5.4 in special edition? Thoughts?
4/30/05, 06:05 PM
#21
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by bob+April 30, 2005, 4:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bob @ April 30, 2005, 4:50 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-dke@April 30, 2005, 5:02 AM
If Ford wants to expand their market, they need NOT to cater to the enthusiasts, but their POTENTIAL customer base.
I realize I may be barking up the wrong tree.
I say, "why can't it have heated seats like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
If Ford wants to expand their market, they need NOT to cater to the enthusiasts, but their POTENTIAL customer base.
I realize I may be barking up the wrong tree.
I say, "why can't it have heated seats like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
[/b][/quote]
There you have it, dke, the voice of the majority on this board.
They're not interested in refinement, they're only interested in crass, brutal, go-straight power. And Ford is catering to them.
4/30/05, 06:28 PM
#22
GT Member
Join Date: April 6, 2004
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Robert+April 30, 2005, 6:08 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert @ April 30, 2005, 6:08 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Thats not a Mustang, you could wrap it in a mustang body, but it still would never be a mustang and I dont think there are exuses for anything, ford didn't bring the mustang to the table using a bunch of flim-flamery using stuff like "semi independant rear suspension" or "modified De Dion rear suspension" or what ever to try and woo over the masses. They brought out a mustang and said this is it, the quentissential modern detroit musclecar. take it or leave it.
Originally posted by bob@April 30, 2005, 4:50 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-dke
<!--QuoteBegin-dke
@April 30, 2005, 5:02 AM
If Ford wants to expand their market, they need NOT to cater to the enthusiasts, but their POTENTIAL customer base.
I realize I may be barking up the wrong tree.
I say, "why can't it have heated seats like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
If Ford wants to expand their market, they need NOT to cater to the enthusiasts, but their POTENTIAL customer base.
I realize I may be barking up the wrong tree.
I say, "why can't it have heated seats like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
Thats not a Mustang, you could wrap it in a mustang body, but it still would never be a mustang and I dont think there are exuses for anything, ford didn't bring the mustang to the table using a bunch of flim-flamery using stuff like "semi independant rear suspension" or "modified De Dion rear suspension" or what ever to try and woo over the masses. They brought out a mustang and said this is it, the quentissential modern detroit musclecar. take it or leave it.
They're not interested in refinement, they're only interested in crass, brutal, go-straight power. And Ford is catering to them.
[/b][/quote]
Unfortunately though, they have to realize it's not 1967 anymore. There are people out there who want more from a car like the Mustang. The competition is no longer what GM or DCX come up with, but what Toyota, Honda, Subaru, and Nissan come up with.
4/30/05, 06:29 PM
#23
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Evil_Capri+April 30, 2005, 6:03 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Evil_Capri @ April 30, 2005, 6:03 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
C'mon, dude. Who needs pansy creature comforts, gay independent suspensions and balance when you've got god, guns and white sheets? Oh yeah, and Hooters girls, beer and football.
I mean, what else is there in life?
The aforementioned - with some exaggeration - is the attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board.
Originally posted by Robert@April 30, 2005, 7:35 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-dke
<!--QuoteBegin-dke
@April 30, 2005, 4:02 AM
I say, "why can't it have heated seats like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
I say "why can't it have a amenities/creature comforts like all it's competitors", and the attitude is "my 60s stang was loud, hot and uncomfortable -- it handled like a snow-plow with a rocket motor, and that's how it should always be".
I say, "why can't it have heated seats like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
I say "why can't it have a amenities/creature comforts like all it's competitors", and the attitude is "my 60s stang was loud, hot and uncomfortable -- it handled like a snow-plow with a rocket motor, and that's how it should always be".
C'mon, dude. Who needs pansy creature comforts, gay independent suspensions and balance when you've got god, guns and white sheets? Oh yeah, and Hooters girls, beer and football.
I mean, what else is there in life?
The aforementioned - with some exaggeration - is the attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board.
