Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*New\s+car\s+classifications\s+\-\-\s+I\'M\s+done\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*New\s+car\s+classifications\s+\-\-\s+I\'M\s+done\.\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. New car classifications -- I'M done. (score: 1): Author: "richard nichols" <rnichol1@san.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 12:37:50 -0800; I promise that this will the last time I will make this point here, since it doesn't resonate with established autocrossers. Thankfully I enjoy autocrossing for the driving, not for the winning, and; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01000.html (8,516 bytes)
2. Re: New car classifications -- I'M done. (score: 1): Author: Jay Mitchell <jemitchell@compuserve.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:54:14 -0800; Possibly because it's in error, and those of us with some experience recognize the error. So how would one explain the steady increase in participation levels, particularly at higher-level events? I; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01007.html (11,091 bytes)
3. RE: New car classifications -- I'M done. (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:00:30 -0600; -- Mine is broke, it costs $110, it doesnt get used here anyway. I bypassed it.; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01009.html (7,475 bytes)
4. Re: New car classifications -- I'M done. (score: 1): Author: "richard nichols" <rnichol1@san.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:30:41 -0800; Next time, READ my posts. Then, I'll make you a bet. tactic So, what you're telling me (if I heard you right) is that this competitor bought cars specifically for autocrossing? Nope, I can't justify; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01012.html (12,422 bytes)
5. Re: New car classifications -- I'M done. (score: 1): Author: Randy Chase <randyc2@home.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:59:25 -0800; IMHO, you might assign too much value to a few responses on team.net as indicative of established autocrossers. The vast majority of autocrossers (thousands!) are not on team.net and probably could c; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01018.html (11,385 bytes)
6. Re: New car classifications -- I'M done. (score: 1): Author: Jay Mitchell <jemitchell@compuserve.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:55:08 -0800; I did that earlier. Although the neither the tone nor the organization of your response are calculated to motivate one to pay close attention, I'll take the trouble to reply. Read the Solo II Rules,; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01027.html (13,059 bytes)
7. Re: New car classifications -- I'M done. (score: 1): Author: Gemery@aol.com; Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:30:10 EST; Richard Nichols - You've heard from, maybe, a half dozen of the 800-1000 team.net subscribers with the experienced folks saying you're barking up the wrong tree. We've all heard your arguments before; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01044.html (8,265 bytes)
8. Re: New car classifications -- I'M done. (score: 1): Author: "richard nichols" <rnichol1@san.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:06:22 -0800; Really, I'm not reacting badly to the content of what's written. I respect everyone's right to their opinions, and my own right to them. What I react badly to, is responses that aren't based on what; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01057.html (7,685 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]