(Please visit one of our advertisers)

No donations or subscriptions are required

Subscription choices:
Board Karma = 40  (3456 positive of 3838 votes is 40 %pts higher than a neutral 50%)
All Things (Safety Oriented) Motorcycle   
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Wendy Moon Archive
 2005 Blog posts
Member Previous Topic Discussion Topic Next Topic  

Female Junior Member
26 Posts

St. Louis, MO


VFR 750F
Peer Review: Blocked

Posted - 02/02/2011 :  2:46 PM                       Like
Corner. M$F. Paint. And all thanks to Tim

(Posted 11/30/05)

Anyone else out there find it ironic, droll and very amusing that M$F is busy trying to keep TOMS out of Colorado on the basis that it's a dual curriculum and yet, at the same time, trying to get the BRC approved as a dual curriculum in Oregon, the "O" in TOMS?

I suppose this is yet another reason why M$F couldn't be seen to be directly involved in Colorado's actions - apart from just happening to be in town, that is.

It occurs to me that CO ABATE could point out to CDOT that M$F is trying to do the same thing in Oregon - get another curriculum approved - that they're trying to do in Colorado.

Since CO's current rules does use M$F as a template, it therefore follows that if M$F thinks a dual curriculum is in the service of the state, that CO should, by all rights, approve TOMS.

Unless, of course, M$F isn't the national standard setter, after all. An perhaps it's decided it isn't since it's certainly spending the time and money to set a standard of dual curriculums in Oregon equal, not superior.

But then Colorado could decide to remove M$F from the language of the rules and regs, and therefore, it wouldn't matter what M$F was doing, but then, M$F would lose even more hold over Colorado - or any other state that removes M$F from the state laws.

And M$F couldn't say that TOMS shouldn't be allowed in Colorado without blatant hypocrisy. Of course, that hasn't stopped Tim before, has it? Even so, CO ABATE merely needs to point that out if CDOT doesn't tumble to it.

Besides, M$F itself submitted one of their hilarious quasi reports comparing the TOMS BRT to the M$F RSS and M$F BRC that said that the M$F BRC was just as good as the TOMS BRT or vice-versa. So, it's not like M$F can say, in Colorado, that it's not good enough there when it says in Oregon it's just as good.

There is another report, so I've heard, that finds otherwise, but that wouldn't help M$F since it finds TOMS better. Or so I've heard. So that would only help CO ABATE (and you guys and Oregon should get a copy of that report).

M$F's report comparing the curriculums, as you remember, was written by another M$F award winner, Daniel J. Pettersen. Another coincidence. Or another double coincidence? Gee, it's getting hard to move without tripping over one award winner or someone that's been given a favor ending up doing something - purely coincidentally - helping out another award winner or a vested interest and all helping out the M$F.

If M$F claims it's not sauce goose gander when it comes to what state can allow dual curriculums, then Oregon can use that as prove positive that the M$F BRC shouldn't be allowed to be taught in their state. Why should Oregon allow the BRC when Colorado won't allow a dual curriculum?

If M$F says that TOMS should be approved in Colorado, then they shiv their award winner in the back, or else invite T3RG and any other school to abandon M$F at some future point if they or the students prefer TOMS.

If I were Tim, which, thank god, I'm not. I'd want M$F to stay silent on this. Damned do, damned don't.

But, like St. Thomas More, I think that could even work against them. CO ABATE simply has to get CDOT (I suggest with CO ABATE members present) to ask M$F point blank which it is. If M$F refuses to answer, isn't that just as indicative as if they did?

Of course, it works the other way: If Colorado does approve TOMS then M$F can use that to strengthen their case in Oregon.

Even so, Tim, you're screwed:

If M$F claims it should be allowed in Oregon as just one of two curriculums and takes no position on it in Colorado OR says it should be, it admits it's course is not superior and no longer "the" national standard.

In fact, and I suggest that CO ABATE pay attention to this: by its actions in Oregon, it, in essence, is putting TOMS on an equal basis with itself. That should help with CDOT.

For the rest of the states out there: if M$F is no longer claiming to be "the" national standard by pursing this action in Oregon, then they have no moral authority to demand that other states follow their lock step dictates.

Well, Mr. Waffle Man, you've done it now, haven't you? Too clever by half. You've really put your foot in it now:

If M$F doesn't regain Oregon, then not only will H-D be unhappy, but M$F will also lose the ability to force their way into any other state that abandons the BRC and decides to teach TOMS exclusively. Iow, watch Oregon and Colorado, folks; what happens in those states will give you all the ammunition you need to do what is best for the riders in your states.

And Tim, no matter what you do, dear, you've either helped Oregon win their case or Colorado's ABATE. Or both. I do hope you take a moment to reflect on how clever you've been.

Paint. M$F. Corner.
Gotta love it.
  Previous Topic Discussion Topic Next Topic  
Jump To:
All Things (Safety Oriented) Motorcycle © Master Strategy Group Go To Top Of Page
  This page was generated in 0.21 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05