smhardesty
-
Posts
664 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by smhardesty
-
-
Glad to hear your work is done. You obviously suffer the very same reading comprehension problem the other yokel does. Steve G is fully capable of responding and clarifying anything he believes needs so done. I have just now re-read all of Steve's posts. Just where in the Hell do you see anywhere that he said that he "suggests that your board is too mainstream and that you need a niche appeal to gain members"? I can absolutely guarantee you Steve never said that, never implied that, and will probably take exception to you saying he did. I won't continue with this because Steve will make any comments he feels are necessary.
I'm telling you that you have a real problem with comprehending what it is you read. You both seem to recall things that never happened and don't exist. That HAS to be because you have difficulties in fully understanding what you read. I suggest either spending more time reading each post to try and understand, or you might want to call in a wife or girlfriend that has better comprehension than you.
Now I have a couple of questions for you. Do you have any authority on this forum? It's either yes or no, and I know the answer. Second, does Xingu have any authority on this forum. Again, yes or no and I know the answer. Here is a direct quote from Xingu: "It's OK, we allow it. We will keep the light on for you when you return.". Now, being aware that you have the comprehension problem, I'll explain that to you. One of the moderators of this forum specifically stated that my thread announcing my new forum is perfectly acceptable on this forum. It's at that exact moment that you and those like you need to shut the Hell up. You have NOTHING in this discussion. Can you understand that?
I very intentionally and deliberately did NOT cancel my membership in this forum. It's for the very reason Xingu stated. He said he'd leave the light on. OK, I'll explain that to you. What he meant was that if and/or when I got tired of other forums, I was welcome back here. I'm sorry to have to tell Xingu that there is no way I would spend any serious time on this forum yet. You and those like you are the reason. You don't have the good sense God gave a gnat, let alone a human being. No, I really don't enjoy having to shut people like you down. It brings me no satisfaction whatsoever.
So, let's look at the entire situation. I announced my forum on this thread. Casey was the first to bashfully attempt to cause trouble for me and this thread. Making the statement he did served absolutely NO useful purpose other than to maybe get a moderator to axe my thread. Period. Steve G immediately defended my right to post the thread. Go back and read it if you don't believe me, or have somebody else read it to you. wrenchr agreed with Steve. See? Nobody is having a problem with it,. Gee, DrKerry agreed with both of them. OH MY GOD! Two more guys, classicgas and unclescott58 don't see any problems. Then, finally, Xingu officially stated there IS NO PROBLEM WITH WHAT I DID!
Then along you and PLOWBOY (WaaHaaaHaaaa) come along and want to stir BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH on my thread. So my advice to you and PLOWBOY is to stay the Hell off my threads. Can I make it any plainer? Get your wives and girlfriends to explain it to you.
And with THAT, for all the rest of you guys that might find another, small, niche type forum pleasant compared to all this childish bullcrap, please feel free to join the growing membership at https://classiccarsinscale.proboards.com/
-
Talk about being a little touchy, and a little dense as well. You instructed me to get my facts straight. You stated that you "haven't said a word about your etiquette". You then also request that I get my facts straight. I'm going to take this opportunity to embarrass you in front of God and everybody.
Could you please supply a direct quote from my posts where I stated that YOU sent me an email or that YOU said anything about my etiquette? Where is that? I don't seem to find it. Hmmm. Yep. Get your facts straight before you fire the first shot. You can attempt to rectify your obvious mistake, but it ain't gonna work PLOWBOY. PLOWBOY? WaaHaaaHaaaa!!!
What I actually said was that you and Tom have no idea of forum etiquette. I NEVER said you stated anything about my etiquette. I'm guessing PLOWBOYs from Kentucky have some degree of difficulty in reading comprehension. (I can explain that if need be.)
-
I have been accused of several things recently including trying to somehow sabotage this forum by posting links to my forums. Staff kindly responded that they have no problem with it. Just a few, select members on here are bothered by it. I was also accused of improper forum etiquette. I take it with a grain of salt, then offer factual responses to incorrect statements.
