For CSX 2000 and 3000 Series Cobra Owners Eyes Only

[A-Snake]

Evan your replies remind me of this...

Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by A-Snake

Evan your replies remind me of this...

Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube

By golly, me thinks you've come upon the one truth.

It don't matter what the hell you call it so long as it feels good.

[LMH]

I don't really see what the discussion is. If your Cobra didn't originate at AC in England in the 60's, then it's a replica of those that did. Varying degree's of replication, yes with some replicating originals more than others but still a replica. The continuation cars are still replicas.
The OP's question is do owners of original cars get tired of being asked if their cars are kit's, replica's, copy's or whatever other term the low-information voter uses... I bet they do. If the low-information voter wasn't low-information, he (or she) wouldn't need to ask. I'm sure it happens as much as replica owners are who asked the same question. Just remember they're low-information!
Larry

[Cobra #3170]

This might help clear things up

How do you know if a Cobra is real?

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by Cobra #3170

This might help clear things up

How do you know if a Cobra is real?

Oh. my...

"Waxer" (aka Real 1) is on that forum and thread as well...
...peddling the same ol' there as well.

If it doesn't rain this weekend you can bet I will be driving my genuine Cobra thats an exact replica of the original series

well... almost exact.

and, almost genuine.

[REAL 1]

I want that cup!!!! Cool.

Ned: Brian Angliss clearly acknowledged AC built and sold COB and COX Cobras in europe under license from Shelby in the resolution of the "Completion" issue and further that SAI was the manufacturer of record for the original series of Cobras. As the subsequent owner of AC and former adversary of Shelby in the legal arena surrounding the Completion series issues. That is clearly a binding admission. However, when he admitted this in 1993 we already knew this.

[computerworks]

...If asked it is "real" my answer it "yes"

And, in the context of what the layman is asking, you are lying to him.

You will never understand that.

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by computerworks

And, in the context of what the layman is asking, you are lying to him.

You will never understand that.

Ron, he prefers the verbal and written joust to keep his skills honed with his constant play on words. as an attorney, he will never admit to it. After all these years of listening to the same regurgitation of the half truth from his mouth and keyboard, you know this as well as I do.



Bill S.

PS: Evan, do you deny posting what was quoted above, yes, or no?

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by computerworks

And, in the context of what the layman is asking, you are lying to him.

You will never understand that.

Gee Ron, you again conveniently left off the balance of what I tell people from your "quote" and take only the part of what I've said that suits your needs and then accuse me of lying to people nor am I misleading them. Candidly, your statement bull@$#%.

Its your organization that provided the definitions. Those are what I go with. We are allowed to rely on those definitions aren't we? I guess if you don't like the definitions then talk to your organization but don't call me a liar. In fact, you would have me tell the laymen something inaccurate by telling them "no, its not real it's a replica" when the Registry clearly defines it as otherwise.

Shouldn't the laymen ('civilians, right?) be entitled to learn about these cars or should my answers and other Continuation owners answers just go on to to be self deprecating so perpetuate their ignorance on the subject? Isn't that part of what SAAC's mission is to educate and preserve? Why, SAAC even publishes and sells the World Registry to the public does it not? It even sells memberships and invites memberships from Cobra owners and non owners and "civilians" alike. Does it not? The World Registry sets the standards does it not? Gee, the Registry itself seems to say so. Is SAAC lying?

Lets take a further look at what your clubs World Registry states. Page 6 under "Introduction:
[/u] "This book is more than just an attempt to keep track of the individual history, current whereabouts and last known owner of each and every car. As a totality [u] [i]T DEF[i]NES WHAT CO[b]RAS AND FORD GTs ARE AND SPEC[i]CALLY [i]DENT[i]F[i]ES WH[i]CH ONES F[i]T THAT DEF[i]N[i]T[i]ON. [i]N TH[i]S SENSE, THE REG[i]STRY SERVES TO PROTECT THE LEGACY THAT WAS CREATED [b]Y THESE CARS [b]Y PROV[i]D[i]NG SPEC[i]F[i]CS WHC[i]H CAN [b]E [u]SED AS A YARDST[i]CK AGA[i]NST WH[i]CH ANY CARS P[u]RPORT[i]NG TO [b]E GEN[u][i]NE CAN [b]E MEAS[u]RED...

I have two cars that are "registered" in the registry and had to be submitted through a registrar for that car. Had to fill out paper work and everything. Even had a deadline to submit. You mean you guys registered non genuine fake Cobras and are keeping track of those too?

