 
Patrick Washburn
C-Tech Trailer Cabinets
Designed for the Racer
Wausau, WI
www.racecabinet.com
715-355-8842

///          autox@autox.team.net mailing list
///
///  To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
///  with nothing in it but
///
///     unsubscribe autox
///
///  or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>