PCA medical committee revoked my race license
08-19-2024, 05:35 PM
#1756
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
The following users liked this post:
tgsmith4845 (08-20-2024)
08-19-2024, 05:52 PM
#1757
Rennlist Member
@dgrobs (I bet this one you could figure out all by yourself! 
)
effectuate /ĭ-fĕk′choo͞-āt″/
)effectuate /ĭ-fĕk′choo͞-āt″/
transitive verb
- To bring about; effect.
- To bring to pass; to effect; to achieve; to accomplish; to fulfill.
Similar: effectuated
verb
- To be the cause of something.
08-19-2024, 05:57 PM
#1759
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: The Swamps of Jersey/WGI/VIR...
Posts: 6,679
Received 1,811 Likes
on
1,206 Posts
@dgrobs (I bet this one you could figure out all by yourself! )
effectuate /ĭ-fĕk′choo͞-āt″/
)effectuate /ĭ-fĕk′choo͞-āt″/
transitive verb
- To bring about; effect.
- To bring to pass; to effect; to achieve; to accomplish; to fulfill.
Similar: effectuated
verb
- To be the cause of something.
I know what effectuate is. Thanks, was looking for bloviated.
Last edited by dgrobs; 08-19-2024 at 05:58 PM.
The following users liked this post:
mlct (08-20-2024)
08-19-2024, 06:05 PM
#1760
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
The following 2 users liked this post by LuigiVampa:
dgrobs (08-19-2024),
needmoregarage (08-19-2024)
08-19-2024, 06:06 PM
#1761
Rennlist Member
here ya go
bloviate /blō′vē-āt″/
intransitive verb
- To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner.
- To orate pompously; -- used especially of politicians and news commentators.
verb
08-19-2024, 06:07 PM
#1762
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: The Swamps of Jersey/WGI/VIR...
Posts: 6,679
Received 1,811 Likes
on
1,206 Posts
The following users liked this post:
LuigiVampa (08-19-2024)
08-19-2024, 06:08 PM
#1763
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: The Swamps of Jersey/WGI/VIR...
Posts: 6,679
Received 1,811 Likes
on
1,206 Posts
The following users liked this post:
needmoregarage (08-19-2024)
08-19-2024, 06:11 PM
#1764
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
08-19-2024, 06:12 PM
#1765
Drifting
I've been curious about the PCA since buying a 911 with PCA stickers in the back windows. 10 years of active duty taught me that my personality does not follow rules well, and I can see now that I need to remove those stickers... I have the same issues with this thread - Todd was wronged, PCA CR was wronged, and now, we are wronging each other. Is there value in continuing to dig at this wound? Or, is there interest in setting aside individual character and talking about fixing something ya'll once cared about?
Luigi was never wronged or singled out. PCA has required CPAP data for those with OSA for many years. Other racers have complied with the rule and had no issue with it (at least one posted as much in this thread). I don't think anybody else, who actually has OSA, has objected to the rule in this thread. That compliance is not surprising because it is trivially easy to provide the CPAP data and doesn't reveal any meaningful private information. It's also not surprising because those with non-trivial OSA know the impact of not using CPAP first-hand (versus the "armchair doctors" in this thread who think OSA is the equivalent of not getting enough sleep, which is objectively wrong).
Luigi was not singled out. He wanted an exception to a longstanding rule. PCA actually offered Luigi an exception to the rule, as long as he did not disclose it publicly. He refused that offer because he wanted it to be public. So Luigi would not take "yes" for an answer. In response to his refusal, PCA said they would not give him an exception publicly. In other words, his question was asked, considered carefully, and answered in a timely fashion a very long time ago. The only reason it has dragged on is because he refused to accept either "yes" or "no" as an answer.
The reasons why the PCA would not give him a public exception should be glaringly obvious. First, giving him a give him an exception publicly would likely **** off all of those did submit data. Second, any organization that willfully violates its own rules creates immense legal liability when previously it had none. I can't believe I have to spell this out -- Boeing's liability isn't because a door plug fell off the plane (sometimes unexpected things happen) -- they are being sued, and will almost certainly lose, because they did not follow their own rules that would have prevented the door plug from ever falling off. Willfully violating your own rules is a lightning rod for liability -- why would PCA ever agree to having an exception to their own rules broadly broadcast to the public (especially considering that the reach of this thread is far beyond just PCA and RL at this point)????
When you refuse to accept either a "yes" or a "no" answer from an organization, the organization is not the problem.
Last edited by peterp; 08-19-2024 at 06:27 PM.