I'll say this here. If I exhibited improper forum etiquette according to one or two members, just what do you call continuing to post responses about other forums on my thread? I am just guessing that Tom & Roger have NO IDEA about forum etiquette. If you two want to continue a merry conversation of your own, feel free to start your own thread. No, I won't cry to staff. I address my conflicts directly. If you have a problem with me, or anything I do, feel free to send a PM to me directly and we can discuss this further. Otherwise, please take your conversation somewhere other than my thread.
-
6 hours ago, Plowboy said:
Unfortunately, I don't belong to Facebook. Yet.
If you value your privacy and the security of your computer and network, you won't ever belong to FaceBook.
-
I might also add that there are LOTS of guys like me that absolutely refuse to visit any Facebook page. I spent over 30 years working in the computing industry. I specialized for several years in computer and network security. Facebook and other social disease websites pose the greatest threat to computer and network security of anything, including using the Windows OS. Persons that run Windows and visit Facebook have a limited time before their PCs become so completely ate up with viruses, Trojans, and other malware that they are no longer usable. If you choose to visit social disease websites, that's on you. Those of us that refuse to visit any of the social disease websites will have computers that work well for long periods of time.
-
-
One further comment. I have stressed that both of my forums are there for the MEMBERS. If you have spent any time at all on either of my forums, you will have read at least once, but more likely a few times, that I want to know what the members want/need me to change. Right now I'm waiting to read comments from the members about pickup trucks. One member asked and I agreed to listen to the members to see what the majority wants. Now, in a case like this I won't make the change on a simple majority. To change the focus of the forum from classic CARS to include pickup trucks will require a 3/5 or 2/3 majority. And if that many members say they want pickup trucks added, I'll comply. I'll state right here that I won't be happy with that decision, but I will listen to my membership.
One final thought. Regardless of what you call forums like mine or any of several other similar, smaller forums, one of the key features is the lack of the typical office politic type problems that happen on "other" sites. If you have been a member of any of the "big" forums for any length of time, you will have experienced at least one episode of name calling, mud slinging, armchair experts that would argue with a dead man, etc, etc. The smaller forums just don't suffer that type of problem. I've been a member of multiple, small forums hosted on ProBoards and I have yet to see an ugly, name calling, political argument on any of them. Not one. I'm really thinking that can't be said by members of the "big" forums. Our forums are smaller, friendlier, and about ten times more responsive to member requests and problems.
Right now, I am aware of one, single problem that a member of my forum is having and I have tried to assist in resolving the issue. It turns out that the problem is not mine or my forums. He is using a third party app to access my forum. For whatever reason he is experiencing a small problem. The point is that as a member of one of my forums, I will respond to any question or complaint a member has well within a 24 hour period. I tell all members I will get to them within 24 hours, but that fact is that I login and check on things 8 to 10 times a day. I usually respond to things like new member requests within a couple of hours, but for sure within 12 hours. I feel that the administrator of ANY forum is responsible to his members to insure that the forum is up and running and no member has a problem, question, or complaint that hasn't been addressed within 6 hours or so, but definitely within a 24 hour period.
THESE are some of the benefits of belonging to one of the smaller forums. If you have any questions or problems with what I have posted, don't hesitate to contact me, either right here on this thread or via a PM. I'm reachable every day.
-
1 hour ago, StevenGuthmiller said:
I appreciate the "niche" that Steve has provided on his board.
Call it what you want, the vast majority of what is showcased there interests people like me with those particular narrower interests.
I have never even visited half of the sections provided on this forum.
If you prefer, maybe you could just refer to it as "streamlined
Niche actually best describes what my CCIS forum is. If the use of the term "niche" is the hang up and is what is keeping guys from joining the forum, I'll agree to call it something else. Heck, I'll call it a purple, polka-dotted, wombat if that pleases the members of the forum. I put the forum up for the MEMBERS. Nobody starts a forum just for himself. At least I can't imagine anybody would do that.
