Geoff did pass the time by typing:
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?

Too slow?

> Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy

Rilly. I didn't know one could copyright the result of a million
monkeys.



--
/ramjw\__
.:\:\:/:/.
( ~ ~ ):
.-------------------.\ = o /
| PLEASE DO NOT |( (_) )
| FEED THE TROLLS |/`-----'\_
`-------------------' / \(O)
| | / /|_____|/U
| | \_/ / \ \
| | ( ( ) )
| | _\,,\ /,,/_
,|/./\/|.\| ,|/./.(_____V_____)/

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0406111050560.8993@alumni.engin .umich.edu...

> Well, in the case of the Chevy Equinox, you can call it "an engine failure
> waiting to happen". The 3.4 litre V6 is a crap design that sucked eggs
> when it was made in North America. Now it's made in *China*.
>
> In the case of the SRX, you don't really have to call it anything; you can
> just laugh and roll your eyes.
>
> In the case of the Pacifica, you can puff up your face and hold your hands
> out as if to indicate "fat".

You're clearly on to my motivation, whether you realize it or not. See
below. This ain't boosterism at work.

> > The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born.
For
> > the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
> > Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
>
> We already have one idiotic clunker of a vehicular referent ("sport
> utility vehicle") out there. Your four-word mess isn't needed.

In a world where everything is either a 'car' or a 'truck' I'd agree. It
isn't so. And the objective is the abbreviation, not the three- or
four-word term it stands for.

> Then you should sue for royalties or something.

Actually, I'll be happy if all these stupid things, properly grouped
together with a name, are swept off the market as a failure en masse. As in
"those CUVs, they were such a joke. Why didn't they learn their lesson
after seeing the Aztec?!?"

I'd like to think that somebody, namely me, coining a term such as this one,
helps to hasten their departure from the market. It's asking a lot, I know.
But we'll see.

As to the copyright -- it's designed to keep the mental midgets at the car
magazines from stealing it wholesale. Otherwise, it's in the public domain,
and rightly so, since it wasn't done for profit.

--Geoff

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0406111050560.8993@alumni.engin .umich.edu...

> Well, in the case of the Chevy Equinox, you can call it "an engine failure
> waiting to happen". The 3.4 litre V6 is a crap design that sucked eggs
> when it was made in North America. Now it's made in *China*.
>
> In the case of the SRX, you don't really have to call it anything; you can
> just laugh and roll your eyes.
>
> In the case of the Pacifica, you can puff up your face and hold your hands
> out as if to indicate "fat".

You're clearly on to my motivation, whether you realize it or not. See
below. This ain't boosterism at work.

> > The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born.
For
> > the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
> > Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
>
> We already have one idiotic clunker of a vehicular referent ("sport
> utility vehicle") out there. Your four-word mess isn't needed.

In a world where everything is either a 'car' or a 'truck' I'd agree. It
isn't so. And the objective is the abbreviation, not the three- or
four-word term it stands for.

> Then you should sue for royalties or something.

Actually, I'll be happy if all these stupid things, properly grouped
together with a name, are swept off the market as a failure en masse. As in
"those CUVs, they were such a joke. Why didn't they learn their lesson
after seeing the Aztec?!?"

I'd like to think that somebody, namely me, coining a term such as this one,
helps to hasten their departure from the market. It's asking a lot, I know.
But we'll see.

As to the copyright -- it's designed to keep the mental midgets at the car
magazines from stealing it wholesale. Otherwise, it's in the public domain,
and rightly so, since it wasn't done for profit.

--Geoff

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0406111050560.8993@alumni.engin .umich.edu...

> Well, in the case of the Chevy Equinox, you can call it "an engine failure
> waiting to happen". The 3.4 litre V6 is a crap design that sucked eggs
> when it was made in North America. Now it's made in *China*.
>
> In the case of the SRX, you don't really have to call it anything; you can
> just laugh and roll your eyes.
>
> In the case of the Pacifica, you can puff up your face and hold your hands
> out as if to indicate "fat".

You're clearly on to my motivation, whether you realize it or not. See
below. This ain't boosterism at work.

> > The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born.
For
> > the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
> > Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
>
> We already have one idiotic clunker of a vehicular referent ("sport
> utility vehicle") out there. Your four-word mess isn't needed.

In a world where everything is either a 'car' or a 'truck' I'd agree. It
isn't so. And the objective is the abbreviation, not the three- or
four-word term it stands for.

> Then you should sue for royalties or something.

Actually, I'll be happy if all these stupid things, properly grouped
together with a name, are swept off the market as a failure en masse. As in
"those CUVs, they were such a joke. Why didn't they learn their lesson
after seeing the Aztec?!?"

I'd like to think that somebody, namely me, coining a term such as this one,
helps to hasten their departure from the market. It's asking a lot, I know.
But we'll see.

As to the copyright -- it's designed to keep the mental midgets at the car
magazines from stealing it wholesale. Otherwise, it's in the public domain,
and rightly so, since it wasn't done for profit.

--Geoff

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0406111050560.8993@alumni.engin .umich.edu...

> Well, in the case of the Chevy Equinox, you can call it "an engine failure
> waiting to happen". The 3.4 litre V6 is a crap design that sucked eggs
> when it was made in North America. Now it's made in *China*.
>
> In the case of the SRX, you don't really have to call it anything; you can
> just laugh and roll your eyes.
>
> In the case of the Pacifica, you can puff up your face and hold your hands
> out as if to indicate "fat".

You're clearly on to my motivation, whether you realize it or not. See
below. This ain't boosterism at work.

> > The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born.
For
> > the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
> > Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
>
> We already have one idiotic clunker of a vehicular referent ("sport
> utility vehicle") out there. Your four-word mess isn't needed.

In a world where everything is either a 'car' or a 'truck' I'd agree. It
isn't so. And the objective is the abbreviation, not the three- or
four-word term it stands for.

> Then you should sue for royalties or something.

Actually, I'll be happy if all these stupid things, properly grouped
together with a name, are swept off the market as a failure en masse. As in
"those CUVs, they were such a joke. Why didn't they learn their lesson
after seeing the Aztec?!?"

I'd like to think that somebody, namely me, coining a term such as this one,
helps to hasten their departure from the market. It's asking a lot, I know.
But we'll see.

As to the copyright -- it's designed to keep the mental midgets at the car
magazines from stealing it wholesale. Otherwise, it's in the public domain,
and rightly so, since it wasn't done for profit.

--Geoff

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Geoff wrote:

>>forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
>>definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
>>very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle.
>
>
> Then you should sue for royalties or something.
>
>
>>Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
>
>
> And you plan on enforcing this...how?

What do you expect from a guy who can't even spell "Jeff" correctly? :-)

Matt

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Geoff wrote:

>>forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
>>definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
>>very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle.
>
>
> Then you should sue for royalties or something.
>
>
>>Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
>
>
> And you plan on enforcing this...how?

What do you expect from a guy who can't even spell "Jeff" correctly? :-)

Matt

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Geoff wrote:

>>forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
>>definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
>>very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle.
>
>
> Then you should sue for royalties or something.
>
>
>>Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
>
>
> And you plan on enforcing this...how?

What do you expect from a guy who can't even spell "Jeff" correctly? :-)

Matt

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Geoff wrote:

>>forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
>>definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
>>very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle.
>
>
> Then you should sue for royalties or something.
>
>
>>Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
>
>
> And you plan on enforcing this...how?

What do you expect from a guy who can't even spell "Jeff" correctly? :-)

Matt

 

SUX

--
Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California