Check out this Dodge commercial

From : dale yonz

Q: budd cochran wrote the question i have for you is what prompted you to make a negative comment about a man driving what he could afford . . .or preferred where in my message is the negative comment uh lets see . . .yep the whole darn thing. i also have owned and driven cars that predated me and was scared to death about the way they handled after i started driving modern cars. must have been gm products. i never found one that handled right. my little white valiant was a canyon carver even on 13 tires. oh and yes i have done some racing so i know what setting a line thru a corner is apexing the difference between a drift four wheel not tire wasting and a slide. the biggest limiting factor for car handling years ago was tire development expecially for mopars amcs and fords. my message was meant to say exactly what was written in it and had no hidden meaning. i didnt say you hid the meaning i called it what it was; a negative comment about driving an older car. come on budd i have been reading and sometimes -rarely- writing in this group since 1998 and have noticed a very distinct change of attitude from you. you take everything personally... you seem to think i dont have any right to be offended . . .guess again. if i want to take a slam about my car personally i have the right and the choice. i can also be offended when a slam is made against older cars without justification. relax and allow some other fellow to politely disagree with you... polite no problem...slamming of a guys ride for no justifiable reason big problem. further more try and read what the threads say... ja herr diktator!!!!! try it yourself ok there was not one hint of disagreement in my message about the specifics of the accident you had participated in... i did and you did say one point only... do we care about the car damage or the potential passenger injuries then you proceeded to slam my older car as being a death trap. all negatives. you missed my point that newer cars are not as safe as their cracked up to be. if i had been in my 95 lebaron for example i would be dead in that accident. did you read the comment of the side impact beam the car had a 4 star rated impact safety iirc. it was supposed to have protected the driver according to the experts caps for emphasis only last year my wife just reminded me of this another accident left a young person in a wheelchair when their ricer was rear-ended by a semi when it pulled out in front of it in a thirty mph zone. that car was only three years old. wheres the rear crumple zone now where the back seat used to be. looking at the car the next day as i drove by one of the body shops im surprised he lived at all. yes the truck may have been speeding but ive never seen one go thru town faster than 40. an engineering trivia you should consider only two people have ever survived the trip over niagara falls even with a steel barrel filled with padding. some of those clowns that died were engineers. the two that survived werent they were just lucky. the point being there are some things man is incapable of engineering safety into. budd .

Replies:

From : roy

like i said stuff it tom. budd this doesnt answer the question budd. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving and apparently neither of you have been a 64 valiant during an accident. and when were you were a 64 valiant lol gee tom how darn stupid are you do you need someone to remind you to breathe go to the bathroom read the freakin thread or do you need someonre to do that for you too budd .