Sure, "streamlined" would work too. To me, a forum that allows no aircraft, no watercraft, no motorcycles, no pickup trucks, no heavy trucks, and no vehicle manufactured after 1989 is more of a niche forum than simply streamlined, but I'm not one to argue fine points like this. I can live with saying Classic Cars In Scale is a streamlined forum restricted to cars manufactured before 1990. Works for me. Thanks, Steve.
-
1 hour ago, StevenGuthmiller said:
I don't have an issue with it as long as the site retains the ability to "edit" topics and posts.
Steve, as you know I have spent several hours recently researching and reading everything I can about forum software packages. Every forum I have ever been a member of has at least a couple of quirks I just don't like. ProBoards has been the closest to what I want in a forum. The bad news is that FaceBook has put a hurting on old styled forums like this and mine over on ProBoards. New forum software packages that are loaded onto a person's own website are slim to none and Slim left the building. In addition, development and improvement on existing forum packages has slowed WAY down.
To get to my point, as long as ProBoards remains pretty much the way it is now, I think I'll just continue using it. The ability to edit every aspect of every thread posted is one of the keys to my happiness, I guess. On my forums, the members have the capability of editing a lot of things. What the members can't edit falls to me and I can pretty much edit anything I want. So I have to say that your concern is absolutely one of my own and I don't see any changes in that any time in the near future.
-
On 5/9/2020 at 4:59 PM, Tom Geiger said:
Niche? Your focus is on the most generic, popular categories of auto modeling. Nothing unique or special there.
Niche is a small area of interest. Dave Darby’s Survivor board... Terry Jessee’s Resin only board, these are niche.
First of all, let's actually define "niche". You stated that a niche has to be "a small area of interest". Not so. Nowhere in any true definition of the word do you find reference to only "a small area of interest". The best definition of the word is probably this: "a distinct segment of a market". Nothing said about anything small. It's simply one segment of a market. My forum is specifically for pre-1990 classic cars. I have stated numerous times on the forum that even though the forum is opened to any pre-1990 classic car, the emphasis is on 60s and 70s Muscle Cars, Day 2 Cars, and Drag Cars. Now, THAT fits even your definition, but more importantly it simply elaborates on where I want to see the forum headed.
I have just today responded to one of my members that inquired about pickup trucks and motorcycles. Pickups and motorcycles are not currently allowed on the forum. That might change in the future, but as of right now they are a no-go.
I might also point out that if you guys actually went to the forum and spent some time actually reading threads on there, most of these supposed problems/questions with my forum would have been self explanatory. My forum is every bit as much a niche as either of the two sites you mentioned. Just because it doesn't meet YOUR definition of what niche is doesn't mean that it's not really a niche forum. Maybe if you expanded your knowledge of the definition of words you wouldn't find CCIS to not meet with your expectations.
Lastly, I certainly do NOT think my forum's "focus is on the most generic, popular categories of auto modeling". How can 60s and 70s Muscle Cars, Day 2 Cars, and Drag Cars possible have cornered the market as "the most generic, popular categories of auto modeling"? I know an awful lot of guys that would disagree as well.
-
On 5/1/2020 at 9:41 AM, Plowboy said:
The Start To Finish is something I don't like personally. It's the same way at SA's forum. If a project goes on for while and racks up a few pages, you have to wade through those pages to find the finished photos. I much prefer a separate section for finished models.
I'll try and respond to this. I'm not attempting to argue with you, just explaining my position. You mentioned that you have to " wade through those pages to find the finished photos". I guess I don't see scrolling through 5 or 6 pages as having to "wade through" them. If you are following the thread and build, you are going to have to "wade through" those pages to follow it so placing the completed build at the end of the thread doesn't seem like too much to me.
