Bob,
Thanks, I've been wrestling with the TAC issue for my car and I was a
bit uncomfortable if there had been a change.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Regards,
Jim
B9470139
---Bob Palmer <rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> 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
>
|