<VV> Claypool's parts car

[airvair at earthlink.net]

No, not really. It was a test of the "as-built" ideology. The fact that all
the resulting posts have proved me right was merely incidental. 

As I suspected, the "as-built" ideology (that a restored car has to have
ONLY those options it had from the factory, no more, no less) has a serious
reality flaw in it. That being that when confronted with the very real
world situation of a rare/valuable option being orphaned by its having been
installed in a now beyond-saving parts car, the ideology has no workable
answer. In fact, it's at a total loss to even conceive that such a
situation could happen. Granted, while the line between what is salvagable
and what isn't is subjective, it DOES exist. The "as-built" ideology
doesn't even know or recognize that fact.

What I offered was a workable solution, based on the fact that there are
plenty of copies of any given type of car, but there may be only a handful
or less of certain rare options. Therefore, it's better to "sacrifice" a
more "common" car to being not "as-built" in order to save the much rarer
option AND the information of how it was installed and how it operates. And
THAT is often the choice historical preservationists face all the time.

The fact that those who believe, heart and soul, in the "as-built" ideology
are so married to it that they cannot see the forest for the trees is
regrettable. I do hope that such people rethink their flawed ideology. And
THAT is the main point I was trying to make.

-Mark

> [Original Message]
> From: Chris & Bill Strickland <lechevrier at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: <VV> Claypool's parts car
>
> airvair at earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >All,
> >
> >I want to thank you all for proving my point, 
> >
>
> I'd comment, but why bother ...  [so, it really wasn't a discussion Mark 
> wanted, but affirmation of his pov]
>
> Bill Strickland