Not only that, most of the forums I visit have the page numbers of the thread listed somewhere on the link to them. That includes this forum. I can very easily click on page 2, 15, or even "Last Page" and not have to "wade through" any pages at all. My forums on ProBoards have page numbers listed so there isn't any time consuming, aggravating, wading through of any pages. It's just, Click, and you're there on the last page. Pretty easy. Might I suggest that if you guys are spending time wading through page after page of a build thread just to get to the last page, you need to learn how to use the page number links to save yourselves time and effort. If you are already doing that, then why would you ever have a complaint about wading through all those pages?
If anyone on this forum needs help in learning how to skip straight to the last page of a thread, either on this forum or on one of mine, please give me a holler and I'll assist you.
-
On 4/6/2020 at 7:57 AM, stinkybritches said:
The thing that I saw that I liked better is the Start to Finish section. I like the idea that everything is in one thread. It's very helpful here, though, when guys include the link to their On the Bench thread.
I almost forgot to reply to this. The "Start To Finish" thing was my idea. I have always thought that having one thread for the build, then a completely separate, second thread with the photos of the finished build was a little confusing and strangely repetitious. The natural "flow" of things seems to make it necessary to finish the build thread with the completed build photos. I can follow a build from the very first post explaining the builder's goals, and then follow the build right though to the finished product.
Thanks for bringing that up, Rob.
-
I haven't posted anything until right now. I wanted to sit back and see where the thread was headed. I see that other guys have posted replies similar to what I might have posted myself "in defense" of the new forum and my decision to announce it here. Seems some of you guys have defended me very well.
The new forum is definitely a niche forum. I wasn't looking for another forum that allowed everything including the kitchen sink. The new forum is for cars only. No trucks, aircraft, ships, or modern Mustangs and Camaros. The primary focus is on 60s and 70s Muscle Cars, Day 2 Cars, and Drag Cars. That's not the only acceptable type of build, simply the primary focus. You are invited to post your factory stock builds from the very first cars manufactured up through 1989 models. I've also seen fit to include some open wheeled and closed wheeled competition builds.
I'm not attempting to steal members from any other forum. I do, however, know that there are a whole lot of guys that don't necessarily "fit in" on current forums and I want to be sure they are aware that there are alternative forums to enjoy. Many of us refuse to have anything to do with Facebook or any other social websites. I personally refer to them as social disease websites, but that's my own opinion. A new forum might just be what those individuals are looking for.
To those of you that for some reason object to announcing a new forum on this one, you have the right to simply ignore this and you also have the capability of ignoring my username postings. You won't upset me in the least by doing that. Of course, you won't upset me in the least by posting inflammatory comments or asking the Admins/Mods on this forum to remove my threads. As several of you are aware, I was once a regular user of this forum. Most of you are also aware of why I stopped visiting this forum. It is for the same reasons that many individuals regularly seek out smaller, friendlier forums to be members of.
To anyone that might enjoy a forum focused on "Classic Cars", I invite you to check out the new place and join us. We're still growing slowly and that's fine with me. The members and I have been exchanging ideas on how to improve our little place and we're making minor changes as we go. One of the things up for discussion right now is the possibility of announcing contests, community builds, and/or build-offs. Whatever we end up with will also be different than anything offered on any other forums. It will be tailored and configured based on what ideas the members of the forum suggest. That happens to also be something different about my forums. Everything on my forums is strictly for the members. They know that they are welcome to offer suggestions, ideas, and changes to improve the forum for the majority of members.
So, to those of you that are interested, come on over and join us.
-
-
There are new listings from a couple of members over on the Market forum. In addition, I have lowered the prices on several of my own kits. be sure and check it out.
https://modelcarmarket.proboards.com/
-
There are new listings from a couple of members over on the Market forum. In addition, I have lowered the prices on several of my own kits. be sure and check it out.
https://modelcarmarket.proboards.com/
-
I kind of thought there would be more activity on the new forum considering the number of posts regarding selling and/or trading.
-
You're welcome.
Please note: This is a totally FREE place to list items for sale, to trade, or wanted.
