- 1. Stock in Stock - another view (score: 1)
- Author: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:12:08 -0700
- I have thought about this a few times, however I have come to this conclusion: If you don't allow aftermarket shocks and a front bar, a ton of competitive cars become extinct. The cream REALLY rises
- /html/autox/2000-07/msg01242.html (7,453 bytes)
- 2. Re: Stock in Stock - another view (score: 1)
- Author: "Jamie Sculerati" <jamies@mrj.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:10:06 -0400
- conclusion: competitive cars the best That's true if you keep the existing classes -- but since we accomodate everything from Ferraris to Yugos, doesn't it just mean that classes would be reshuffled?
- /html/autox/2000-07/msg01245.html (7,432 bytes)
- 3. RE: Stock in Stock - another view (score: 1)
- Author: "Kevin Stevens" <Kevin_Stevens@Bigfoot.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:20:56 -0700
- I agree with your conclusion; I don't agree that it's a problem. All it really amounts to is that there'll be some class shuffling to be done. That's why I suggested grandfathering such a rule in, so
- /html/autox/2000-07/msg01262.html (8,827 bytes)
- 4. Re: Stock in Stock - another view (score: 1)
- Author: "Kent Rafferty" <gs96@sgi.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:54:40 -0400
- Thanks, Andy, for hanging with us and voicing your opinions. It's helpful when you and GH share some of the thought processes that go into SEB decision-making. I disagree with you on one point howeve
- /html/autox/2000-07/msg01268.html (8,219 bytes)
- 5. RE: Stock in Stock - another view (score: 1)
- Author: "Linnhoff, Eric" <elinnhoff@smmc.saint-lukes.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:04:19 -0500
- And of course I stand firmly on my soapbox that a myriad of ills would be and very little damage, by obsoleting cars older than 7 years or so from stock classes. Before you dismiss the idea out of ha
- /html/autox/2000-07/msg01278.html (7,526 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu