Finally, some stuff to actually debate


-your conflict(s) of interest[/b]
Been adressed. You think it's there, it isn't. People who know me and the work I put in know it's a bogus smoke screen to have to avoid the real issues. The ITAC nor the CRB would have anyone serving on their committies that had such demonstrated conflicts. I am as impartial as they come. Sorry to let you down.

-ITAC's (and your) promises early on that SIR was good to go in 27mm configuration
-now you are backpedaling & blaming the vendor? GIMME A FRIKKING BREAK[/b]
We gave you the information as it was given to us. Blame the vendor? Where do you think we got the info? Duh! People flew off the handle with bogus info without doing the research. If they had done the research, they would have come to the same conclusion that was given to us. We were keeping the line of communication open. Was the info flawed? Yes, in some ways that have been detailed.

-total lack of testing of 27mm SIR[/b]
You are right on here. Testing should have happened PRIOR to the CRB laying down the rule. Read this part VERY carefully - the ITAC had NO PART in the decision, the sizing or the implementation dates for the SIR.

-total lack of transparency of testing 27, 29, and all other SIR sizes that may or may not have been tested[/b]
I have seen data on 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's. I hope that the CRB will release findings in their summary statement.

-total lack of transparency about the formulas (citing an arbitrary post # of a long-forgotten BF thread does not cut it)[/b]
You are 100% wrong on this. That post was as detailed as it gets. If you still have questions after really reading it, please post them. This process has been posted here manay times and has the support of the vast majority.

-multiple promises that 27 (and now 29) SIR would only have an effect at higher than 180-190rwhp[/b]
See above (and in multiple explanations in this thread) about what was 'wrong' when the rubber hit the rollers.

-now you are backpedaling & blaming the vendor...WHERE WAS YOUR DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE THE RULING?[/b]
Nobody is backpedaling. We got a recommendation from Raetech on a size and the reasoning behind it. The CRB decided to go 2mm larger based on testing. As far as due dillegence and the ruling, that is a question for the CRB as explained above.

-posting of any & all minutes of ITAC meetings that discussed the E36 issue(s) in which you participated[/b]
See my first response. Let's talk real issues instead of your wrong assumptions about bias that have been shot down. It may appear like there could be an issue but the structure doesn't allow it. Move on.

-shall I go on?[/b]
Please do. This is all being done on the up and up. There is nothig to hide. For specifics on the actual decision and timing etc, send a letter to the CRB, they did it all.

Now....hit me again about my silly user name & how many posts I have. LOL.
[/b]
No need. You are doing a great job yourself.