QUOTE=Alan Roehrich;151451]I did. Try reading. I'll give you a clue. It has something to do with changing the balance.[/QUOTE]
What "balance" are you referring to; one that would spread wins evenly around the classes?
That would be sportsmanlike. Give everyone the same chance.
What other kind of "balance" could you be talking about?
Here is the "balance" we now have:
Stock Eliminator wins, 2009 season, 24 races contested:
AA/S through K/Stock: TWENTY WINNERS
L/S through W/S: FOUR WINNERS
That's a 500-percent disparity. FIVE-HUNDRED PERCENT!!!
Stock Eliminator WINNERS, 2009, by class:
AA-3
A-3
B-1
C-1
D-3
E-3
F-2
G-1
H-3
I-0
J--0
K-0
total = 20
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++
L--0
M-2
N-1
O-0
P-0
Q-1
R-0
T-0
U-0
V-0
W-0
total = 4
Is this what you call "BALANCE"??????
AND, YOU"RE CONCERNED ABOUT UPSETTING THIS "BALANCE" by changing a rule that, by your own admission, takes away the "faster car advantage???" RE: "you'd like to take this advantage away from guys like Bertozzi, Biondo, Fletcher, and others."
I don't think ANYONE deserves an advantage. YOU obviously do...
Maybe you'd like to explain the logic behind that.
Alan wrote:
>>>"Thank you for exposing your misguided agenda Bill, now that I see it for what it truly is, I see there is no need to further discuss it with you, as I can now see clearly your goal is merely to try to take something from people you see as the "haves", and give it to those you see as the "have nots".
Perhaps you should seek elected office, your ideas seem to be all the rage right now.[/QUOTE]
So, this is your latest "KILL THE MESSENGER" ploy.... Because you think you've discovered a nefarious motive in my "agenda," you can take this opportunity to cop out, and choose not to discuss it further, since you have put yourself between a rock and a hard place in suggesting that this rule change might upset the "BALANCE," but then realizing that there IS no "balance" (A FIVEHUNDRED PERCENT DISPARITY????) you want to end the discussion... LOL!
Have you yet figured this system out to the point that you understand that removing a car from red light jeopardy is an advantage that can not be repaid by the second-to-leave car????
There's no "balance" there; the second car to leave can receive immunity from a red light (if the first car bulbs). That can never happen to the first car to leave.
Once again; where's the other side of that coin, and why don't you answer the question????????