Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post

...and the ITAC's "prove it to us" response is, typically, followed with "build it first and prove us wrong, because we won't take your word for it, nor will we accept your logic, nor your experience, nor your intelligence or knowledge, nor will we accept computer programs or expert testimony, either."

..............
The ITAC has made it clear that the only way to "prove" something, positive or negative (as much as it can be) is to "build it and prove it." Go view that whole shebang about FWD in ITS/ITR I started last month.

GA
Whoo boy Greg.

Fist, let me very clear.

MY 'problem' with Buzz is that his request was, essentially, unreasonable. How hard is that to see? IF his letter was sarcastic, well, that's not smart. And, judging by the amount of money he tossed at that car (heck, the dampers on/off the car alone are worth more than lots of guys entire outfits, LOL) he's gotta be smart enough to rake in enough cash...yet, we have to take his letter at face value.

All we can do when we get a letter like that is respond appropriately.

So, if someone doesn't don't like something, tell us exactly what it is, why it is, what to do, and provide empirical data that shows us the error of our ways.

You know what? That's often a lot of WORK.

Just like college though, the letters we get that DO provide real data and a clear concise call to action, are the ones we can work with.

But, I'm sorry, a letter that says, "It can/can't be done, I have years of experience, I'm very bright, you'll have to trust me", isn't a starter!

We have a duty to the mebership that each ITAC member must be able to say, "I saw the numbers, I saw the data, I have confidence in the out come", and the membership isn't going to take "We got a letter from a guy who said "trust me" as a legitiment reason for a change.

In Buzz's letter he asked for something that was unreasonable, (or was a joke) and provided no data other than one races results. And look at the facts that came out after the fact on THAT! Sheeesh.


But further, we have never said the items in your quotes.

And, what's REALLY ironic, is that you have NO idea whats happening behind the scenes. Your FWD issues were interesting, and Andy and I both asked you to help provide empirical data to prove your point. Truth is, we were truly interested, (to the point of calling each other and discussing the issue over the phone, to try to get a handle on it....and we were on your side!) but again, we need to justify any actions to our membership. In essence, what we were saying was "Please help us and give us some teeth to go into battle with". But your response was one of "I have the experience, I've been doing this for years" and so forth.

Interestingly, it was Mike who actually came up with solid empirical data, something that we can work with and present to the committee. Remember, teh committee is a buch of guys, and you know what? They don't all know you, or Steve, or whoever. They have to see the numbers.

Again, we are bound by duty to be able to explain our actions to the membership.

Have we done that perfectly in the past?? NO!!! Can we do it better? YES! Are we trying? YES! Will it get better? I'm sure!. You have no idea how hard we're trying, the steps being taken, and the things going on behind the scenes.

Rome wasn't built in a day.