Very nice crass insinuations. :notnice: Imagine someone having preconceived assumptions regarding other persons on this board, about their preconceived assumptions regarding the Mustang. Nice! :nono:
I have no problem with peoples views/opinions regarding autos. Each have their likes/dislikes. I do however take offense to your 'white sheets' comments, as well as your sexual reference comments as each pertains to "attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board."
And yes . . .I can/did read your comment "with some exaggeration". . . .
[/b][/quote]
Apparently I hit close to home.
4/30/05, 06:35 PM
#24
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SigMachi -- I agree the car is much better in warmer climates and good roads. (I'm just in the other 2/3rds of the nation).
ArkAngelx3, I agree that the cachet/coolness of the new stang is working. Short term. When the nostalgia wears off, it's going to have to stand toe-to-toe based on features as well. (Thats' my concern -- not being another retro-T-Bird, with short term appeal). And we don't know how many they would have sold if it was more competitive.
Bob. Kaka. (No offense or personal attack intended). Don't tell me that we should never have evolved past hand-cranks because that wouldn't be a mans car like model-T. That luddite attitude is myopic, and ignorant. The mustang would have never been a mustang if people had that attitude. And the 2005 isn't a real mustang because it has these new-fangled things like DOHC, catalytic converters, airbags, and so on. So of COURSE we evolve. You just want to be the autocrat that gets to say all the feature you want are "important" and in the spirit of the mustang, and all the ones I want are not?!?!?! (This isn't meant as an attack on you -- just on the argument you are making).
ArkAngelx3, I agree that the cachet/coolness of the new stang is working. Short term. When the nostalgia wears off, it's going to have to stand toe-to-toe based on features as well. (Thats' my concern -- not being another retro-T-Bird, with short term appeal). And we don't know how many they would have sold if it was more competitive.
Bob. Kaka. (No offense or personal attack intended). Don't tell me that we should never have evolved past hand-cranks because that wouldn't be a mans car like model-T. That luddite attitude is myopic, and ignorant. The mustang would have never been a mustang if people had that attitude. And the 2005 isn't a real mustang because it has these new-fangled things like DOHC, catalytic converters, airbags, and so on. So of COURSE we evolve. You just want to be the autocrat that gets to say all the feature you want are "important" and in the spirit of the mustang, and all the ones I want are not?!?!?! (This isn't meant as an attack on you -- just on the argument you are making).
4/30/05, 06:36 PM
#25
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Joes66Pony+April 30, 2005, 6:31 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joes66Pony @ April 30, 2005, 6:31 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Thats not a Mustang, you could wrap it in a mustang body, but it still would never be a mustang and I dont think there are exuses for anything, ford didn't bring the mustang to the table using a bunch of flim-flamery using stuff like "semi independant rear suspension" or "modified De Dion rear suspension" or what ever to try and woo over the masses. They brought out a mustang and said this is it, the quentissential modern detroit musclecar. take it or leave it.
There you have it, dke, the voice of the majority on this board.
They're not interested in refinement, they're only interested in crass, brutal, go-straight power. And Ford is catering to them.
Originally posted by Robert@April 30, 2005, 6:08 PM
Originally posted by bob@April 30, 2005, 4:50 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-dke
<!--QuoteBegin-dke
@April 30, 2005, 5:02 AM
If Ford wants to expand their market, they need NOT to cater to the enthusiasts, but their POTENTIAL customer base.
I realize I may be barking up the wrong tree.
I say, "why can't it have heated seats like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
If Ford wants to expand their market, they need NOT to cater to the enthusiasts, but their POTENTIAL customer base.
I realize I may be barking up the wrong tree.
I say, "why can't it have heated seats like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
Thats not a Mustang, you could wrap it in a mustang body, but it still would never be a mustang and I dont think there are exuses for anything, ford didn't bring the mustang to the table using a bunch of flim-flamery using stuff like "semi independant rear suspension" or "modified De Dion rear suspension" or what ever to try and woo over the masses. They brought out a mustang and said this is it, the quentissential modern detroit musclecar. take it or leave it.
