Keith, you have to thank JON for the chat and our site, I have very very little
to do with it, I do the bike thing, Jon has all the computer savvy. Joe :) :)
Keith Turk wrote:
> Hey Joe.... Well said.... oh and great chat room last night.. again without
> your reminder I would have missed it.... ( Yeah Joe that's the Key to not
> letting me in )
>
> Keith.... ( and yeah I talked to Darrel yesterday and beat him up bout not
> disagreeing with anything lately... I missed the opportunity to laugh with
> him)
>
> ----------
> > From: Joe Amo <jkamo@rapidnet.com>
> > To: dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com
> > Cc: landspeedracer@email.msn.com; land-speed@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: rules
> > Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 12:15 PM
> >
> > Doug, you and this forum has NOT beat the rules interpretation to death,
> this
> > is what makes this forum so powerful. This current door panel thing is a
> > perfect example of how rules can be misconstrued, and ultimately MADE
> BETTER.
> > Because it is like reading the BIBLE, except that GOD is the comittee and
> is
> > here on earth, reachable and there to make changes as needed. It is our
> duty
> > as racers to bring up this things like you did Doug. I can tell you it
> is no
> > different on the bike side either, often the racers in a particular
> category
> > have a stronger grasp of the rules than many of the rules committee, and
> that
> > is NOT a slam on the rules people. I mean we are the ones who ponder
> each and
> > every detail for a year or years, preparing. Keep up the debates thats
> what
> > makes this site and country so great. Without the site, less
> communication,
> > and more disgruntled folks at tech. Joe Amo :) :)
> >
> > dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com wrote:
> >
> > > i guess i would personally have a tough time in tech inspection if i
> rolled
> > > in with a production entry with some nice, well crafted, polished or
> > > anodized beadrolled aluminum doorpanels and i started getting flack
> about
> > > them from the rules commitee, while another production entry with old ,
> > > ratty, mildewed original cardboard factory doorpanels slipped right
> thru,
> > > with the rulebook written as is. (like having original doorpanel
> upholstery
> > > is necessary to classify a car in the production category - come on !)
> i
> > > think we have beaten the rule interpretation issue to death on this
> forum.
> > > obviously one cannot build a legal entry just by reading the scta/bni
> > > rulebook, since i wouldnt even think that this doorpanel issue would be
> an
> > > issue at all. rather , it appears that every aspect and detail of
> vehicle
> > > construction must be approved another groups consensus or jury rule
> > > committee on a case basis via their interpretation, and not what the
> > > rulebook says verbatim . whatever ------------------
> > > ill shut up now- i dont even have a production ride
> > > POSITIVE regards, doug @ black radon engineering
> >
> >
> >
|