-
There is a new site to sell, trade, or post your wants/needs. It's free and restricted to non-military cars and trucks.
Check it out here:
-
There is a new site to sell, trade, or post your wants/needs. It's free and restricted to non-military cars and trucks.
Check it out here:
-
I'm going along with Rich on this one. After this post I'm done, not only with this thread, but with this forum. Presenting facts to certain people that are completely closed minded is a fruitless task. Regardless of how the facts are presented and what evidence exits, some folks just won't open their minds and realize that someone else might very well be offering them something new. For instance, several of you go over and over again about "reading the rule book". I say that's great. I think you should. If you did, you'd discover that the famed '24" rule' was first implemented in 1962. Now, slow down, read this carefully, and try very hard to process this logically. Why in the He!! do you suppose they had to implement such a rule in the first place? According to you close minded guys, it's because all REAL gassers from the beginning of the NHRA until 1962 were built level or nose down. Wait. Am I the only one that sees a problem with that totally ludicrous, asinine, cock-eyed attempt at logic? (if you don't know what they words mean, look them up, but try "amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity" for a definition of ludicrous) No, people. The reason the NHRA had to implement such a rule was because so many drivers and owners of gassers were jacking the fronts of the cars up so high it was becoming a safety concern! So yes, by all means, why don't some of you read the rule books then attempt to logically explain the reason for such a rule?
Bill, you go on a ridiculous rampage about how all the cars in the photos I posted are nothing more than "recent reconstruction 'nostalgia' wannabes, not actual period RACE CARS". Then you go to the trouble to post up an hour long video of "recent reconstruction 'nostalgia' wannabes, not actual period RACE CARS". What's even more outrageous is the fact that there are several "nose high" cars in that same video, but you make a feeble attempt to discredit those by saying these poor souls "have bought into the nose-high thing". Yes, they bought into it because it was the way a great many gassers were built in the 50s and 60s. Those gentlemen made a conscious decision to model their "recent reconstruction 'nostalgia' wannabe" gasser like the gassers from that era that they either vividly recall or found to be true classic gassers.
You also insisted on introducing a new phrase into the discussion that NO ONE before you brought up, and that is "nosebleed cars". No one here believes any of the cars with the noses raised to excess were, or are, serious race cars and definitely not gassers. Why did you insist on tainting the discussion? Was it because there were so many cars in your video that ARE nose high that you needed another way to try and sway the discussion in your favor? I think that might well be the case, so let's leave the term nosebleed or any similar term out of this discussion.
You implied that if I wanted to be wrong I should continue to get my "gospel from non-primary sources who really don't know what they're talking about". On more than one occasion you have slandered my quoted sources, even going so far as to call good men names. The one thing we seem to be lacking is any legitimate source that you are able to quote that very specifically states that "real" gassers are built with their stance level or nose down, and that any car built with it's nose high is not a real gasser. Please feel free to include a source that also specifically states that there never were cars (gassers) built in the 50s and 60s with a nose high stance. I, and several other forum members, would be extremely interested in reading any online or published article that makes such statements and/or claims. You are very quick to attack and attempt to discredit, but it seems you want us all the accept only YOUR OPINION on the matter as the "gospel" as you stated.
Your basis for wanting us to believe you are the gasser source savant that we only wish we could be is to state you have been an "adult in the motorsports industry, or very close to it, for almost 50 years" and that you have "experience setting up drag cars" and possess a "profound understanding of engineering, physics, vehicle dynamics, and aerodynamics". That seems a bit vague. Maybe you could enlighten us a bit. Are you saying you work for a drag racing team? Do you have a degree in engineering? Do you work for one of the Big 3? I'm just not sure what your statement of skill, knowledge, and general qualifications really means. Your use of the word, "profound understanding" further complicates understanding what it is you seem to know or do? And I'm still confused as to what "very close to" the motor sports industry might actually mean.
