Yellowstone Revisited

I have received a rather testy comment from the owner of Yellowstone campground (posted below the Yellowstone entry, earlier), and she seems to believe that my comments were unfounded. So let me be PERFECTLY clear:

1) When we arrived, we WERE told the Elks had their "fingerprints" on the show and there was no way we would ever win anything there. That is a fact, to which there were witnesses. I did not say it was staff. Whether or not it was a "staff person" is not part of the issue.

2) She claims the judges were folks who build antique cars and race cars, and know them well. While this may be true, that does not qualify them to judge - there were several vehicles that were NOT antiques, including ours. People hooked on antiques would, by nature, have a bias in that direction. It's what they know. It's what they favor. And it does not qualify them to judge my car. The fact that the judges were "into" antiques might explain why they never even looked at our car. As an example, if you are a Camaro fanatic, you would likely swoon over the Camaros in a show, and may tend to ignore vehicles you have no interest in. Ever see a Ford guy swoon over a Chevy? It happens, but not often. That is human nature.

3) The absolute, indisputable fact is that the judges did NOT give our car a glance - and I was not the only one to notice that, or mention it. Perhaps they were Elks members, or friends of Elks - or perhaps they just don't waste their time with cars that are not antiques. Whatever the reason, they snubbed us, and that is a fact. The reason is of no consequence - no vehicle should ever be snubbed.

As I said before, it was a good show. But we WERE told the Elks had a hand in it, either directly or indirectly, and were WERE told our vehicle would be ignored, and our vehicle WAS ignored, completely. Coincidence? Perhaps. The owner may want to believe otherwise, and that is her choice, but we were not the only ones to notice, or mention it.

Therefore, there was nothing dishonest or incorrect in my review of the Yellowstone show. But if the owner is unaware of what is going on in her own show, or turns a blind eye to it, then there really is no point in discussing it further. But next year she may want to consider judges that do not have any such obvious bias, or at least have the integrity to advertise it as a show for antiques, if those are the judges being used.

As most of our readers know, our car normally takes 1st or 2nd, even in the biggest shows, where there are 500+ vehicles. Yet, in a field of about 30 vehicles at Yellowstone, our vehicle was not "qualified" to win one of the 20 awards. I could be wrong, but it seems there is something wrong with that picture.

That's fine - we do not go for awards. But if we do earn one, we feel it is only fair to get it.

Absolutely, they can run their show however they wish. But at least they should be honest about the kind of show they are running, and the type of judges they are using. If the judges are all antique fanatics, don't have them judging new cars. Otherwise, you are just begging for favoritism and bias. I write self-help books. But that does not qualify me to judge novels, or poetry.

As I clearly stated in the earlier post and review, the show was quite good. And it was. And we encouraged others to go next year. Apparently, the owner found no solice in that, and decided only to vent about issues that existed that she is blind to, or chooses to ignore.

Alas! When the venerable Elks said we were "Banned in Sanford", I guess the owner of Yellowstone was simply unaware. But if she is going to run a show, perhaps she should become more aware of what is going on so as to insure fairness to all. Being ignorant of an issue does nothing to resolve the issue.

As far as I am concerned, this is no longer up for discussion. The facts speak for themselves.

Finis