From: krw on
On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:42:11 -0700, Robert Baer <robertbaer(a)localnet.com>
wrote:

>krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 21:07:16 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 15:33:33 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:35:12 -0700, John Larkin
>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/10/1028_50_ugliest_cars_of_past_50_years/index.htm?chan=rss_topSlideShows_ssi_5
>>>>>
>>>> I owned two (three if you count the 2000 Sable we have now - different body,
>>>> though), a '70 AMC Gremlin, and '74 Ford Rustang II. I don't agree with a lot
>>>> of those picks, though. Delorian? BMW 7 series? Ferrari Enzo?
>>> It seems like there were several people picking cars that they hated for
>>> some reason, but no overall consistency. There were several where i
>>> seriously question the judgment of the choice, Ford taurus/Mercury sable
>>> was(/is?) a useful line and not a market flop.
>>
>> Was. The name was resurrected, but it is a far different car.
>>
>>> Some of the strange cars are really ugly though.
>>
>> There are some really ugly one around. The Element and the Cube are the more
>> common ones that make my mind boggle.
> As an "answer" to the ugly box "car"s, i propose the following
>useless contraption: A conveyance shaped like a sphere (nice smooth

A "tear drop" would have lower wind resistance.

>contours, elegantly rounded corners, etc) and tires shaped like cubes!

Triangles would remove one bump per revolution.
From: Michael A. Terrell on

Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> IMO,that BUSINESS mag should stick to business issues and leave the car
> styling opinions to car magazines.
>
> How could they omit the Citroen 2CV?


They couldn't stop vomiting, long enough to include it?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.