The IRL people need help quickly!!!!

[garyshell]

I did read it correctly in the first place. Which is why I said your very narrow definition of success was laughable. Sure GrandAm is a success in garnering the attention of multiple manufacturers. So what? If you can't also draw more than 25,000 spectators at your premier event, what is the point?

In the case of Grand Am, I think the point of existence is clear, France Family control.

Gary

What is laughable is your continued insistance that this is my definition of success, despite the clear facts to the contrary.

No where did I say that the Grand Am was successful. I have only stated, and I continue to state, that they have been successful in attracting diverse manufacturer participation without increasing costs to ALMS levels.

This is something that the IRL has had no success in accomplishing.

I love how you edited my reply to remove my acknowledgment that GrandAM was successful in getting multiple manufacturers. But you conveniently ignore the point of my reply, the question: "So what?" What has getting multiple manufacturers involved done for the series? Nothing, if you look at the bottom line indicators of attendance and TV ratings. You remember those, right? They are the factors that pay the bills when you don't have a series ownership with a hidden agenda like the France family has.

I have said multiple time I agree that GrandAm has been successful in the narrow context you keep harping on. I have also said that context is without meaning or merit.

Gary

[garyshell]

This is not rocket science or race car engineering, it's basic English. And evidently you have yet to grasp the concept of a paragraph.

paragraph (one of several distinct subdivisions of a text intended to separate ideas; the beginning is usually marked by a new indented line)

If all the sentences were seperate, then I could see the confusion in understanding his thoughts. But they are in two paragraphs, each of them addressing with how one might best react to international opportunities.

So there is no leap of faith required to undertsand what he is saying here. The rules of the English language guide us to this understanding.

Loose the personal insults.

Let me ask you this, who broke this spoken quote into paragraphs? Did TG do it or did some reporter? Your entire defense of this monolithic stance is baseless unless TG wrote them as two paragraphs. Otherwise we are back to your ability to project intent based the written version of the spoken word, without the benefit of hearing that spoken word.

As I said before, I didn't say your interpretation was wrong. All I said was your dogmatic insistence that there is one and only one possible interpretation is.

Gary

[Rex Monaco]

I did read it correctly in the first place. Which is why I said your very narrow definition of success was laughable.

Then let's review, shall we?

Post one:

So you're argument is that the Grand Am isn't a successful example of diverse manufacturer participation? How can you support that claim in face of the facts?

And post two:

So successful diversity in manufacturer participation is judged by track attendance and tv ratings, and not by the diverse entries in the field?

It's a very strange world in which you reside.

It seems that you did not read the word 'successful' in it's context and your conclusion that this is some how my definition of success, cannot be supported by either of these posts.

[Rex Monaco]

"So what?" What has getting multiple manufacturers involved done for the series? Nothing, if you look at the bottom line indicators of attendance and TV ratings. You remember those, right? They are the factors that pay the bills when you don't have a series ownership with a hidden agenda like the France family has.

If we are going to compare attendence and TV ratings to justify or veto every idea, then we should compare NASCAR to the IRL. We can start by comparing the Daytona 500 to the Indy 500. It's not pretty.

What we have is the IRL still being unprofitable while clinging to the failed idea that being a Honda spec series in the name of cost containment will change it.

And in it is in this area, that even the Grand Am with it's lower TV ratings and it's lower attendance is able to contain costs AND attract diverse manufacturer participation.

So the IRL can't claim to have diversity and it can;t claim to have the highest rated race on TV. In fact, the Indy 500 is not even in the top 5 highest rated races on TV.

My contention is that diversity of manufacturers is what will create market interest amongst the fanboys that must be attracted to the series so that it can grow.

[Rex Monaco]

Loose the personal insults.

Let me ask you this, who broke this spoken quote into paragraphs? Did TG do it or did some reporter? Your entire defense of this monolithic stance is baseless unless TG wrote them as two paragraphs. Otherwise we are back to your ability to project intent based the written version of the spoken word, without the benefit of hearing that spoken word.

As I said before, I didn't say your interpretation was wrong. All I said was your dogmatic insistence that there is one and only one possible interpretation is.

Gary

You just changed your thought in the second paragraph, was that your intention? Because now I am confused as to what it is you are trying to communicate to me because you might not have meant for that second paragraph to be there.

Seeing as how TG's statement was posted on the Indycar website, we can be fairly certain that TG endorses the writing style as posted. If he doesn't have that much control over the content of his series website, then we have much bigger issues.

[Rex Monaco]

I have said multiple time I agree that GrandAm has been successful in the narrow context you keep harping on. I have also said that context is without meaning or merit.

Grand Am has Porsche and BMW participation. The IRL doesn't. There is some meaning and some merit there, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

[garyshell]

Rex,

I get it. You are always right. Any other interpretation of these points is wrong. How silly of me to even think there was more than one way to view things or even suggest that. I will from now on bow to you to tell us all how things are.

There are you happy now? ...shakes head...

Gary