There you have it, dke, the voice of the majority on this board.
They're not interested in refinement, they're only interested in crass, brutal, go-straight power. And Ford is catering to them.
Unfortunately though, they have to realize it's not 1967 anymore. There are people out there who want more from a car like the Mustang. The competition is no longer what GM or DCX come up with, but what Toyota, Honda, Subaru, and Nissan come up with.
[/b][/quote]
And so do I. My point is that we're in the minority on this board.
I too, am bothered by the fact that Ford forces me to make numerous compromises if I want to drive a Mustang. It's that philosophy that is driving Ford sales down as more and more people buy imports.
4/30/05, 06:38 PM
#26
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by dke@April 30, 2005, 6:38 PM
SigMachi -- I agree the car is much better in warmer climates and good roads. (I'm just in the other 2/3rds of the nation).
ArkAngelx3, I agree that the cachet/coolness of the new stang is working. Short term. When the nostalgia wears off, it's going to have to stand toe-to-toe based on features as well. (Thats' my concern -- not being another retro-T-Bird, with short term appeal). And we don't know how many they would have sold if it was more competitive.
Bob. Kaka. (No offense or personal attack intended). Don't tell me that we should never have evolved past hand-cranks because that wouldn't be a mans car like model-T. That luddite attitude is myopic, and ignorant. The mustang would have never been a mustang if people had that attitude. And the 2005 isn't a real mustang because it has these new-fangled things like DOHC, catalytic converters, airbags, and so on. So of COURSE we evolve. You just want to be the autocrat that gets to say all the feature you want are "important" and in the spirit of the mustang, and all the ones I want are not?!?!?! (This isn't meant as an attack on you -- just on the argument you are making).
SigMachi -- I agree the car is much better in warmer climates and good roads. (I'm just in the other 2/3rds of the nation).
ArkAngelx3, I agree that the cachet/coolness of the new stang is working. Short term. When the nostalgia wears off, it's going to have to stand toe-to-toe based on features as well. (Thats' my concern -- not being another retro-T-Bird, with short term appeal). And we don't know how many they would have sold if it was more competitive.
Bob. Kaka. (No offense or personal attack intended). Don't tell me that we should never have evolved past hand-cranks because that wouldn't be a mans car like model-T. That luddite attitude is myopic, and ignorant. The mustang would have never been a mustang if people had that attitude. And the 2005 isn't a real mustang because it has these new-fangled things like DOHC, catalytic converters, airbags, and so on. So of COURSE we evolve. You just want to be the autocrat that gets to say all the feature you want are "important" and in the spirit of the mustang, and all the ones I want are not?!?!?! (This isn't meant as an attack on you -- just on the argument you are making).
4/30/05, 06:39 PM
#27
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robert, I agree with a lot of what you say. Sometimes the way you say it could use work. But I agree that wanting a mustang that is technically/feature competitive seems to put us in the minority. Sad. There would be no progress if everyone took that attitude.
4/30/05, 06:47 PM
#28
Originally posted by Robert+April 30, 2005, 8:32 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert @ April 30, 2005, 8:32 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
C'mon, dude. Who needs pansy creature comforts, gay independent suspensions and balance when you've got god, guns and white sheets? Oh yeah, and Hooters girls, beer and football.
I mean, what else is there in life?
The aforementioned - with some exaggeration - is the attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board.
Robert-
Very nice crass insinuations. :notnice: Imagine someone having preconceived assumptions regarding other persons on this board, about their preconceived assumptions regarding the Mustang. Nice! :nono:
I have no problem with peoples views/opinions regarding autos. Each have their likes/dislikes. I do however take offense to your 'white sheets' comments, as well as your sexual reference comments as each pertains to "attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board."
And yes . . .I can/did read your comment "with some exaggeration". . . .
