Now this is getting fun!
I deal with each one of you at one at a time. Some of you are potentially reachable some are irretrievably lost in space.
Ralphy: I'll begin with you. First, no..you cannot buy an "exact copy" of a Continuation Cobra for 1/3 the price. If you think you can please enlighten us as to where this "exact copy" can be purchased for 1/3 the price. You clearly are talking out your ......well any way please get back to us with that info..Ok?
Further, even if such an car existed it would not be a Cobra but a replica of one. What you can't seem to grasp is that being a Cobra is in many ways more than just a sum of parts. It is a name, mark and heritage in addition to its parts. It is the combination of the tangible and intangibles that can only be derived from from or through Carrol Shelby and SAI. Only those cars that are part of or close enough to the Shelby lineage and heritage are brought into the fold of "Cobras".
The Registry lays out the definition of "Replica/Kit Car". They are lumped together with the same definition. If you read the Registry or even owned one we hopefully wouldn't have been dragged through your inept english/computer lesson. Did I use the slash correctly there?
You clearly aren't an english major. At least you admitted it.
I didn't start with an ambiguous definition of "Replica/Kit Car". I quoted the Reigistry's definition. It is very clear and unambigous except to you apparently.
You weren't even mentioned in my post #19 yet you believe it was directed at you. Guilty conscience? Well, guess what, at least you're right about somethng. It was directed at you. Your post #14 was clearly a shot at the Continuation Series Cobras. Please don't make it worse by denying it. So, In actuality since 14 comes before 19 it was you who picked the quarrel. Moreover your "clever" little post which was admittedly designed to leave the theoretical questioner "scratching their head" clearly was "contorted" just for that purpose. You really do seem to have a problem with truth and accuracy.
Your iittle diatribe on the whole "kit" thing really hurts my head. How do you do it? Making such a ill conceived argument is such a limited amount of words?
Likely many here own at least one dictionary. I own many. I'll take your word on the definition of "kit". Sounds right. But once again you lose sight of (1) they are not my definitions (2) the issue is not method of purchase or acquisition but the classifying and defining the end product. To an extreme all cars are a Kit at one point or another as they are a set of parts to be assembled and worked up. This is the definition you provided.
"Replicas and Kit Cars" are defined by SAAC. They are defining the end result. I provided you the definition. I understand you don't like it or agree with it. Thats cool.
I've been very unambiguous. You just lack the capacity to grasp the issues apparently.
Finally, I do agree with your statement that terms are used here as a bashing tool such as the word "kit" and "replica", fakey doo (way before your time here) and others. In fact, wait a minute... a very recent example of using these terms as a bashing tool is in post #14 right on this very thread. What a jerk, right?
Dimis: Gee, I thought you were done with the thread. Couldn't stay away eh?
If 500 years on I'm still going..then no I obviously didn't need saving.
Difference between Gallieao and SAAC is that Gallieao was speculating. SAAC has all the facts it needs.
Please enlighten us on SAAC's vested interest and conflict of interest. Would love to know. Apparently you know something many do not. Please spill the beans.
Jhv48: Wrong. You obviously haven't done your homework either.
buddyg: The blind following the blind. Nuff said.
Cheers.