At page 27 the World Registry clearly states:

THE SECOND WHY THE N[u]M[b]ER OF FAKE CO[b]RAS HAS [b]EEN GREATLY RED[u]CED [i]S THAT SHEL[b]Y [i]S NOW OFFER[i]NG A NEW GENERAT[i]ON OF CO[b]RA ROADSTERS. NO ONE [i]S SER[i]O[u]SLY ATTEMPT[i]NG TO CONV[i]NCE ANYONE THAT THESE CARS ARE "OR[i]G[i]NAL (THAT [i]NCL[u]DES ME TOO)...THAT [i]S TO SAY THEY ARE THE SAME CARS [b][u][i]LT AND SOLD [b]ETWEEN 1962 AND 1968. [b][u]T THEY ARE VERY CLOSE MECHAN[i]CALLY AND COSMET[i]CALLY, AND THEY ARE [b][u][i]L[i]T [b]Y CARROLL SHEL[b]Y. SO WH[i]LE NOT "OR[i]G[i]NAL" THEY ARE A[u]THENTC.

The definitions clearly define CSX4000 series cars as current production Cobras built by Shelby. It's right there in black and white. I can even look up the picture of my authentic Cobra in the registry and read about it. My Ford GT too? By the way are they fakes or replicas of the original GT? Why are they in there????

So you see I am not lying when I answer the "is it real" or "is it original" question as I said I answer. It seems, however, that many here for their own self interested reasons would like me and other Continuation owners to misstate the current facts and truth and continue to perpetuate the confusion and ignorance of those unfortunate civilians or perhaps those that don't like my answer simply can't comprehend what the Registry so clearly says. It's not me that doesn't get it.
*

Bill: Yes I said what I wrote obviously, however, do me a favor and yourself a favor try using quotes in context if you are going to use them. Having it pointed out that you used a statement out of context or without full explanation makes you look a little silly.

ERAChas: Thanks for your comments. Appreciate it.
Had I not been accused of "lying" to "lay" people on this subject I likely would not have even bothered to continue to waste my breath here on this issue. Really. However, my dander was raised by the accusation but now have taken a deep breath and remembered, hey it's Club Cobra, nothing new. Again, even the guys on the GT Forum "got it".

Your organization and a world recognized authority says my Cobra is an authentic Cobra and I am not allowed to say it is in the manner I answer the question or I am lying????? What a crock. LOL

All I'll say in closing to those still refusing to recognize the Continuation series as a authentic Cobra read the World Registry and weep.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

[u] [i]T DEF[i]NES WHAT CO[b]RAS AND FORD GTs ARE AND SPEC[i]CALLY [i]DENT[i]F[i]ES WH[i]CH ONES F[i]T THAT DEF[i]N[i]T[i]ON. [i]N TH[i]S SENSE, THE REG[i]STRY SERVES TO PROTECT THE LEGACY THAT WAS CREATED [b]Y THESE CARS [b]Y PROV[i]D[i]NG SPEC[i]F[i]CS WHC[i]H CAN [b]E [u]SED AS A YARDST[i]CK AGA[i]NST WH[i]CH ANY CARS P[u]RPORT[i]NG TO [b]E GEN[u][i]NE CAN [b]E MEAS[u]RED...

THE SECOND WHY THE N[u]M[b]ER OF FAKE CO[b]RAS HAS [b]EEN GREATLY RED[u]CED [i]S THAT SHEL[b]Y [i]S NOW OFFER[i]NG A NEW GENERAT[i]ON OF CO[b]RA ROADSTERS. NO ONE [i]S SER[i]O[u]SLY ATTEMPT[i]NG TO CONV[i]NCE ANYONE THAT THESE CARS ARE "OR[i]G[i]NAL (THAT [i]NCL[u]DES ME TOO)...THAT [i]S TO SAY THEY ARE THE SAME CARS [b][u][i]LT AND SOLD [b]ETWEEN 1962 AND 1968. [b][u]T THEY ARE VERY CLOSE MECHAN[i]CALLY AND COSMET[i]CALLY, AND THEY ARE [b][u][i]L[i]T [b]Y CARROLL SHEL[b]Y. SO WH[i]LE NOT "OR[i]G[i]NAL" THEY ARE A[u]THENC.

Why did you do that? I had a headache before you even started writing, but that technique made it absolutely splitting.

EDIT - Unless that post looked normal on everyone else's screen but mine and doesn't have brackets scattered throughout the entire post.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Why did you do that? I had a headache before you even started writing, but that technique made it absolutely splitting.

EDIT - Unless that post looked normal on everyone else's screen but mine and doesn't have brackets scattered throughout the entire post.

Sorry. It was my damn Ipad. I hate these things!!!

[CobraEd]

These posts from "you know who" are the epitome of insecurity. Do we really need to see all this. Lets just shut the whole thing down.


.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by CobraEd

These posts from "you know who" are the epitome of insecurity. Do we really need to see all this. Lets just shut the whole thing down.


