>ok, so the subject of advertising on the list has been beaten to death.
>it now also seems that using the list to debate and discuss design issues
>of Qs vs. others or magazines that cover Qs is becoming increasingly
>unacceptable, or perhaps it's just my style...
>let's have a discussion here about this. if everyone wants to make this a
>list solely for the purpose of discussing how to fix little problems (or
>how to purchase an a4 for as little $$$ as possible) i have little
>interest in continuing to subscribe. my interest in cars have always been
>beyond the ownership day to day issues.
>i can take the heat that my comments generate, but i don't want to be
>accused of bringing up inappropriate subjects. i can always find
>other places to debate my ideas..
I for one have no problem with the discussion of design issues or the
relative merits of various magazines. I agree that at times this can be a
bit more interesting than non-stop repair items. What struck me with the
recent threads was the similarity to negative advertising or negative
campaigning before elections.
I don't get much enjoyment from bashing other car-makers or magazines, or
reading someone else's bashing. I enjoy reading reasoned opinions about
the various strengths of different vendors. When the opinions are
expressed by slamming certain vendors, it begins to sound more like
religion than a debate on facts. Maybe it's just me, but in general I find
such extreme positions undermine the credibility of the writer or speaker.
You write as if you read a great deal and have thought about much of this
in depth. If you could adjust the ratio of fact to venom, some of us would
enjoy it much more.
San Jose, California
'87 560 SL