I'd tend to agree, Kyle. But there's lots of drivers in Conference who don't run Hondas.
Something we should remedy. There's a LARGE population of Honda enthusiasm who, IMHO, are spending lots of money on their Hondas without proper direction. If they could somehow be motivated to go racing instead of entering in NOPI or HIN, our membership base could grow quite a bit. To be fair, the same could be said about Bimmer enthusiasts.
BTW Kyle, poking fun at someone, harmlessly is a form of camaraderie. I don't mean anybody any harm nor any disregard as I figure we're all in this together. I know Blaszczak thinks that anyone running Hondas must have a genetic defect but I don't hold that against him.
To be on topic I seek out Kyle the most because I whole heartedly agree with his stance on the subject, just
not in this context, thus the back and forth. The viewpoint of choice is fine on a larger social or political scale but in this case 1 person's decision or lack thereof could have real negative consequences on the group as a whole. The dynamics of Conference in regards to choice is very different to the philosophy of choice on a national/social level and my cognitive dissonance is trying to stuff a Libertarian ideal into the cookie dish we call Conference. As I try to do so, I'm getting ingredients spilled all over the kitchen floor and don't see how this recipe comes together.
So going back to my original point before everyone
but Kyle got angry at my innocent ribbing, since our insurance and legal advisers have deemed that not requiring the device poses no increased risk then I completely support Kyle's thinking and all the philosophical ingredients then actually fit in the cookie dish!, however
if the vote went the other way I would still not be bothered because I get the bigger picture and the context in which is set.
However, if our insurers deemed that not making HANS mandatory posed unnecessary and unwarranted risk then I would support only the decision to make them mandatory.
kyle said:
Please don't use the "threat" of an immenant event if some one dies if they are not wearing a restraint. That is BS.
I agree. Using an appeal to fear or even slippery slope isn't the right way to refute the principle and my doing so is regrettable. I still stand behind the mountains of logic in support of using them.
kyle said:
That is what is wrong with our Country. Too many career politician, lawyers and greedy people.
And now this is disconnect I'm having. We are not talking about our country, we are talking about ICSCC and not all principles of Democracy, Social freedom, Dictatorship, Libertarianism or whatever social philosophy you subscribe to carry over to what we're trying to do in ICSCC. It isn't the same. Kyle, I'm on your side, and with no comparison to you or anyone else, I am not absolutist in any theories I subscribe to and when I see compromise I take it with a grain of salt. I look at the bigger picture and consider the sources, who stands to profit or who stands to lose. Since HANS or DefNder are not funding a proposition to make them mandatory, and nobody in Conference is trying to usurp more dictatorial power, I think it's safe to say that if they were made mandatory it would be done so with proper intent and spirit of the conference and its participants as a whole without jeopardizing the value the of input our members have.
Mike: You know frustrated I am with trying to change people's minds but I felt I need to at least make my stance clear which I have done so poorly in my previous posts.
I won't post in this thread anymore.