Lance Stander (Superformance) makes Forbes

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Mark IV

It IS a "Shelby licensed product" (as are some other items) and in the case of the 289 MK II a virtual duplicate to the original with allowances for available materials and parts as well as numerous improvements which the Hi Tech built Shelby cars also feature.

I love how you slip in a sales pitch for the MKII in your explanation and/or retraction of what Lance said in the article. Car sales people to the end!

And it's a very nice car, but one important feature is missing, and that's the aluminum body. But whatever.

I'm not buying what either you or Lance are shoveling. Sorry, but there would have to be a complete breakdown in communication between the Forbes writer and Lance for all those "factual errors" to get printed.

Nope, sorry, no "slack" from me. That nonsense is now in the public domain forever and newbies will read it as gospel. And for that, I'm sad.

[Mark IV]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

.

I'm not buying what either you or Lance are shoveling. Sorry, but there would have to be a complete breakdown in communication between the Forbes writer and Lance for all those "factual errors" to get printed.

Have you ever been interviewed for a print medium? I have been (and for an automotive enthusiast publication at that) and what was offered and what was printed differed. And that was to a journalist who is a "car guy"! Imagine with someone who does not begin to understand what is being said.

Was there some hyperbole offered? Likely. Was there out and out misinformation? Not likely as there are too man y like this forum ready to call out misinformation.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Mark IV

Have you ever been interviewed for a print medium? I have been (and for an automotive enthusiast publication at that) and what was offered and what was printed differed. And that was to a journalist who is a "car guy"! Imagine with someone who does not begin to understand what is being said.

Was there some hyperbole offered? Likely. Was there out and out misinformation? Not likely as there are too man y like this forum ready to call out misinformation.

You can buy it, as an SPF dealer, and others here can buy it, but I'm not.

And yes, I have been interviewed in my life. It was in middle school....

And I've also read thousands and thousands and thousands of them along with their occasional retractions and corrections.

[Mark IV]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

I love how you slip in a sales pitch for the MKII in your explanation and/or retraction of what Lance said in the article. Car sales people to the end!

And it's a very nice car, but one important feature is missing, and that's the aluminum body. But whatever.

I'm not buying what either you or Lance are shoveling. Sorry, but there would have to be a complete breakdown in communication between the Forbes writer and Lance for all those "factual errors" to get printed.

Nope, sorry, no "slack" from me. That nonsense is now in the public domain forever and newbies will read it as gospel. And for that, I'm sad.

Yes,

I do sell Superformance. Not ashamed at all.

And it is obvious you have made up your mind so we won't bother you with facts.

I don't understand your issue with the "Shelbys as they are real (but not old, original, period, whatever) Shelbys.

Yes, most of us all drive a "replica" unless we have a '60s era car that originated at Thames Ditton. Different strokes and different degrees.

I guess I missed the memo where you were made arbiter of all things "Cobra"!

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Mark IV

Yes, most of us all drive a "replica" unless we have a '60s era car that originated at Thames Ditton. Different strokes and different degrees.

Well if other manufacturers would put "replica" in their names, as in ERA Replica Automobiles, life would just be easier for everyone around.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Mark IV

Yes,

I do sell Superformance. Not ashamed at all.

And it is obvious you have made up your mind so we won't bother you with facts.

I don't understand your issue with the "Shelbys as they are real (but not old, original, period, whatever) Shelbys.

Yes, most of us all drive a "replica" unless we have a '60s era car that originated at Thames Ditton. Different strokes and different degrees.

I guess I missed the memo where you were made arbiter of all things "Cobra"!

I'll scan and email the memo to you.

You know the history here, but yes, I have a problem with the use of words "authentic", "genuine", "real", "original," etc. And replicas do NOT equal those 4+ words.

And we've discussed and argued this topic here since CC was started. And I believe Ned Scudder, the SAAC Registrar of CSX2000's/3000's had the same problem. But I don't want to start it again.

Yes, I have made up my mind. That doesn't mean that it could never change. BTW, why are you not the moderator for the GT40's SPF Forum anymore?

[Mark IV]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

BTW, why are you not the moderator for the GT40's SPF Forum anymore?

Because I am a flaming A$$hat.

Politics and we will leave it at that. I actually STILL am the "moderator" but there has been no need for moderation in the forum I am responsible for. That is big difference between the forums, GT40s.com has a very low signal to noise ratio and the goofball stuff stays in the Paddock forum.

[jhv48]

Real1 must be giggling his ass off right now.