At 05:55 PM 4/5/99 , you wrote:
>In a message dated 4/5/99 5:30:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>preacher@carolina.rr.com writes:
>
><< It is possible that I am off base here (vis a vis the seeming predjudice
> against Mopar) and if that is true, I apologize. However, that having been
> said, give the Dakota it's fair chance! >>
>David!!! You are my hero!! Im going to get that mag, read it, then send some
>email their way too! LOL Youre awesome!! =0)
>Eric
Yep, good work. :-) I take issue with the entire "the vehicle must be
changed somewhat or be new to be considered eligible". I don't know of any
auto magazine that doesn't do this for their "<insert vehicle here> of the
year" contests. IMHO, if I can walk into the dealership and buy one, it
should be eligible for the contest. "Newness" is simply NOT a valid criteria!!
Does the NHRA tell John Force that he can't race this year because he's
no different than he was last year? "Tell ya what John, you go get a face
lift, drop a few pounds, and we'll think about it..." I don't think so.
:-P Nothing in the "real world" works this way! Where did these editors
pick up the notion that the "new" requirement is a good idea??? Are they
trying to ensure that the "vehicle of the year" will be new? Why? Seems
to me that if an older design (still sold on the market) is better than the
newer stuff, that's a pretty good incentive for the manufacturers to push
harder.
I simply cannot comprehend the brain fog that causes these magazines to
follow this tired formula. Geez... Show a tiny spark of innovation!
Throw away the guidebook and break out of that cookie cutter industry!
Anyone wanna start a new truck magazine with a Mopar bias? I've got dibs
on the "Truck of the year" piece. ;-)
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu ------------------------------------.
| Affiliations: DoD, EAA, MP Race Team, NMA, SPA, USUA. RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT CC (14.58@93.55), '96 Kolb FireFly 447 |
`----------------------- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:13:39 EDT