Quote:
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Thats the exact sentence, no edits.
Just for fun, when someone is in the act of cheating....are they a cheater?? Unless you define a "cheater" as some one is a repeat offender, there is no way that one who is cheating is not a cheater...One who commits murder is always referred to as a "Murderer", and is so for the rest of his life. Tense has no effect on the label.
[b ]
____________________________________________
Murder, beyond the legalistic definition, means to "slay wantonly". A soldier involved in a battle slays wantonly (believe me, this I know about) but most of us do not consider a soldier wantonly slaying his enemy in self defense and in defense of his country a "murderer".
If I refer to an an act as "cheating," in this case if the installation of the rear horizontal bar had not been welded to a plate (as it appeared in the photograph and evidently as perceived by others on this post also), that installation according to the rules as written would have been "cheating." Until such time, I have proven or George or Greg has disproven (as they have) that the installation as perceived was not "cheating" the act "defeats the purpose or blunts the effects" of a rule and is "cheating". I didn't even know who had installed the bar so the fabrication that I was calling Greg or George a "cheater" is by your own supposition, not mine. If I refer to an act, without even knowing the actual perpetrator or the circumstances of his participation in the act, I am not necessarily refering to an individual, that is your distortion.
GRJ[b ]
__________________________________________
I submit that you are weaseling and backpedaling, if you are saying that we are twisting your words. Murdering the language and logic, as it were......
A better approach would have been something on the order of..."I'm sorry I flew off the handle...I reacted without confirming.... the picture didn't show clearly that the plate wrapped around," or something along those lines, IMO.
_________________________________________
If only you were so careful with your own comments!?
GRJ
_____________________________________________
Some loose details....you state that the "plate rule" as you call it, went into effect in 2001, I have a 2000 GCR handy and it reads the same as it does now. Further, when I built my cage in '97, I did the same thing, after reading the book, and considered it to be easily legal, no twisting or stretching, just factual reading.
_____________________________________________
You are correct. I am wrong. However, I beleive prior rules disallowed the practice. Note the 1/95 exemption. I know the installation would have been questioned in the past, as I stated.
GRJ
_____________________________________________
Frankly, whether you formed your accusation as a question or a supposition to Bill is of little interest or value to me, it was very insulting, and completely out of line.
(Edits for grammer and spelling, and now code stuff)
________________________________________