Randy Chase wrote:
>
> Paul, you are proving yourself to really be a jerk.
You were the one who flamed me, not the other way around.
> I have never claimed
> to be an infrequent poster. I have not posted much lately. And I will
> probably be posting much less.
Fine with me.
> > The entire perception that the intention is to create a venue for a
> > select few cars is silly, as is thinking that everyone else is at a
> > *huge* disadvantage. What would be cool would be to have a good driver
> > hop in one of those hugely disadvantaged cars and show you why it's more
> > the driver that selects the cars than anything else. The nature of the
> > sport is that some car or cars will appear to be the topdog. History has
> > shown us that often there are other cars that can compete, but it takes
> > someone who knows how to set them up and drive them. One reason for the
> > appearance of their only being fewer top cars, is that, IMHO, there are
> > just not that many good drivers, and they tend to gravitate to certain
> > cars.>>>
> >
> > So I guess you consider Roger Johnson to be a poor Corvette driver? I
> > don't know how many National Championships he has won in the same car,
> > but it is a far sight more than you have won.
>
> Ouch. I guess that has some relationship to what I said?
It doesn't??? Read your own paragraph above please. Aren't you claiming
that if a top driver hops in a C4 that they would be competitive? Well,
Roger Johnson has been hopping in his current C4 for at least 14 years
in a row now. He used to win evfery year. Now he doesn't. If it isn't
the car then what is it? Has he forgotten how to drive???
> > Maybe I am being incredibly presumptuous. There is no way of telling
> > unless we provide changes. Since most people seem too narrow minded to
> > even discuss such in an open manner then I guess neither of us will ever
> > know.
>
> Right. You accuse the person who disagrees with you, as wanting less
> competition or wanting fewer autocrossers, and you are saying you want
> to have an open minded discussion? Frankly, I have not seen much in the
> way of positive comments ever from you.
I am retorting to your obvious flame job. If you don't like it don't
flame me.
>
> > You were so presumptuous you wrote this massive email that completely
> > missed the point! Now that is what I'd call presumptuous!
>
> Well, I guess I must be dense then. I thought you said "The SCCA
> should provide fair classes for _all_ cars.." Perhaps that meant
> something else than what you wrote? Frankly, your post came across as a
> whiny 13 year old who didn't get his way. You can take all the shots at
> me you want. I could give a rip about your opinion on anything at this
> point.
There you go flaming away again. If you want to discuss the issue of C4
Corvettes and how attendance has suffered with the introduction of the
RX7TT to SS then go ahead and comment. But if you just want to attack me
then please do so in private so we don't waste so much bandwidth. But
either way don't expect me to enjoy getting flamed by you.
Paul Foster
|