Tigers List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Rick Fedorchak <(email redacted)>

Regarding Paul R's comments:
>
>I guess I'd heard about "TAC bashing"

TAC bashing ?? How about difference of opinion , that'd be more accurate .

>But this time there seems to be a new twist - impuning the integrity of the
>TAC inspectors

Somehow I don't think a persons status as TAC inspector should exclude them
from scrutiny. Particularly when their actions have a potentially direct
correlation as to automobile value and/or resale.

As probably the most outspoken person on this subject, (so far ) I find
it virtually incredible that STOA's own homepage can allude to dishonesty
amongst (potentially ) ANYONE in the Tiger fraternity, yet adopt such an
indignant attitude when someone asks ( essentially ) who polices them.


>So , I made a few inquires. Seems one guy is reported to own an Alpine
>conversion,

Reported to ? Sounds like conjecture.....

> another had his car restored by "what's his name down south", a
>known, outspoken opponent of the TAC program,

And of course this automatically relagates him to villan status and to be
viewed with suspicion ??

> someone else is reportedly
>building a conversion,

There's that "reportedly" again. More conjecture......

Hey Paul, what've you ( reportedly ) heard about me ?? That I'd like to
hear......
>

> They've already made up their minds about TAC.

And your "Simply Amazing" posting somehow shows you to be a man of
eminently open mind ??? Er...I don't think so...

> just that they are skewing the facts and their arguments in
>order to promote their own agendas.

I don't know about anyone else, but _I'm_ just trying to understand some of
the facts surrounding what 's become a real hot topic.

>
>Because of this recent bashing of the TAC program, the STOA authentication
>committee is now looking into means by which persons interested in the
>program may more easily obtain information, have they're questions answered
>or concerns addressed. Stay tuned on this.

Hey, this is GREAT. And I'm not being sarcastic. First off I find it
interesting that you used the title "STOA Authentication Committee" That's
something I suggested to Tom Hall in a personal e-mail ( not posted to the
list ) message over the weekend. I just thought it sounded more accurate (
and indicative of what a person is actually "buying", i.e. STOA's
definition of a real Tiger ) than Tiger Authentication Committee. ( Which
would imply marque wide deferance to STOA standards.....which if I'm not
mistaken, has never occurred )
And the other half of that paragraph, about information, questions
answered, concerns addressed is a very good idea.
>

>4) TACing a Tiger does NOT increase it's value, although TACing may make it
>easier to sell a Tiger to a prospective buyer , provided that buyer has
>knowledge of the TAC program.

Maybe this is something you guys should go back to the bullpen and discuss.
I get conflicting opinions from some of you ( STOA / TAC inspectors ) as
to whether the purpose of TAC'ing is to increase the value of a car. Tom
Halls posting stated that this WAS in fact one of the desired outcomes.....
(increased value, that is )

>
>Why is it that these TAC Bashers are so intent on obtaining "secretive
>-minute detail" information when all they supposedly want is to spread the
>fun and drive safer cars?


C'mon Paul. Enough with the ( not so ) veiled accusations. There are a
lot of reasons people might want to know.
>From my view the "secret society" method of administering this ain't great.
To me there's just too much possiblity of mistakes, corruption ( and
before you go off getting pissed at this statement, your own TAC system
supposedly is required to have a three inspector concurrance, basically
your own recognition of the fact that corruption IS possible ), but mostly
_ subjectivity_ . ( Subjectivity not of your standards , but of the
interpretation ) Furthermore, what recourse does a person have who feels
he/she may have gotten a bum calling from a the TAC ??
( And I ask that because it seems that questioning STOA or TAC only brings
down a barrage of shit mostly centering around implied dishonesty on the
part of anyone who disagrees with you or questions you...If you don't
believe me, re- read your own posting )
>

I found it curious that out of my posting, the TAC proponents only chose to
single out the part where I mentioned problems as I perceived them .

For some odd reason, no one TAC proponent seemed willing to acknowledge or
latch onto the idea of "Consensus" for the purpose of tuninig the TAC
into a more universal ( via agreement from the Tiger society at large
versus just STOA ...... and consequently IMHO more valuable ) service to us
all. Why do you guys continue to sidestep some of these tough but
improtant questions ?

For the record, Paul, I'm sure you, Tom, and many of the people at STOA are
honest persons of high integrity. I just wish you wouldn't view the rest
of the Sunbeam population, particularly those who dare to disagree with you
in some areas, so dimly.


Regards,


Rick Fedorchak