[Ralphy]

The starter, Real1 wants to give an unambiguous definition for his car, yes. But he started with an ambiguous definition to a replica, as replica/kit car. Check his first post #19, he also started the attacks on me. With a post I made as a joke that went clearly over his head. He drew first blood!

Now if you ever noticed when your using a computer the forward slash denotes a order of attachment. Example, Computer/Photos/Vacation, they're connected a drill down sequence. My response of his continuation of this is. A replica is not always a kit car. He finally offered some limited proof. But his typing of the real statement changed to, "replica or kit car", written as unconnected, not being of the same. Not replica/kit car. So he was wrong in his own first statement. I'm no English major but I do know the diff in this case. One of my responses to his, "it has to be right because the SAAC says so is?


"The SAAC may be an authority as to Cobras. But they did not coin nor do they have ownership of the word, "Kit". And as far as the English vocabulary goes, it doesn't revolve around or search guidance from the SAAC. The fact is if you order a Shelby in boxes, "It's A Kit." That's the real world! Not some 5,000 member site, but a multimillion people association spanning the globe."

Merriam Websters, Kit: "a set of parts to be assembled or worked up"
Kit - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So first off maybe he first needs to learn the real definition of kit car. Yes replicas can be a kit car, but they may not be. They can also be a manufacture built car.

Maybe REAL1 should be unambiguous of others cars?

Why this? Because over time I've seen terms used here and spoke of as a bashing tool, such as kit car. Plus confusion over the terminology. And IMO that is what Real1 set out to do. I find no offense to the term. Since there are some very nice kit cars here. Plus I give any owner many points for doing it themselves.

Ralphy