Redlight Poll (Revised)

[johnny shot]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

"Can you give me ONE GOOD, LOGICAL, LEGITIMATE REASON NOT TO CHANGE THIS LOPSIDED, UNFAIR RULE?"

I think I'm safe....

Logical, and legitimate reason:

Once the first car fouls, THERE IS NO RACE from that point on. The red lighter has been ELIMINATED and the race is OVER.
It's O V E R. Can't get any more logical than that.

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by johnny shot

I have deeeeep pockets. I want the rule changed to suite my agenda. Just like everyone else. Anybody who lobbies for fair for all is an absolute saint or a liar. I've never met a saint. Liars lobby for their perceived advantage under the disguise of fairness. Met them...

Is that so.Maybe you can reach in one of those deep pockets and throw a one year sponsorship to an old on the balls of his ***** racer so I can take my low buck operation on the road this year.
Me and my fellow low buck group get great a great satisfaction out of knocking off a big dollar guy now and then.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by johnny shot

Logical, and legitimate reason:

Once the first car fouls, THERE IS NO RACE from that point on. The red lighter has been ELIMINATED and the race is OVER.
It's O V E R. Can't get any more logical than that.

You think that's a reason not to change it?

That's the status quo; not a reason at all.

What's your opinion of a reason not to change it? When does the other car get HIS chance to red light in this race? Don't you think conditions should be the same for both cars?

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

And on, and on, and on, .... :-). Bill, I personally don't really care either way. However, it ain't gonna happen. Get real. They aren't going to spend any money on a software change to change anything to suit any group of people that has been calling them crooks, thieves, and worse when that group is a minority. Just won't happen, no matter how much comaining goes on.

See? You can't do it.

He can't do it either, because there IS NO GOOD, LOGICAL, and LEGITIMATE reason NOT to change it.

Think about that... all the opportunities both you and Ed F. have had to shut me up for good, by explaining how what I am proposing is going to damage Class racing as we know it (or, Bracket racing, for that matter.)

All it will do is improve the fairness of the system. No longer will the first car to leave be the "patsy," if he bulbs, sending his opponent to the next round on a freebie that he did NOTHING to earn.

It is beyond my understanding, how anyone could think this is a "bad" change.

But, some people just like to argue, even when they know they're wrong.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by johnny shot

Read my post # 13. (red lights)
Bunkster Post # 22 (change breakout rules)
YOUR post # 23 (you agreeing with Bunkster on breakout rule revision)

Once one vehicle breaks out, the other vehicle ought to be immune?

Bunkster: "The first to foul, and the first to breakout are always the loser." Seems like this would be a consistent application of the notion of "first".
Bill Dedman: "wish I'd said that"

And you just told me nobody wants to change breakout rules. Guess you're no saint.

Here's you post #13 on red lights: "So dumb to even continue this but I can't help it.
It's so simple. Once the first car fouls, THERE IS NO RACE from that point on. The red lighter has been ELIMINATED and the race is OVER. What the second driver does after that is of no consequence because the round is already over. Unless foul worse than a red light occurs. It's a time trial, test n tune pass, a chance to win the Perfectly Strange award, if they still have that, wave to you friends whatever.
So take that last beating you dead horse......"

All that did was tell us that you have NO UNDERSTANDING that with the new red light rule, THE RACE WON'T BE OVER UNTIL BOTH CARS HAVE EACH HAD THEIR CHANCE TO RED LIGHT. That's the whole point of this discussion. If you don't understand that, at this point, I'd suggest you enroll in some remedial reading comprehension classes.

RE: Bunkster's post #22: He said, "The enthusiasm for "first" in the case of the starting line, I presume this would apply to the finish line as well?

Once one vehicle breaks out, the other vehicle ought to be immune?

"The first to foul, and the first to breakout are always the loser." Seems like this would be a consistent application of the notion of "first".

He knows that nobody will go along with a stupid rule like that, so he's comparing it with the OTHER stupid rule, the current red light rule.

Since you didn't "get that" (the sarcasm) I can see why you thought what you thought.

Try to keep up...

My agreeement with his sarcasm in post 22: "Excellent logic, Mr. Bunkster. I can't imagine a valid argument against what you have suggested.

Wish I'd said that...

The only instance a "first red light" makes any sense is in a heads-up race. DUH..."

See, I trashed both the red light AND the first breakout in the last sentence...

Nobody DOES want to change the breakout rules. Ask anyone... I sure don't.

[bill dedman]

[QUOTE=johnny shot;244132]You want to get rid of the breakout inequity? I agree. Lets change that rule.QUOTE]

WHAT "breakout inequity???"

I have never heard a serious comment that there is ANYTHING wrong with the breakout system as it exists. If you're referring to Bunkster's sarcastic comments, I must remind you that he was just illustrating the point thst a "first red light" rule is absurd, and illustrated his point with a "What if breakouts were on the same basis." It was a joke... but a joke with an illustrative purpose.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by johnny shot

. Anybody who lobbies for fair for all is an absolute saint or a liar. I've never met a saint. Liars lobby for their perceived advantage under the disguise of fairness. Met them...

Tell me your conception of the "perceived advantage under the disguise of fairness" that would exist under a new red light system wherein BOTH cars had an equal chance to red light, every time at bat. They don't now, you know... IF the first to leave bulbs, the second car suffers NO red light jeopardy like the first car did, and gets a free ride to the next round.

Is THAT not a "perceived advantage?" No, it's a REAL advantage, and needs to be eliminated. Drag racing has enough problems with fairness (AHFS; HP Factors:Politics: Shall I go on???) and this is one that's been around for 48 years and is an easy fix, now.

Let's fix it!

[Bunkster]

Let's see now...

* The first car to be found light at the scales shall be the loser.

* The first car to be found with too much camshaft shall be the loser.

* The first driver to be found intoxicated shall be the loser.

* The first car to be found wrong at fuel check shall be the loser.

Okay. Now I am beginning to see the error of my thinking. Now all is beginning to make sense.

[JRyan]

Bunkster, your thinking IS in error because the second, third, fourth, ad infinitum would also be eliminated in those instances. So those points are moot!

Jerry

[Ed Wright]

This just gets more funny as it goes along.