Originally posted by Evil_Capri@April 30, 2005, 6:03 AM
Originally posted by Robert@April 30, 2005, 7:35 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-dke
<!--QuoteBegin-dke
@April 30, 2005, 4:02 AM
I say, "why can't it have heated seats'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a>'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a> like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
I say "why can't it have a amenities/creature comforts like all it's competitors", and the attitude is "my 60s stang was loud, hot and uncomfortable -- it handled like a snow-plow with a rocket motor, and that's how it should always be".
I say, "why can't it have heated seats'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a>'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a> like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
I say "why can't it have a amenities/creature comforts like all it's competitors", and the attitude is "my 60s stang was loud, hot and uncomfortable -- it handled like a snow-plow with a rocket motor, and that's how it should always be".
C'mon, dude. Who needs pansy creature comforts, gay independent suspensions and balance when you've got god, guns and white sheets? Oh yeah, and Hooters girls, beer and football.
I mean, what else is there in life?
The aforementioned - with some exaggeration - is the attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board.
Robert-
Very nice crass insinuations. :notnice: Imagine someone having preconceived assumptions regarding other persons on this board, about their preconceived assumptions regarding the Mustang. Nice! :nono:
I have no problem with peoples views/opinions regarding autos. Each have their likes/dislikes. I do however take offense to your 'white sheets' comments, as well as your sexual reference comments as each pertains to "attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board."
And yes . . .I can/did read your comment "with some exaggeration". . . .
[/b][/quote]
How's that saying go . . .
Your wisdom is surpassed only by your ignorance.
The point I was trying to convey was that blanket statements as such you made are unnecessary. I undertand you trying to interject your 'wit' into this conversation, but felt those specific points you typed were uncalled for.
EDIT: I had to make an edit to my post (Your instead of You're) thanks to Robert for helping me with my grammer. I am sorry to those that had expected perfect grammer from me in all my posts.
4/30/05, 06:56 PM
#29
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Evil_Capri+April 30, 2005, 6:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Evil_Capri @ April 30, 2005, 6:50 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
C'mon, dude. Who needs pansy creature comforts, gay independent suspensions and balance when you've got god, guns and white sheets? Oh yeah, and Hooters girls, beer and football.
I mean, what else is there in life?
The aforementioned - with some exaggeration - is the attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board.
Robert-
Very nice crass insinuations. :notnice: Imagine someone having preconceived assumptions regarding other persons on this board, about their preconceived assumptions regarding the Mustang. Nice! :nono:
I have no problem with peoples views/opinions regarding autos. Each have their likes/dislikes. I do however take offense to your 'white sheets' comments, as well as your sexual reference comments as each pertains to "attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board."
And yes . . .I can/did read your comment "with some exaggeration". . . .
Apparently I hit close to home.
Originally posted by Robert@April 30, 2005, 8:32 PM
Originally posted by Evil_Capri@April 30, 2005, 6:03 AM
Originally posted by Robert@April 30, 2005, 7:35 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-dke
<!--QuoteBegin-dke
@April 30, 2005, 4:02 AM
I say, "why can't it have heated seats'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a> like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
I say "why can't it have a amenities/creature comforts like all it's competitors", and the attitude is "my 60s stang was loud, hot and uncomfortable -- it handled like a snow-plow with a rocket motor, and that's how it should always be".
I say, "why can't it have heated seats'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a> like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
I say "why can't it have a amenities/creature comforts like all it's competitors", and the attitude is "my 60s stang was loud, hot and uncomfortable -- it handled like a snow-plow with a rocket motor, and that's how it should always be".
C'mon, dude. Who needs pansy creature comforts, gay independent suspensions and balance when you've got god, guns and white sheets? Oh yeah, and Hooters girls, beer and football.
I mean, what else is there in life?
The aforementioned - with some exaggeration - is the attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board.
Robert-
Very nice crass insinuations. :notnice: Imagine someone having preconceived assumptions regarding other persons on this board, about their preconceived assumptions regarding the Mustang. Nice! :nono:
I have no problem with peoples views/opinions regarding autos. Each have their likes/dislikes. I do however take offense to your 'white sheets' comments, as well as your sexual reference comments as each pertains to "attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board."
