Hay-soos Tap-dancing Cheeto.

YOU ALL ARE THE BEST ARGUMENT YET PRESENTED FOR *NOT* "USING WHAT WE KNOW" IN ANY FASHION WHATSOEVER IN THIS GAME. (EDIT - almost) ALL OF YOU.

Andy, based on his experience, is VERY confident about his understandings on the Miatae. He "knows" that things are certain ways.

The problem is, other people "know" other things that are potentially inconsistent with Andy's "knowns;" or based on what individuals "know," they think what others "know" is wrong.

This is precisely why I am going to do my damnedest to resist any of these "we know" things when they come to the ITAC. The gorilla in the room here is that a LOT of the inconsistencies that form the basis of the real concerns that started this goat rope of a thread are in our rule book because of what one person or another "knew" when the listing decision was made. At the end of the day, Giles' Civic spec weight is farked up because someone was just too smart by half - they "KNEW" something and applied it. The Golfs don't align within their brand, all with the same kind of technology, because each of the many decisions over time was influenced by well-intentioned (mostly) people, applying what they know. We they dicked because someone had it in for them? No - I am very confident that they were not. But our biases influence what we "know" even if we don't KNOW THAT THEY DO.

I am going to throw myself bodily in front of any suggestion that anything besides (a) the standard 1.25 multiplier, and (b) clear, yes/no attribute adders (e.g., FWD), until/unless I see with my own eyes a big-ass pile of actual data, with attribution.

K