Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [TrackChasers] greetings

Expand Messages
  • RTRYFBAR@AOL.COM
    In a message dated 2/18/01 speedways@dnx.net writes:
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 19, 2001
      In a message dated 2/18/01 speedways@... writes:

      << Yes the figure 8 tracks have to be retroactive. No I never kept tabs of
      figure 8 tracks so they will have to be off memory. I've been to Islip
      twice, but cannot remember ever seeing a figure 8 race there, so I can't
      count it. The same way with Sunshine >>

      Allan:

      That paragraph makes a great case for making sure that NO CHANGES SHOULD EVER
      BE RETROACTIVE, because as Randy says, it seriously compromises the integrity
      of the lists. I have a letter from you to me dated February 23, 1994, in
      which you sent me your list of additions should Figure 8 tracks count. So it
      is not true that you never kept a list. And that list INCLUDED both Islip
      and Sunshine. So now what? Do you count those two because you "remembered"
      them in 1994, thus seemingly proving you saw them? Or do you not count them,
      because you have no recollection of seeing either track or of even keeping
      the list? If you say don't count them, then if anyone forgets a track, do
      they delete it? If you say count them, will that open up everyone looking
      through old Directories or other people's Figure 8 additions looking for
      tracks that they have been to that run Figure 8's, then adding them without
      remembering them because they think they probably saw them there?

      This is why I was and still am against counting anything retroactively. But
      hey Al, if you want help remembering the 39 Figure 8 tracks you remembered in
      February of 1994, I'm here for ya.

      Will:

      in a message dated 2/17/01 ned98@... writes:

      <<It may have been a "lame, pathetic, stupid" conclusion but at the time it
      seemed the only one I could draw.

      It seems that quote is really bothering you. In case anyone out there
      doesn't remember that quote, IT DIDN'T COME FROM GUY SMITH. PLEASE DO NOT
      ATTRIBUTE IT TO ME. Anyway, since you quoted it twice it seems to be
      bothering you. But if you re-read the posting from February 5 containing the
      quote, you will see that the quote DID NOT refer in any way to your
      conclusion, or to your announcement, but to the entire idea of making rules
      retroactive.

      I don't understand why if that was bothering you so much, why you never
      mentioned it during our three day trip to Quebec during the several hours
      that we all talked about the subject of TrackChaser rules and such. I'm sure
      we could have reassured you as to what was meant by it right there, and that
      it in NO WAY referred to any conclusion or announcement that you made.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.