Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin, those that ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.
I'm NOT ignoring the past... I said I wasn't AS CONCERNED with it as I was with what happens in the future... I was very concise, so stop trying to twist my words... I learn from past, apply it to the present, and try not to repeat mistakes in the future... BUT I'm not going to dwell there, because I can't do much about what happened before I got here. The best I can do for our members is try not to repeat those mistakes...
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And since you feel that there is no need for a new class, don't see the need for a transparent classification process, and feel that we already have rules in place to handle classification issues, is it safe to assume that you don't support the PCA initiative?</font>
Well, I guess this is where the conversation ends, because I'm not going to drag a perfectly good discussion down this path again... I will, however, answer to your accusations and question:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And since you feel that there is no need for a new class...</font>
While I don't see the need for another class, I never said that it wasn't there. That was the point of starting this discussion... to explore the issue and try to discover that one way or the other... I believe that, as an ITAC member, it's my job to be thorough and explore all angles, which is what I was doing here, as in most of my other inquiries...
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...don't see the need for a transparent classification process...</font>
I
NEVER said or indicated this. It's been my position that it would be difficult to do, but have never said it shouldn't be done... In fact, just a few posts up I said:
"NOW, if there was just some practical, somewhat inclusive way to trigger the change and to calculate the need for weight..."
I don't know how you read that, but it sounds like "process" to me...
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...and feel that we already have rules in place to handle classification issues</font>
We are discussing the option of
RECLASSIFYING VEHICLES... This is a conversation discussing the rules that already exist for reclassifying IT cars... That's it... I have made no comment or otherwise suggested that there are rules "in place to handle (ALL) classification issues"... Again, please stop adding meaning to what I say...
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...is it safe to assume that you don't support the PCA initiative?</font>
You know what...
NO, it is
NOT safe for YOU to assume anything about me, because you don't do it very well...
I don't recall discussing PCAs in this conversation, other than to say to you the following:
"Nope... unless I'm reading the rules incorrectly, the SCCA doesn't NEED PCAs to do this type of move."
This was in direct reference to your comment about adding weight to cars when they are reclassified...
I have never waivered on my support of the PCA proposal, and am not now... It is a workable solution to many of the issues in IT today. But it's already on the table, and while we are waiting to see what the membership reaction is, I just thought we could talk about something else...
It was nice while it lasted...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 17, 2003).]
the process and motivation for such moves are suspect due to lack of transparency, and © when cars HAVE BEEN moved, their weights seem not to have been re-examined. There has been room to fix many mistakes for years but the Comp Board has chosen not to.
