Redlight Poll (Revised)

[Jason]

Hey Casey, on Saturday its 116 against and 67 for your "lets change the rules"...that means your losing dude!!!!!


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez

Sort of like the Energizer rabbit,right Ed?

Haven't seen him, but I'm guessing he's not as cute. lol

Just went to eat with Gary and Ann Moore, and Vern Bucannon. Vern asked me if I knew Billl, told him only from here. First time I ever met Vern. Really cool guy.

[johnny shot]

I can tell you the exact valid argument. Prior to dial in racing, stock and superstock ran off National Records. Then a group of complaining racers who were not winning campaigned to allow a new rule called "dial under", to level the playing field and make it fair for everyone.

But that was not fair enough for some. Change the rules again so you THINK you can win.

You want to get rid of the breakout inequity? I agree. Lets change that rule. Change it back to running of the national records with no break out. Problem solved.

I don't have a rule book in front of me, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a red light or lane crossing is grounds for disqualification. Going under the dial is not, it's simply a matter of doing the math.

Originally Posted by bill dedman

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 read light" makes any sense is in a heads-up race. DUH...

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by johnny shot

I can tell you the exact valid argument. Prior to dial in racing, stock and superstock ran off National Records. Then a group of complaining racers who were not winning campaigned to allow a new rule called "dial under", to level the playing field and make it fair for everyone.

But that was not fair enough for some. Change the rules again so you THINK you can win.

You want to get rid of the breakout inequity? I agree. Lets change that rule. Change it back to running of the national records with no break out. Problem solved.

I don't have a rule book in front of me, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a red light or lane crossing is grounds for disqualification. Going under the dial is not, it's simply a matter of doing the math.

Johnny, how much of this thread have you read?

Nobody wants to change anything about breakout rules; this whole thing is just a discussion about why should the second car to leave get a free ride to the next round (or, Winners' Circle) just because his opponent left first and red lighted. Some folks on here think that the second car to leave should get HIS chance to red light, too. They feel that there's no reason why he shouldn't face HIS red light jeopardy, too, as a matter of fairness.

Can you think of any good reason why he shouldn't? I can't...

The fact is, that the rule that creates this lopsided scenario came about in 1963 (!) when the electronic capability of correcting it didn't exist, yet, but it does, now... so, saying "It's always been that way" isn't a valid reason.
Way past time to fix it...

[Ed Fernandez]

You want to get rid of the breakout inequity? I agree. Lets change that rule. Change it back to running of the national records with no break out. Problem solved.

Sounds like a good idea.But then S/SS would turn into a playground for guys with deeeeeeeep pockets.Think about it.

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

Haven't seen him, but I'm guessing he's not as cute. lol

Just went to eat with Gary and Ann Moore, and Vern Bucannon. Vern asked me if I knew Billl, told him only from here. First time I ever met Vern. Really cool guy.

Ed,
I'll concede I'm wrong about that impertinent and off-the-wall statement that your namesake made when EITHER of you answers the question I have asked MANY times. but neither of you EVER answers, which is, "Can you give me ONE GOOD, LOGICAL, LEGITIMATE REASON NOT TO CHANGE THIS LOPSIDED, UNFAIR RULE?"

I think I'm safe....

[johnny shot]

I've read it all. You must not have because I've already explained the redlight part several pages ago. Then, while further reading the whole thread, the breakout rule was questioned and asked for a re-write. So I responded to that. Now, I'm responding to you. See? Now please read what I wrote on the redlight issue and you will see my thoughts on it.

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Johnny, how much of this thread have you read?

Nobody wants to change anything about breakout rules; this whole thing is just a discussion about why should the second car to leave get a free ride to the next round (or, Winners' Circle) just because his opponent left first and red lighted. Some folks on here think that the second car to leave should get HIS chance to red light, too. They feel that there's no reason why he shouldn't face HIS red light jeopardy, too, as a matter of fairness.

Can you think of any good reason why he shouldn't? I can't...

The fact is, that the rule that creates this lopsided scenario came about in 1963 (!) when the electronic capability of correcting it didn't exist, yet, but it does, now... so, saying "It's always been that way" isn't a valid reason.
Way past time to fix it...

[johnny shot]

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez

You want to get rid of the breakout inequity? I agree. Lets change that rule. Change it back to running of the national records with no break out. Problem solved.

Sounds like a good idea.But then S/SS would turn into a playground for guys with deeeeeeeep pockets.Think about it.

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...

[johnny shot]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Johnny, how much of this thread have you read?

Nobody wants to change anything about breakout rules; .

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.

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Ed,
I'll concede I'm wrong about that impertinent and off-the-wall statement that your namesake made when EITHER of you answers the question I have asked MANY times. but neither of you EVER answers, which is, "Can you give me ONE GOOD, LOGICAL, LEGITIMATE REASON NOT TO CHANGE THIS LOPSIDED, UNFAIR RULE?"

I think I'm safe....

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.