Dennis et all
My biggest problem with SM replacing SP is the cost.... If SM's almost
non-exsistant engine swap rules are carried over you've(the SCCA not Dennis
personally = )) just created another class the a very large percentage of
us cannot afford. I could afford to buy a mid 80's CRX or Civic, and
properly build it to a competitive CSP car, but I could not afford the
4500-5500 extra to drop a Type-R engine into it... Or an early Scirroco for
FSP, and then the $$$ for a 1.8t or vr6 motor....
IMNSHO
Dave Kizerian
URSCCA
01 VW GTI 1.8t
----- Original Message -----
From: <dg50@daimlerchrysler.com>
To: "Richard Atkins" <richarda@npclabels.com>
Cc: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 7:24 AM
Subject: RE: Dennis's Agenda
> > Dennis said"
> >> I DO NOT want to screw the SP people.
> >> That is NOT part of my agenda. If it turns out to be impossible to mix
> >> classes a la Marcus's proposal without screwing someone, then the idea
> >> DOESN'T FLY. PERIOD."
>
> > I have been reading all of this and if the above is your true opinion
> then
> > it doesn't fly. No way this works without screwing the SP people.
>
> OK, fine. Thanks for your input. <- and no, this isn't sarcastic; I mean
> it.
>
> > My only other comment is you knew this would cause a lot of comment so
> why
> > let it get to you?
>
> Comment is *fine*. I posted the idea because I wanted to see the comments.
> I wanted to see where the objections lied. I had guesses as to what they
> might be, but I wanted to hear them from the horse's mouths.
>
> When Marcus first told me the idea, my initial reaction was something like
> "Well, it's a good idea from a rational and logical point of view, but no
> way are the reactions to it going to be based on logic and somber
> reflection."
>
> It turns out that I was somewhat uncharitable to some folks. I got some
> very well-measured, polite replies to the idea in private mail - some for,
> more against. Thanks guys, you provided what it was I was looking for.
>
> But no way was I expecting personal attacks of the likes I saw these past
> couple of days.
>
> There's nothing at all wrong with disagreeing with an idea - it's not like
> everything that comes out of my head is a gem (even though this one wasn't
> even mine!) - and it's through open discussion of ideas that the good
stuff
> comes to the surface. It matters not the least to me that *I* be "right";
> what matters is that the **idea** be right - or at least, "most correct"
or
> "the best compromise". That requires discussion and debate. That's how SM
> came about, if y'all remember.
>
> It is really sad though that some people feel the need to attack the
person
> behind the idea, rather than the idea itself. A certain someone has lost a
> lot of credibility with me.
>
> What's really kinda funny about that is that we just finished a huge
debate
> on the SM list over an idea that this person raised - namely, that given
> that SM does not require emissions complience, that the requirement for a
> current plate is both uneccesary and perhaps even a little bit dangerous.
I
> have argued against that position in the past, but have come to realize
> that I was in error, and have been arguing his viewpoint to the rest of
SM.
> The universe, it seems, has a sense of humour
>
> DG
|