Re: 1969 Camaro Special Order Paint Process
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DW31S</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guys and gals, let's stop the mud slinging and childish rants and get back to the real reason we are united here..... it is so counterproductive to cast negative slurs to one another......this is supposed to be fun!!! </div></div>
Exactly.
Everyone just needs to take a step back here.
We need all the different sources of information, and objective looks at each source.
I greatly appreciate the input from retired workers. Likewise, the recollection of an owner AND the observation of MANY cars over the years is valuable; as is GM documentation. They are all pieces of the puzzle.
Clem can’t understand why notarized statements of events from 46 years ago doesn’t result in a “closed case”. Sadly, it doesn’t. Not because of Clem, Clem’s integrity, or any thing else having to do with someone’s honesty. Memories fade. I can’t tell you how many times I have thought something happened a certain way and was corrected by a brother, a high school friend, or whatever. I AM NOT SAYING CATEGORICALLY THAT CLEM IS WRONG.
I have seen notarized statements from owners and dealers that turned out to be absolutely false. I can’t think of ONE where I believed the person making the statement was intentionally lying. They simply made mistakes. So, we have become skeptical of the notarized statements. Does that mean all of them are useless? Not at all. They are a piece of the puzzle.
Lastly, check the ego at the door. It gets in the way. We all have something to learn. When the obvious point of a post is to prove you are right, or how much you know, you aren’t likely going to be contributing in any meaningful way.
I spend more time on this site than any other car site. Why? Because I learn from some of the best. Because NORMALLY, we can agree to disagree, or at least disagree civilly.
__________________
Don't believe everything you read on the internet ... Ben Franklin
|