CSX 6000 at Barrett-Jackson

[REAL 1]

Oinie: Nice Avatar. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Ron: Silly? Uh, not really, each successive Cobra is an exact copy of the previous. If you want to apply the dictionary definition literally you can certainly make it fit to each original series Cobra being an exact copy or reproduction of its predecessor made by the original artist or maker. Of course in common usage today most understand "replica" to designate something that looks like what it really isn't. A SPF, ERA, FFR, Unique look like Cobras but are not Cobras, they are faux Cobras. Hence in common parlance as the term replica is used and understood of course its "silly" to refer an original Cobra as replica because its exactly like its predecessors. But if you want to apply the term literally it can fit.

My point is that SAAC recognizes that the term replica has been misapplied in common usage as noted in the Registry. SAAC recognizes the Continuation series/CSX 4000 series as current production Cobras. Period. End of story.

The Continuation series therefore by its very nature in being a current production Cobra as defined by SAAC, which yes, I repeat, is clearly the most widely accepted definitive authority, cannot therefore be a "replica" as that term is commonly used and understood today...i.e. a fake of what it appears to be.

This is a simple point and easy to grasp. Those that continue to conjure ways and go through all kinds of machinations to paint the Continuation Cobras as a "replica" as that term is commonly understood and used today ie. "fake" clearly have their own separate agenda.

Its easy. Current production Cobras can't be replicas of a Cobra if the are a Cobra in their own right. This is easy stuff really.

But for those of you that want to continue to find ways and excuses to call them replicas, carry on...knock yourself out because in the end what you think is really of no importance. SAAC has spoken.

[computerworks]

And...clearly, if this minutia completes your fantasy, you are also entitled to it....everyone is entitled to their own.

Knock your self out, as you say.

What you said about consecutive s/n being replicas still stands on its own as silly.

[twobjshelbys]

So maybe what a CSX4000 series car is a "2007 1965 Shelby Cobra 427".


Ooops, sorry, off topic.

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

You make a valid point and hence the confusion that arises in trying to nail this down.

My avatar brings a little color in to brighten the room, don't you think? Care for more tea?

Yeah I noticed that, it fits you well.

[REAL 1]

Well you think its silly, but if the exact definition fits...wear it.

My point is ... of course the original series are not considered replicas...but the literal definition can fit.

Rick Kopecs comments are consistent with the adopted SAAC definitions in the current Registry. Replicas have there own definition that clearly don't include the CSX continuation series which have their own definition as current production Cobras. The Continuation series are current production Cobras built to original 1965 specifications but are clearly not built in 1965.

RedBarchetta raises an interesting point. If Ford began making the '67 GT500 again down to every last detail would it be a replica (fake) of a '67 GT500? I say it would be a real current production GT500 built to '67 specs. It would be a real Ford. It would be a real GT500 built to 1967 specs by the original producer but built now. It would be a continuation of the series and not a replica as that term is commonly used today (i.e. fake GT500). It would have to be designated/marked so as to make clear it was not actually produced in 1967 maybe a GT500C (continuation) but it would be a real GT500 nevertheless. Not original but a real GT500 of the Continuation series.

Oh, and if Ford where able to build such a car (I wish) I bet there would be lines around the block of guys wanting to order them.

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

. If Ford began making the '67 GT500 again down to every last detail...

One problem...Ford never made the 67...Shelby did.

Colin covers that in his book.

[REAL 1]

Yes, I know but Ford made the car and Shelby modified it pre title. The point remains.

The information was covered in many other books long before Comers book. I actually don't have Comers new book. I'll have to pick it up.

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by computerworks

One problem...Ford never made the 67...Shelby did.

Colin covers that in his book.

Now that's funny.

[jwd]

Again, if it wasn't built in the 60's, it is a REPLICA of one that was. It's that simple. Damn, some people have thick heads.
OH,OH ,OH. I have a joke. What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer??????
One is a scum eating bottom feeder, the other is a fish.

[John McMahon]

Originally Posted by jwd

Again, if it wasn't built in the 60's, it is a REPLICA of one that was. It's that simple. Damn, some people have thick heads.
OH,OH ,OH. I have a joke. What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer??????
One is a scum eating bottom feeder, the other is a fish.

Hmmm...two things strike me as funny....

1. Evan is a lawyer

and

2. Evan does not even post on the SAAC Forum, magistrates of the bible he continually refers to.

Seem funny?

[REAL 1]

Actually, your wrong. Ford made the 67 Mustang Fastback and Shelby modified it pre title. If Comer says Shelby made the '67 without Ford maybe he needs to publish a correction.

So...heres back at you...

[Bernica]

Reading this thread along, I feel like I'm watching the 12th round in a prize fight and nobody is going down!!

[REAL 1]

Ah, yes. Here comes the usual trash with the personal attacks. Can't discuss the issue intelligently so they revert to all they know how to do.

Well, Mr. Moderator?

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Ah, yes. Here comes the usual trash with the personal attacks. Can't discuss the issue intelligently so they revert to all they know how to do.

Well, Mr. Moderator?

It's in the script.

This is how all your threads end.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Well, Mr. Moderator?

Alright, let's keep to the issues in a civilized manner or I'll close the thread.

[Got the Bug]

Originally Posted by computerworks

It's in the script.

This is how all your threads end.

Isn't this just a textbook example of insanity?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results."

[Excaliber]

This is how all your threads end.

I'm SO jealous. I wish my threads could end so peacefully.

[REAL 1]

Yeah, your right. I forgot this is Club Cobra. Moderators have a different standard here.. What is it again...?

Oh, yeah I Remember..respect, respect respect...

What a crock. The two posts that took personal jabs at me were unprovoked, out of place. If I took personal shots at them, which I could easily do, this thread would be shut down in a second. The ol' CC double standard at work.

Oh, and last I checked all the posts on this thread aren't mine so someone other than me was interested in the discussion.

Anyway, when the usual guys start making their personal attacks thats when I know I've won the argument cause they can't counter with anything other then immature name calling that just make s them look like schmucks in my book.

Takes care.

[computerworks]

here...wait.... you forgot your football.