Here is a scenario that is similar to what Bill and a few others are attempting to present as fact. Let's say there are a boy and girl standing on the sidewalk. Two people have cameras. Person A takes a photo of the boy, then a photo of the girl. Person B takes ONLY a photo of the boy. A year later Person B tells everyone he sees that there were no girls present on the day he took the photo and to prove it, he presents just the photo of the boy. With only one photo in his hand he triumphantly proclaims there could not have been a girl present. Then person A presents both photos he took and explains that there was indeed a girl present. Person B denies that a girl was present stating that his proof is that he has only a photo of the boy, he knows what he saw, and anything the other person saw is wrong and not at all possible because he KNOWS what he saw. Period. End of discussion (according to him).
I searched the Internet for phrases like, "nose high gasser stance" and several similar phrases. I used multiple search engines as well as a few crawlers. Those of you not familiar with advanced searching via a search engine or unfamiliar with what a web crawler is, can rest assured that they are just ways to do complete, thorough searches on any subject. What I found was hundreds and hundreds of search results where either an individual was explaining what a "nose high" stance was, or explaining where the "nose high" stance originated, or an article referencing the stance that "classic gassers" had, or any similar type result. What I never found was any article stating that there were never any gassers with "nose high" stances, or that real gassers were built with the noses down, or any such negative response to gassers with a nose high stance. So I went out of my way and TRIED to find such an article. I used the same search engines and crawlers and tried multiple search phrases and in all my searching I was unable to find one, single article where any man or woman denied the existence of the nose high gasser. I also couldn't find any articles that stated there were only a couple or a few gassers built that way. In fact, I was unable to find ANY article that contradicts the fact that there were LOTS of nose high gassers in the 50s and 60s.
So here is my challenge to you, Bill and to any other individual that generally agrees with him. Do some work. Research the devil out of this subject and produce 2 or 3 Internet or other published articles that in some way denies that nose high gassers were very common in the 50s and 60s. Show us your sources that say that to be a REAL gasser the nose had to be at least level if not down. Produce photographs that prove the non-existence of nose high gassers, both in the 50s and 60s and any other era. And no, producing 10 million photographs of what you claim to be real gassers with noses down DOES NOT disprove the existence of nose high gassers. If you think it does, you obviously missed the whole point of the photo taking scenario and in that case, there is pretty much nothing that can be done for you as you just don't comprehend simple logic.
.
-
Mike, Rich, and you other guys that seem to at least acknowledge that nose high gassers existed in the 50s and 60s and right up to today, thanks for your support. Originally I simply wanted to show Scott that nose high gassers not only existed, but were extremely common in the 50s and 60s. He wanted simple knowledge of how gasser classes were determined and some other very basic gasser know how. I was afraid he had gotten the wrong idea about gassers having to be nose down to be authentic and genuine. I wanted to present a few photos and a little knowledge so he was at least aware that nose high gassers were not only authentic, but pretty common back in the era he was interested in. Unfortunately we're all aware that there are certain individuals in the world that just absolutely know everything and don't care if they present non-factual and incorrect information to those that ask for help. Scott's gasser will be a great looking build, I'm sure. He has chosen to build it nose down and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. Best of luck, Scott.
And now I'll present my very last post on this forum. There are lots of great guys on here, but the fact that certain individuals on this forum possess all the knowledge that any drag racing fan could ever ask for kind of dampens the mood on here. I'm sure many of you will appreciate at least a few points in my next post, and I'm also sure that there will be a few that still absolutely deny that the sky is blue.
One final note on this next post. Over the past few days I have received several emails from a small group of forum members that are as dumbfounded as I am with this mess. They have chosen to remain anonymous and that's their right. Instead, they have voiced their support of me in the emails. I speak for them as well.
-
-
Thanks, Rich. Couldn't have said it better.
A new hangout
in Links to Aftermarket Suppliers
Posted
HAH! Steve got in there before I could finish and post. I was pretty sure he would.
Thanks, Steve.