08-19-2024, 06:22 PM
#1767
08-19-2024, 06:33 PM
#1768
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The following users liked this post:
stownsen914 (08-20-2024)
08-19-2024, 06:36 PM
#1769
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: The Swamps of Jersey/WGI/VIR...
Posts: 6,679
Received 1,811 Likes
on
1,206 Posts
Why would you deprive yourself? Even those who agree with Luigi will tell you that the PCA is an amazing club with great people and a huge variety of amazing events. The only way this would affect your PCA experience is if you want to club race, and have OSA, and refuse to provide CPAP data. It is not in any way reflective of the general PCA experience and it's difficult to think of anything that is more niche and "one-off" than this issue.
Luigi was never wronged or singled out. PCA has required CPAP data for those with OSA for many years. Other racers have complied with the rule and had no issue with it (at least one posted as much in this thread). I don't think anybody else, who actually has OSA, has objected to the rule in this thread. That compliance is not surprising because it is trivially easy to provide the CPAP data and doesn't reveal any meaningful private information. It's also not surprising because those with non-trivial OSA know the impact of not using CPAP first-hand (versus the "armchair doctors" in this thread who think OSA is the equivalent of not getting enough sleep, which is objectively wrong).
Luigi was not singled out. He wanted an exception to a longstanding rule. PCA actually offered Luigi an exception to the rule, as long as he did not disclose it publicly. He refused that offer because he wanted it to be public. So Luigi would not take "yes" for an answer. In response to his refusal, PCA said they would not give him an exception publicly. In other words, his question was asked, considered carefully, and answered in a timely fashion a very long time ago. The only reason it has dragged on is because he refused to accept either "yes" or "no" as an answer.
The reasons why the PCA would not give him a public exception should be glaringly obvious. First, giving him a give him an exception publicly would likely **** off all of those did submit data. Second, any organization that willfully violates its own rules creates immense legal liability when previously it had none. I can't believe I have to spell this out -- Boeing's liability isn't because a door plug fell off the plane (sometimes unexpected things happen) -- they are being sued, and will almost certainly lose, because they did not follow their own rules that would have prevented the door plug from ever falling off. Willfully violating your own rules is a lightning rod for liability -- why would PCA ever agree to having an exception to their own rules broadly broadcast to the public (especially considering that the reach of this thread is far beyond just PCA and RL at this point)????
When you refuse to accept either a "yes" or a "no" answer from an organization, the organization is not the problem.
Luigi was never wronged or singled out. PCA has required CPAP data for those with OSA for many years. Other racers have complied with the rule and had no issue with it (at least one posted as much in this thread). I don't think anybody else, who actually has OSA, has objected to the rule in this thread. That compliance is not surprising because it is trivially easy to provide the CPAP data and doesn't reveal any meaningful private information. It's also not surprising because those with non-trivial OSA know the impact of not using CPAP first-hand (versus the "armchair doctors" in this thread who think OSA is the equivalent of not getting enough sleep, which is objectively wrong).
Luigi was not singled out. He wanted an exception to a longstanding rule. PCA actually offered Luigi an exception to the rule, as long as he did not disclose it publicly. He refused that offer because he wanted it to be public. So Luigi would not take "yes" for an answer. In response to his refusal, PCA said they would not give him an exception publicly. In other words, his question was asked, considered carefully, and answered in a timely fashion a very long time ago. The only reason it has dragged on is because he refused to accept either "yes" or "no" as an answer.
The reasons why the PCA would not give him a public exception should be glaringly obvious. First, giving him a give him an exception publicly would likely **** off all of those did submit data. Second, any organization that willfully violates its own rules creates immense legal liability when previously it had none. I can't believe I have to spell this out -- Boeing's liability isn't because a door plug fell off the plane (sometimes unexpected things happen) -- they are being sued, and will almost certainly lose, because they did not follow their own rules that would have prevented the door plug from ever falling off. Willfully violating your own rules is a lightning rod for liability -- why would PCA ever agree to having an exception to their own rules broadly broadcast to the public (especially considering that the reach of this thread is far beyond just PCA and RL at this point)????
When you refuse to accept either a "yes" or a "no" answer from an organization, the organization is not the problem.
The following users liked this post:
Matt Romanowski (08-19-2024)
08-19-2024, 06:43 PM
#1770
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I have to thank peterp for helping me lose weight. I read his posts and immediately throw up.
The following 8 users liked this post by LuigiVampa:
FunWithFiorio (08-19-2024),
Matt Romanowski (08-19-2024),
mlct (08-20-2024),
needmoregarage (08-19-2024),
Nowanker (08-19-2024),
and 3 others liked this post.