David Hawkins wrote:
>
> >Seriously, that is my point. The reaction here is more to WHO was
> >protested, than WHAT was protested, IMHO.
>
> The person being protested could have been Paul Revere for all
> I care....my reaction is to the method, which was an ambush. It
> doesn't matter what you were looking for, or what point you were
> trying to make. To autox with someone, see that their car is
> configured in a way that may be questionable, and NOT say
> anything to them because you want to protest it at nationals and
> get a rules clarification just stinks.
>
> None of the 'I didn't want her to know about it until her runs were
> over' make one bit of difference. The sportsmanlike thing to do is
> to point out a problem with someone's car WHEN you see it. Not
> to hold out and bring it up without giving them a chance to consider
> it. I would much rather have someone point out a potential problem
> on my car and let me determine for myself if it's legal than spring it
> on me after all of my runs at nationals. That way when it came up
> in impound, I could tell myself 'I looked at it and I'm confident that I'm
> legal'.
Agree with all of the above. If someone thought I was illegal, I would
rather they mention it to me. If someone wants to make a point
nationally, using my car, I would expect they would let me know.
I was just trying to explain the emotional reaction of most. I think if
it was not Katie, but some unknown non-team.net driver for example, the
reaction of most would be less heated.
Besides, I hear Paul Revere's horse was totally legal.
Randy Chase
|