And yes . . .I can/did read your comment "with some exaggeration". . . .
Apparently I hit close to home.
You're wisdom is surpassed only by your ignorance.
The point I was trying to convey was that blanket statements as such you made are unnecessary. I undertand you trying to interject your 'wit' into this conversation, but felt those specific points you typed were uncalled for.
[/b][/quote]
Um, you said, "You're (you are) wisdom is surpassed only by your ignorance"?
And you're calling ME ignorant...?
Okay, then, whatever you say.
4/30/05, 07:00 PM
#30
Originally posted by Robert+April 30, 2005, 8:59 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert @ April 30, 2005, 8:59 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
C'mon, dude. Who needs pansy creature comforts, gay independent suspensions and balance when you've got god, guns and white sheets? Oh yeah, and Hooters girls, beer and football.
I mean, what else is there in life?
The aforementioned - with some exaggeration - is the attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board.
Robert-
Very nice crass insinuations. :notnice: Imagine someone having preconceived assumptions regarding other persons on this board, about their preconceived assumptions regarding the Mustang. Nice! :nono:
I have no problem with peoples views/opinions regarding autos. Each have their likes/dislikes. I do however take offense to your 'white sheets' comments, as well as your sexual reference comments as each pertains to "attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board."
And yes . . .I can/did read your comment "with some exaggeration". . . .
Apparently I hit close to home.
How's that saying go . . .
You're wisdom is surpassed only by your ignorance.
The point I was trying to convey was that blanket statements as such you made are unnecessary. I undertand you trying to interject your 'wit' into this conversation, but felt those specific points you typed were uncalled for.
Originally posted by Evil_Capri@April 30, 2005, 6:50 PM
Originally posted by Robert@April 30, 2005, 8:32 PM
Originally posted by Evil_Capri@April 30, 2005, 6:03 AM
Originally posted by Robert@April 30, 2005, 7:35 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-dke
<!--QuoteBegin-dke
@April 30, 2005, 4:02 AM
I say, "why can't it have heated seats'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a>'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a>'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a>'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a> like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
I say "why can't it have a amenities/creature comforts like all it's competitors", and the attitude is "my 60s stang was loud, hot and uncomfortable -- it handled like a snow-plow with a rocket motor, and that's how it should always be".
I say, "why can't it have heated seats'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a>'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a>'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a>'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">heated seats</a> like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".
I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.
I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.
I say "why can't it have a amenities/creature comforts like all it's competitors", and the attitude is "my 60s stang was loud, hot and uncomfortable -- it handled like a snow-plow with a rocket motor, and that's how it should always be".
C'mon, dude. Who needs pansy creature comforts, gay independent suspensions and balance when you've got god, guns and white sheets? Oh yeah, and Hooters girls, beer and football.
I mean, what else is there in life?
The aforementioned - with some exaggeration - is the attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board.
Robert-
Very nice crass insinuations. :notnice: Imagine someone having preconceived assumptions regarding other persons on this board, about their preconceived assumptions regarding the Mustang. Nice! :nono:
I have no problem with peoples views/opinions regarding autos. Each have their likes/dislikes. I do however take offense to your 'white sheets' comments, as well as your sexual reference comments as each pertains to "attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board."
And yes . . .I can/did read your comment "with some exaggeration". . . .
Apparently I hit close to home.
How's that saying go . . .
You're wisdom is surpassed only by your ignorance.
The point I was trying to convey was that blanket statements as such you made are unnecessary. I undertand you trying to interject your 'wit' into this conversation, but felt those specific points you typed were uncalled for.
And you're calling ME ignorant...?
Okay, then, whatever you say.
[/b][/quote]
Thanks for the editing . . .and yes I was . .(I apologize for calling you, yourself ignorant. I should have clarified that I thought your statement was ignorant.)
EDIT: Also closing this thread. I'm sorry 03gtvert for taking your thread WAY off topic. Good topic, but it's partly my fault for it getting so off-topic.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post