Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
Steve wrote:
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
No styling and butt-ugly are two entirely different things. Styling is a
matter of taste, the other is simply inexcusable.
--
Will Honea
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
No styling and butt-ugly are two entirely different things. Styling is a
matter of taste, the other is simply inexcusable.
--
Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
Steve wrote:
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
No styling and butt-ugly are two entirely different things. Styling is a
matter of taste, the other is simply inexcusable.
--
Will Honea
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
No styling and butt-ugly are two entirely different things. Styling is a
matter of taste, the other is simply inexcusable.
--
Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
Steve wrote:
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
No styling and butt-ugly are two entirely different things. Styling is a
matter of taste, the other is simply inexcusable.
--
Will Honea
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
No styling and butt-ugly are two entirely different things. Styling is a
matter of taste, the other is simply inexcusable.
--
Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
Steve wrote:
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
No styling and butt-ugly are two entirely different things. Styling is a
matter of taste, the other is simply inexcusable.
--
Will Honea
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
No styling and butt-ugly are two entirely different things. Styling is a
matter of taste, the other is simply inexcusable.
--
Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:28:28 -0500, Steve wrote:
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
With all due respect, I must disagree...
How about plain old 'bad styling' or possibly worse, 'functional styling'?
The original Beetle was styled for the functionality of that car, and with
Third Reich artistic standards.
The Citroen 2CV the same, minus the Third Reich artistic constraints.
Many more examples up to the time of those you've mentioned; again, styled
for the function only.
And my favourite for sheer ugliness, The Aztek. Had to pass one at my
corner -- a bright yellow brick -- for many months, and frequently had to
answer the question, "What in hell is /that/ monstrosity?" It too was
styled for it's function.
People these days drive more 'vehicles' than 'cars', and the vehicles
generally have the artistic appeal of any military vehicle. And the cars
have been homogenized to aesthetically offend nobody, with the
side-effect of pleasing very few. Which is why a typical highway today
looks like a mass of military maneuvers mixed with mostly
undifferentiateable little buglets milling around like bees in a hive or
ants in a hill.
Just my $0.02 Canadian....
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
With all due respect, I must disagree...
How about plain old 'bad styling' or possibly worse, 'functional styling'?
The original Beetle was styled for the functionality of that car, and with
Third Reich artistic standards.
The Citroen 2CV the same, minus the Third Reich artistic constraints.
Many more examples up to the time of those you've mentioned; again, styled
for the function only.
And my favourite for sheer ugliness, The Aztek. Had to pass one at my
corner -- a bright yellow brick -- for many months, and frequently had to
answer the question, "What in hell is /that/ monstrosity?" It too was
styled for it's function.
People these days drive more 'vehicles' than 'cars', and the vehicles
generally have the artistic appeal of any military vehicle. And the cars
have been homogenized to aesthetically offend nobody, with the
side-effect of pleasing very few. Which is why a typical highway today
looks like a mass of military maneuvers mixed with mostly
undifferentiateable little buglets milling around like bees in a hive or
ants in a hill.
Just my $0.02 Canadian....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:28:28 -0500, Steve wrote:
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
With all due respect, I must disagree...
How about plain old 'bad styling' or possibly worse, 'functional styling'?
The original Beetle was styled for the functionality of that car, and with
Third Reich artistic standards.
The Citroen 2CV the same, minus the Third Reich artistic constraints.
Many more examples up to the time of those you've mentioned; again, styled
for the function only.
And my favourite for sheer ugliness, The Aztek. Had to pass one at my
corner -- a bright yellow brick -- for many months, and frequently had to
answer the question, "What in hell is /that/ monstrosity?" It too was
styled for it's function.
People these days drive more 'vehicles' than 'cars', and the vehicles
generally have the artistic appeal of any military vehicle. And the cars
have been homogenized to aesthetically offend nobody, with the
side-effect of pleasing very few. Which is why a typical highway today
looks like a mass of military maneuvers mixed with mostly
undifferentiateable little buglets milling around like bees in a hive or
ants in a hill.
Just my $0.02 Canadian....
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
With all due respect, I must disagree...
How about plain old 'bad styling' or possibly worse, 'functional styling'?
The original Beetle was styled for the functionality of that car, and with
Third Reich artistic standards.
The Citroen 2CV the same, minus the Third Reich artistic constraints.
Many more examples up to the time of those you've mentioned; again, styled
for the function only.
And my favourite for sheer ugliness, The Aztek. Had to pass one at my
corner -- a bright yellow brick -- for many months, and frequently had to
answer the question, "What in hell is /that/ monstrosity?" It too was
styled for it's function.
