I couldn't have said it better.
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 12:11:00 -0500 (EST) Rick Fedorchak
<richard.fedorchak@gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:
>Regarding TAC, Andy Walker makes the following observations:
>>
>>On the subject of TAC:
>> As with most things, I can see pros and cons to the TAC
>system. ...........
>> The TAC system, however, does have one major down point that
>I feel that I
>>must express............... It could even persuade a buyer to maybe
>give
>a higher
>>price for a car that he or she feels has been fully authenticated by
>the
>>"people in the know." ............. But what about us folks stuck
>here
>in the mid-section of the country?
>> Andy Walker
>
>Seems though Andy's dissatisfaction with TAC centers around it's
>apparent
>"non availability" to those in the center of the country. However,
>backing up to an earlier statement from his post brings up problems I
>perceive with the whole TAC business.
>
>1 ) " The self appointed ? "
> Just exactly who decides who the "people in the know" are ?
>Are
>these folks self appointed, elected by Tiger enthusiasts local to
>their
>area or club, or agreed upon nationally/internationally ?? Unless
>it's the
>latter, the whole TAC thing becomes meaningless.
>
>2)" $$$$ are most important ? "
> Every time I see the word "TAC", it's always directly linked
>to
>$$$$$ value for a vehicle. Consequently I believe that in spite of
>what
>STOA would try and convince you of, $$$$/ investment is the major
>reason
>TAC was created.
>Goodbye hobby and fun.....hello bottom line $$ investment mentality.
>
>3) "Secrets ? "
> What's the big secret ? If in fact there exsists some
>"standard" (
>and face it , there really isn't ) of what a real Tiger is, then why
>does
>STOA state that they have a few "informed" individuals who "know what
>to
>look for" and are solely privy to that information ? Why not make
>this
>information available to _ everyone_ in the Tiger community ?
> Maybe it's just me, but historically, I don't think it fares
>out
>well for the majority, when a minority decides _for themselves_, that
>they
>are the sole entity who decides what's correct, guards information as
>proprietary, and is solely responsible for execution of policy. Hey,
>I
>don't know about you folks, but I sure as hell didn't elect these
>folks as
>guardians of the marque. Did you ?? And furthermore, who's in charge
>of
>keeping those
>"in the know " honest ? I mean, how do I know that they aren't
>allowing
>exceptions to their own rules amongst themselves ? A wink, a
>handshake,
>and another TAC certificate issued ? Don't try and convince me it
>couldn't
>happen.
>
>4)" What's the reason ? "
> If these STOA representatives are truly trying to provide a
>public
>service to the marque, why are they charging $$$$ to do so ??
>
>5) " The Law argument ?"
> That supporters of the TAC contend validity to their stance
>via
>stating " putting a drill to the rivets is against
> the law", I find laughable. Unless of course you can prove to me
>that you
>religiously, conscientiously and scrupulously ( sp ? ) adhere to _
>every_
>law on the books. ( including of course those relating to speed limits
>).
>If you _don't_ , than maybe you'd better leave the legal thing
>alone.....
>
>
>At this point you're probably saying " Rick, where in the _HELL_ ar
>you
>going with all this...? "
>
>
> I CONTEND........can we please inject some sanity into
>this
>whole thing ?
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------
>
>First; Is this whole TAC thing really necessary ?
>
>Second; If it is judged, BY THE MAJORITY OF TIGER OWNERS ( not
>just
>one fragmented segment or club ), that something like the TAC is
>necessary,
>can we then include everyone in on decisions, policy, and execution of
>policy ? For example, lets get a consensus from everyone possible (
>CAT,
>STOA, TIGERS EAST, any Brit Tiger Clubs ?, non club affiliated owners
>) on
>what constitutes a real Tiger. Anything less is wholly meaningless.
>
>Third; In order to ensure that this whole mess remains
>aboveboard, honest, and not selectively enforced, the facts need to be
>part
>of the "public record". No secrets please. Many of you contend that
>information of the type Norm compiles is important and eminantly
>worthy of
>publishing and distribution, why would other portions be deemed
>necessary
>to keep "secret" ?
>
>The current STOA regime, and TAC program appears to me to be too self
>serving, and projects the attitude " We decide the issues, we'll
>create the
>rules", and basically..............." we'll decide what's good for
>you. "
>Furthermore , " we'll keep the facts a secret, and we'll grace your
>vehicle
>with our blessing, _OR NOT_ and reserve the right not to tell you why
>! "
>
>Imagine, for a moment, trying to register your car with a state motor
>vehicles agency. You get there and they declare " We won't give you a
>license plate and registration card" ........ "and we won't tell you
>why ,
>either."
>
>I say, baloney.
>
>
> Rick
>Fedorchak
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
|