Re: AERC rules and radios

["Robert Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net>]

I dislike answering messages from persons (I assume this is from a person)
unknown but, please read the complete rule that I excerpted form in my
E-mail. Never did I say anything about legal or illegal acts.

Now if you feel this is a poorly worded rule how about some constructive
criticism? Or better still, volunteer for a place on the Rules Committee
and help ensure all the rules are worded well.

Your extreme speculative assumptions are not only out of line but very
inflammatory.

Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID

----------
> From: guest@endurance.net
> To: ridecamp@endurance.net
> Subject: AERC rules and radios
> Date: Monday, October 12, 1998 3:43 PM
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO GUEST@ENDURANCE.NET!!!
> You must post replies to the actual sender listed below.
> 
> From: guest@endurance.net 
> Email: guest@endurance.net
> 
> Bob Morris offered this rule as evidence of why a radio carried by a
rider would be illegal
> 
> >Read Rule 6(k) Not having been paced >or prompted by an un-entered, with
> >drawn or otherwise unauthorized >Vehicle, or a person other than an
>enterant.
> 
> I think what this really shows is yet another poorly worded open to vast
interpretation rule that has little to no meaning.
> 
> Under this rule, I would disqualify any rider who inquired of anyone
including officials, spectators or pit crews as to the location of other
riders competing in the event.
> 
> Also, I would allow a commpetitor to tote along an entire electronics
shop and communicate with smoke signals if they so desired as long as the
content of their communication was not proven to be in violation of rule
6(k) {good luck proving content of communications}.
> 
> Additionally, the rule seems to apply to prompting between non-enterants,
so it appears a team of competitors using radios are allowed to prompt and
pace under this rule.
> 
> Riders are prommpted throughout the event by various individuals, does
anyone have any idea what the intent of this rule was designed to solve ?
>