.

Now I'm insecure? Geez. You obviously don't bother to read what I have said either. Nothing to do with insecurity.

Also, plenty of other threads to pick from if you don't like this one.

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

All I'll say in closing to those still refusing to recognize the Continuation series as a authentic Cobra read the World Registry and weep.

I addressed you directly in post #91 of this thread and I'd like a direct response from you. I don't like being talked past.
At least two others agreed that I presented a sensible alternative to this endless and destructive carping and semantics exercise.
What is your feeling about my suggestion Evan?

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

I addressed you directly in post #91 of this thread and I'd like a direct response from you. I don't like being talked past.
At least two others agreed that I presented a sensible alternative to this endless and destructive carping and semantics exercise.
What is your feeling about my suggestion Evan?

Your suggestion was a good one, however, when I am accused of lying ( or now being insecure) I just felt compelled to set the record straight. I doubt you would sit by idly if accused of lying. I did not mean to talk past you. You didn't like that. I don't like being called a liar (by a moderator no less).

As I said above had I not been accused of "lying" I had no interest in wasting further breath on this discussion as I agreed with you.

I lost interest in this site previously due to personal attacks in the past. Have no interest in continuing to participate in any site where I am attacked personally.

Thanks.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

I don't like being talked past.

Did someone say something? Well, anyway, I thought I heard someone say something but I guess not. Now what were we talking about.

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Bill: Yes I said what I wrote obviously, however, do me a favor and yourself a favor try using quotes in context if you are going to use them. Having it pointed out that you used a statement out of context or without full explanation makes you look a little silly.

Evan,

"This business is well ended.
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
Why day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day and time.
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: your noble son is mad:
Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
What is't but to be nothing else but mad?
But let that go."

Hamlet, 1602

What more really needs to be said


Bill S.

PS: We were in Warren last night, those damn cicada bugs are so loud, not sure how you guys can stand it.

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Gee Ron, you again conveniently left off the balance of what ... blah, blah, blah...

Evan...I know you too well to continue a semantic argument beyond the first two rounds... as stated, you just don't get it.

One more time, and I'll let the discussion continue without me.

1. Original Cobras were built from 1962-1968.

2. When the general populace asks if a Cobra is "real," most every rational person in the hobby knows full well what they are asking.

3. You choose to delude them with your "clinical" explanation....for the sole purpose of what? Educating them? Making them feel good? Making you feel good?
Don't care. It's a lie...

4. Your car is not real, in that context. Your car is nice...your car has a Shelby nameplate (that is not in dispute). It is authentically a car that was sourced from a company that Shelby owned... not the company that made real and original Cobras.

5. In 1962, Shelby (and AC) made and sold cars.

6. In this generation, the Shelby company makes and sells kits that are a replica of the original, and a nice one at that.

7. You did not buy a car from Shelby, if we want to stay clinical about the semantics. You bought a kit. Your "car" wasn't built by Shelby; your car was built by an aging hippie in Pennsylvania...the guy who turned your kit into a motor vehicle.

So...
It is not that we really don't like you... it is the incessant irritant of your need to try and "educate" a circle of folks about an alternate reality.

It has always been clear that for some reason, you "need" to embrace your supposition that your car is genuinely real and needs to be footnoted whenever some poor kid tries to find out if he is looking at an original Cobra.

I know you won't stop and I know you won't be convinced otherwise...and that's OK.

And you are welcome to keep coming back periodically to ClubCobra to state your case, no matter how exasperating it is to listen to.

...and I will always continue to call BS.

[ERA Chas]

Evan,
You once took a hiatus from this forum for a period of time. The cause was this same intransigence and the desire to change the thinking of the general membership here (which includes SAAC board members and CSX owners who may have actually contributed to the Registry) on this issue.

Your arguments have obviously gained no further traction in this latest rehash.

I, in NO way, am suggesting you leave the forum again. I simply ask that you agree to disagree with the widely prevalent understanding, since we all know your interpretation. Thus your point is made and your position on the provenance of your car is intact and does not need to be restated into a firestorm of opposition.

I admire your car (and NOT because it is a CSX) too much to see you go away and deprive us of your Cobra-owning contributions and experience. I'd much rather read your posts on your car's performance, carb setup, brake pads, gear ratios and any technical, functional aspect of your car.

Not how you think the world should view it's lineage. Which is virtually all you post about.

It should be all about the cars here and not the political hierarchy of the various 'classes' of original / real / fake Cobras. It always degenerates into the 'bigger dick' syndrome which by now is tedious and benefits no one's understanding and enjoyment of the cars themselves.

Jus' sayin'...

[Tutosnake]

Well, my car's top loader is out for repair... 2nd. and 3rd. gears are bad...