<VV> Claypool's parts car

[airvair at earthlink.net]

If the shoe fits....

I was just trying to return the intellectual discussion to the parameters I
had laid out originally, parameters you (or someone like you) violated. The
whole discussion would be pointless if you violate those parameters.
Apparently, you don't like to stick to the rules in any game. You must be
horrible with everything from board games on up.

"Original" vs "restored", etc. as you present it is irrelevant for sake of
this discussion. 

Anyway, to get back to the original discussion, the point is that there are
three, and ONLY three options. Some Corvette people feel that a car HAS to
be restored to an "as-built" condition, with NO variation on options. The
discussion consists of deciding which path is the best: 1) scrap the parts
car WITH the rare option, 2) scrap the parts car and salvage the option,
only for it to become a dustcatcher on a shelf, or 3) do #2 but install the
option in an appropriate car. NOTE that "restoring the parts car" is
absolutely, positively NOT an option in this intellectual discussion. What
part of "no" don't you understand? And I don't care who has what
capabilities. Consider if the God of all heaven and earth, who created the
entire universe, wouldn't have the power to "restore the parts car". Use
THAT parameter, then maybe you can possibly grasp the idea.

Again, what I want to discuss is that of the possible three options, which
is best. My position is that #3 is the best, because #1 loses everything,
#2 loses the knowledge and function of an installed and working system,
while #3 preserves it all. Preserving it in a car that had it in in the
first place is incidental and really not all that earth-shatteringly
important. And THAT is where I feel such Corvette people are doing more
damage than benefit. THAT is my point.

-Mark

> [Original Message]
> From: Chris & Bill Strickland <lechevrier at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: <VV> Claypool's parts car
>
> >such a thing as the limit of practicality. If some people choose to
exceed it, so be it. But at some point, you simply don't have enough left
of the "original" item to call it the original item. You get my point?
> >
>
> And, to whom are you speaking?  Perhaps, to me?
>
> If so, the point is that the limit of practicality is different for 
> different people and different locales -- Take Widman's 1960 --  on the 
> west coast, it is a hopless crushable basket case --  I sold a better 
> body shell for scrap as no one wanted it for free -- In Bolivia, with 
> their import laws, labor rates, and Richard's desire, suddenly it 
> changes to a doable project.
>    http://www.widman.biz/Corvair/English/English.html
>
> You can't impose your standards of practicallity onto others -- it is an 
> individual thing dependant upon individual situations, individuasl 
> resources, and individual desires.
>
> And, I believe you are introducing a new argument in regards to the 
> original post -- "originality".  Your words, "restored to 'as built' 
> condition" only refers to condition, not originality, so now, you want 
> to talk "originality"?  Well, Original and restored can not, by 
> definition, sit side by side -- only unrestored cars are "original" -- 
> once you start restoring, you can aim for your "original condition", but 
> the process itself destroys any "originality".
>
> Cars are only original once, and any change to said vehicle destroys a 
> part of that originality, even though "routine maintenence" requires 
> it.  So, what is it you want?  "Original", "maintained as original", or 
> "restored to original condition" -- the end result may be similar, but 
> they are not the same thing. 
>
> Regardless of any organization's rules which may attempt to define such 
> otherwise.  Calling a rose a fish doesn't make it so.
>
> Apologies to Richard for mis-speaking his surname in an earlier post.
>
> mo, and I'm stuck to it.
>
> Bill Strickland