People these days drive more 'vehicles' than 'cars', and the vehicles
generally have the artistic appeal of any military vehicle. And the cars
have been homogenized to aesthetically offend nobody, with the
side-effect of pleasing very few. Which is why a typical highway today
looks like a mass of military maneuvers mixed with mostly
undifferentiateable little buglets milling around like bees in a hive or
ants in a hill.
Just my $0.02 Canadian....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:28:28 -0500, Steve wrote:
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
With all due respect, I must disagree...
How about plain old 'bad styling' or possibly worse, 'functional styling'?
The original Beetle was styled for the functionality of that car, and with
Third Reich artistic standards.
The Citroen 2CV the same, minus the Third Reich artistic constraints.
Many more examples up to the time of those you've mentioned; again, styled
for the function only.
And my favourite for sheer ugliness, The Aztek. Had to pass one at my
corner -- a bright yellow brick -- for many months, and frequently had to
answer the question, "What in hell is /that/ monstrosity?" It too was
styled for it's function.
People these days drive more 'vehicles' than 'cars', and the vehicles
generally have the artistic appeal of any military vehicle. And the cars
have been homogenized to aesthetically offend nobody, with the
side-effect of pleasing very few. Which is why a typical highway today
looks like a mass of military maneuvers mixed with mostly
undifferentiateable little buglets milling around like bees in a hive or
ants in a hill.
Just my $0.02 Canadian....
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
With all due respect, I must disagree...
How about plain old 'bad styling' or possibly worse, 'functional styling'?
The original Beetle was styled for the functionality of that car, and with
Third Reich artistic standards.
The Citroen 2CV the same, minus the Third Reich artistic constraints.
Many more examples up to the time of those you've mentioned; again, styled
for the function only.
And my favourite for sheer ugliness, The Aztek. Had to pass one at my
corner -- a bright yellow brick -- for many months, and frequently had to
answer the question, "What in hell is /that/ monstrosity?" It too was
styled for it's function.
People these days drive more 'vehicles' than 'cars', and the vehicles
generally have the artistic appeal of any military vehicle. And the cars
have been homogenized to aesthetically offend nobody, with the
side-effect of pleasing very few. Which is why a typical highway today
looks like a mass of military maneuvers mixed with mostly
undifferentiateable little buglets milling around like bees in a hive or
ants in a hill.
Just my $0.02 Canadian....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:28:28 -0500, Steve wrote:
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
With all due respect, I must disagree...
How about plain old 'bad styling' or possibly worse, 'functional styling'?
The original Beetle was styled for the functionality of that car, and with
Third Reich artistic standards.
The Citroen 2CV the same, minus the Third Reich artistic constraints.
Many more examples up to the time of those you've mentioned; again, styled
for the function only.
And my favourite for sheer ugliness, The Aztek. Had to pass one at my
corner -- a bright yellow brick -- for many months, and frequently had to
answer the question, "What in hell is /that/ monstrosity?" It too was
styled for it's function.
People these days drive more 'vehicles' than 'cars', and the vehicles
generally have the artistic appeal of any military vehicle. And the cars
have been homogenized to aesthetically offend nobody, with the
side-effect of pleasing very few. Which is why a typical highway today
looks like a mass of military maneuvers mixed with mostly
undifferentiateable little buglets milling around like bees in a hive or
ants in a hill.
Just my $0.02 Canadian....
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
With all due respect, I must disagree...
How about plain old 'bad styling' or possibly worse, 'functional styling'?
The original Beetle was styled for the functionality of that car, and with
Third Reich artistic standards.
The Citroen 2CV the same, minus the Third Reich artistic constraints.
Many more examples up to the time of those you've mentioned; again, styled
for the function only.
And my favourite for sheer ugliness, The Aztek. Had to pass one at my
corner -- a bright yellow brick -- for many months, and frequently had to
answer the question, "What in hell is /that/ monstrosity?" It too was
styled for it's function.
People these days drive more 'vehicles' than 'cars', and the vehicles
generally have the artistic appeal of any military vehicle. And the cars
have been homogenized to aesthetically offend nobody, with the
side-effect of pleasing very few. Which is why a typical highway today
looks like a mass of military maneuvers mixed with mostly
undifferentiateable little buglets milling around like bees in a hive or
ants in a hill.
Just my $0.02 Canadian....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
Steve <no@spam.thanks> writes:
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
No, there isn't. There's "deliberately styled to look as if it was
just an industrial produce", but trust me -- just as much money went
into the styling of a Scion XB as a Mazda RX-8.
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as "no styling".
>
> Look at a Scion XB or Honda Element, and then say that again with a
> straight face.
>
> Oh yea, there IS such a thing as "no styling."
No, there isn't. There's "deliberately styled to look as if it was
just an industrial produce", but trust me -- just as much money went
into the styling of a Scion XB as a Mazda RX-8.
