Re: IML: Imperials and everything else

[John T. Folden <nedloftj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 2, 2005, at 11:13 AM, dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> To me, the name is just a name.  Calling something an "Imperial" does 
> not make
> it an Imperial.  People in this country suffer from "brand loyalty" 
> which I
> completely fail to comprehend.  That's why I can't see what the 90's
> "imperials" have to do here in this list, but I am a minority.  Even 
> the 80's
> barely compare, and I would be an even bigger minority on this one.


I guess you find this kind of thinking in just about every circle but I 
always find it surprising. In this case, while a name may just be a 
name it also means different things to different people. Everyone has a 
favorite Imperial period, for me it's the '80-90's models that do it 
for me. Someone else might prefer the 70's models which I personally 
detest.

So, to assume that someone likes a given model year that you don't 
simply because of 'brand loyalty' or that a given model isn't a 'real' 
Imperial simply because it doesn't fit your notions of one is the far 
side of misguided, imo. If it weren't for the 80's and 90's models then 
I wouldn't even give the "Imperial" name a thought.

...and if it weren't for the 90's Imperial specifically, then I 
probably wouldn't have even considered buying a Chrysler. So, they must 
have done something VERY right with this model.

John



-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm