Riddle me this: why is it that the ITAC, and by extension the CRB, require people to
prove a negative before making changes? Yet, when positives are proven nothing is done? Anyone, with any modicum of commonly-available (yet rarely-used) logic, knows that it is impossible to prove a negative.
Take this MR2 example: EVERY time someone (usually people intimately familiar with the car) says "the car can't make the power" or "we can't make the weight" 'the rulesmakers' come back and say "prove it." In other words, YOU spend the exorbitant amount of money to prove it cannot be done before we'll even consider changes. Of course, what if someone was STOOPID enough to spend that money, what's to keep 'the rulesmakers' from coming back and saying 'no, you didn't prove to us you did EVERYTHING, we still don't believe your demonstrated power is all that can be done you need to spend more money and you've not done everything you can to remove the weight'? Or worse, they say "you're right, but the car is properly classified as-is"? Then, all that money that was spent to try and prove this negative will have been totally and completely WASTED.
Which idiot among us is willing to take on THAT risk? I think the odds are better at the casino dollar slots...
Yet, when there are other proven cases that a car makes much more power than the process indicates, with the same amount of resulting conflict, thus a proven positive, nothing is done to change it?
It's these kind of arguments that frustrate 'the masses' and make 'the rulesmakers' look really, really silly...as long as the process is written (or enforced) such that negatives must be proven before changes are made - and proven positives are not addressed - no one will be satisfied and 'they' will continue to look stonewalling and stubborn.
"Hey, I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'..." (copyright 2007, Scott Giles)
[/b]
Bookmarks