GIVE IT A REST ! . . . . . . PLEASE !!!
tiger technologies wrote:
>
> TO ALL:
> After laborious soul searching and a very careful review of the input (both
> pro and con) regarding our proposed publication of a manual dealing with how
> to identify whether a particular Tiger is actually a Tiger or a conversion,
> we have decided to let things be.
>
> Jan Harde and I both feel such a manual is needed now more than ever because
> more and more individuals are discovering the joys--and pitfalls--of the
> marque and there is more opportunity than ever for fringe restorers to
> "create" a Tiger due to rising classic car prices. However, for all the
> potential liability we would subject ourselves and Tiger Technologies to,
> we've decided that IF a manual is to be created, it should be done by the
> group that created the TAC program itself.
>
> We feel they have an obligation to not only help "protect" the marque, but
> to offer assistance to those who have questions about their Tiger, whether
> it is registered or not with TAC. That means reviewing photographs sent to
> TAC by those with questionable components, conversing at length on the phone
> or Internet with those who have questions, and opening "their books" and
> publishing a quarterly listing of questionable Tigers.
>
> In other words, since this group started the TAC program, they should finish
> it and fill in the blanks in between. And there are many.
>
> To those who wrote to us commending our proposed effort, we sincerely thank
> you. To those who contacted us with criticism about the effort, we thank you
> too. And those few of you who just don't want to see the applecart upturned,
> shame on you.
>
> The ball is back in the TAC court. Those who want change should contact TAC
> and ask--Hell no, demand--action and support. Our guess is you'll get it.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Jeff Cushing/Jan Harde
> Tiger Technologies
|