But true in other cases?
--Pat K
----------
>From: "Navid Kahangi" <navid@interwoven.com>
>To: "Bay_Area_Autocross_List" <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
>Subject: RE: SFR rule
>Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2001, 1:22 PM
>
>Not to nitpick, but an advantage is only unfair if the others have no way of
>obtaining it. Not so in this case.
>
>--Navid
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
>> [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of John F. Kelly Jr.
>> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 12:54 PM
>> To: James Creasy; Jerry Mouton
>> Cc: Bay_Area_Autocross_List
>> Subject: Re: SFR rule
>>
>>
>> -------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------
>>
>> Message text written by James Creasy
>>
>> "i was even advised by a veteran autocrosser to make use of that rule-
>> specifically to gain an advantage.
>>
>> -james
>> OSP #74"
>> -------------------- End Original Message --------------------
>>
>> I think you should abuse the devil out of it. Then perhaps more
>> people will
>> realize the rule for what it is: The Unfair Advantage.
>>
>> While the deal was "sold" as a benefit for new drivers, one in particular,
>> the ironic twist is that both folks are gone from Bay Area
>> autocrosses. But
>> the rule lingers on. It's LEGAL to take unfair advantage of your fellow
>> competitors in order to win. The rule, alas, is not fair. IMHO, It's
>> equally unfortunate the Steering Committee declines to change it.
>>
>> --John Kelly
>>
>> --John Kelly
|