>>(yes, I'm anal-paper retentive) <<
Tony does this mean you hoard toilet paper?
Sorry, after this serious debate I couldn't let this slip by. Tom Witt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony McNulty" <t.mcnulty@ieee.org>
To: "Tom Witt" <wittsend@jps.net>; <tigers@autox.team.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: TAC vs Commonsense
> All nonsense aside -- it simply makes sense from a financial point-of-view
> to have a valuable asset (only 2000 left?) "proven", much as one would
have
> a valuable antique furniture (or similar) asset "proven" by an appraiser.
>
> The fact that there are Algers out there makes a compelling case for
owners
> of authentic Tigers to cover their butts from a financial and estate
> planning point-of-view -- think about it. Take the emotion out of it and
> put the finance into it.
>
> I may seem to take an arbitrary position on my own Tiger -- but I feel
> entitled, I'm the original owner and even have the original Bill of Sale
> from the dealer (yes, I'm anal-paper retentive) -- so I can be somewhat
> arbitrary, BUT there are lots of folks out there who need to know what
they
> have and/or what they are buying --- and my thanks go out to those expert
> individuals who are willing to spend their valuable time and resources in
> validating these ever-more rare critters.
>
> Who(m)ever you inspectors are -- if you need transport from a NYC area
> airport and a place to stay while you're here -- give me a jolt -- you've
> got it.
>
> A final thought on the TAC-ing and the price of the service -- "Free
Puppys"
> gets no response, but "Puppys $250" somehow makes folks stop and buy a
pooch
> .... with so few Tigers left, perhaps value and service ought to be tied
> together .... just a thought.
>
> Visit Beautiful Connecticut ... See What's in My Garage :-)) And --
> have a great Thanksgiving, one and all.
>
> Tony
> B3820001 321
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Witt" <wittsend@jps.net>
> To: <tigers@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 5:47 PM
> Subject: TAC vs Commonsense
>
>
> Mayf,
> I asked this in the first post I sent this morning, but will ask it
again.
> What is your objection to having your car TAC-ed? What I am asking is if
> three
> TAC inspectors were to show up to your door and I were to pay the ten
dollar
> fee would you turn them away?
> What would be lost? It seems that you have everything to gain. Yes, your
> Tiger is a real Tiger, you know that. BUT, not everyone does. Not the
casual
> viewer on the street, not every Tiger enthusiast, not every potential
buyer
> (someday). Thus, the matter of authenticity is covered to ANY who may
> question
> at any time with your TAC certificate. What is objectionable to that? With
> the
> potential for fraud by others is it not in the best interest of Tigers
> everywhere to be counted as authenticated?
> Just because the general public has taken to accepting the TAC-ed car
as
> a
> standard doesn't mean that TAC-ing is the villain. Really your complaint
> should be with the public at large (which of course would include Tiger
> owners) for electing to use the TAC standard. In life we all have to give
up
> some freedoms for the general good. When comparing TAC to no standard for
> authenticating a Tiger TAC-ing seems like the far lesser evil.
> In summary a group of ernst volunteers has set to prevent fraud (via
> TAC-ing)
> of a significant collectible. The people at large (small a group as that
my
> be, but, in some way connected with the Sunbeam Tiger) have adopted the
> standard of TAC. You dislike the adaptation of TAC by the people
> because............ ?
> Mayf I have appreciated the input you have given this list and me
> personally.
> However, on this point I can not seem to see the cause of the position you
> have taken.
>
> Tom Witt
> B9470101 (nearly TAC-ed, but the inspectors had a flight to catch)
|