Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Friendly\s+Compliance\s+Checking\s+Proposal\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Friendly\s+Compliance\s+Checking\s+Proposal\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Friendly Compliance Checking Proposal (score: 1): Author: JDMurphy47@aol.com; Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:04:01 EDT; Given all the Bruhaha that happened in protests at the Solo 2 Nationals and the statement made by several over the last few weeks that compliance checking has been lacking at National Tours over the; /html/autox/2002-09/msg00324.html (8,392 bytes)
2. Re: Friendly Compliance Checking Proposal (score: 1): Author: JDMurphy47@aol.com; Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:15:54 EDT; I envision this as being outside of the tech inspectors' arena but rather someone either from SCCA or their designate (may be several based on the classes being checked) who is technically familiar; /html/autox/2002-09/msg00327.html (8,281 bytes)
3. Re: Friendly Compliance Checking Proposal (score: 1): Author: John Whitling <alliancemillsoft@worldnet.att.net>; Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:01:29 -0400; Perhaps it would be more interesting to have impound *before* you run (except for the weigh ins for mod and prep cars). If a car was protested then, the competitor could get a chance to fix it befor; /html/autox/2002-09/msg00334.html (8,262 bytes)
4. Re: Friendly Compliance Checking Proposal (score: 1): Author: "Patrick Washburn" <washburn@dwave.net>; Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:21:16 -0500; You would be giving up your right to protest a hidden thing based on performance. Take CM for instance. (Read on before jumping the gun.) If I put a clock on my competitors, who are all averaging 10; /html/autox/2002-09/msg00340.html (9,331 bytes)
5. Re: Friendly Compliance Checking Proposal (score: 1): Author: "Don Kline" <solo2dmmr2@hotmail.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:32:29 -0500; Maybe the entry form needs an area for competitors to list the areas they intend to look at for their "weenie" protests so a list can be posted at registration or even included in our packets so peop; /html/autox/2002-09/msg00344.html (8,462 bytes)
6. Re: Friendly Compliance Checking Proposal (score: 1): Author: JDMurphy47@aol.com; Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:15:54 EDT; And I have been a modified driver for many years. I see your point about conducting checks on items that have not been concretely clarified so I would think the checks should be done on items not up; /html/autox/2002-09/msg00347.html (7,938 bytes)
7. Re: Friendly Compliance Checking Proposal (score: 1): Author: JDMurphy47@aol.com; Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:20:09 EDT; As I just emailed Dave on this same topic, I propose compliance checks to be done on concretely clarified items that are quick and easy to ascertain and that it be advisory, thus friendly, so go get; /html/autox/2002-09/msg00348.html (7,706 bytes)
8. Re: Friendly Compliance Checking Proposal (score: 1): Author: JDMurphy47@aol.com; Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:51:42 EDT; As I mentioned in two other emails on this list elsewhere, the items to be checked, at least initially in this multi-year process, would be the concretely clarified items that are quick and easy to; /html/autox/2002-09/msg00393.html (8,371 bytes)
9. Re: Friendly Compliance Checking Proposal (score: 1): Author: Engstrom <the.engstroms@verizon.net>; Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:54:28 -0500; I assume your reply below was directed to John Whitling since he replied to your original email. I'd just like to chime in with my support for your idea. If (and I think it's a big if) we could get; /html/autox/2002-09/msg00399.html (9,183 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]