From: krw on 23 May 2010 11:16 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 23 May 2010 14:42
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. |