IML: Flames on 67/68/whatever

I am so sick of post after post after post of flame... Roy/Mark/Everybody else PLEASE TAKE THIS PRIVATE....

In a message dated 8/22/2005 11:05:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

Roy,

I DO NOT CARE if you think this subject is frivolous. It is not.

I DO NOT CARE if you think your word is gospel and cannot be
questioned. You ain't perfect, or anywhere near it.

I DO NOT CARE how rude and insulting you get; it doesn't make you right.

Finally, if you DO NOT CARE for the opinions of others I see no reason
why anyone else should care for your's.

If you can't respect the opinions of other's, then I suggest you keep
YOUR OWN TO YOURSELF. In other words, Roy, if you can't prove your
point without getting rude and insulting, then SHUT UP.

You claimed responsibility for the page, not me. That's why you got
the response. If all you did was scan a single advertisement, why did
you claim to have put so much "sweat and toil into making the website
what it is, a psuedo work of art?" Is there that much toil involved in
scanning a single ad? Or could it be you're full of c***???

Your whole attitude seems to be: if I did it, it's golden, and if you
don't like it, that's just tough. Well, Roy, that's the attitude of an
arrogant little brat. I suggest you GROW UP.

I have contributed a lot to this website over the years, including
writing an article on restoring the bronze in my '68. However, that's
irrelevant. Anyone who is an Imperial lover and a member of this club
HAS A RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION here, even when it contradicts the
Great ViaJoaquin! If you don't like it, JOIN ANOTHER ORGANIZATION in
which only YOUR OPINION matters!

Again, let me repeat what I said at the end of my last message: let's
treat this website and the owners of ALL years of Imperials with equal
respect.

If you can't do that, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE.

Mark M

On Monday, August 22, 2005, at 12:45 AM, ViaJoaquin@xxxxxxx wrote:

> Mark,
>
> First of all, let me point out that my sole contribution to the OIC
> web site has been scanning a single magazine advertisement, and while
> it did feature a green 67 Imperial, it wasn't haze green! Hopefully
> you will have at least done as much before calling other's terms
> frivolous! The 67-68 pages were upgraded after I joined the IML, but
> by people that were around long before I came. It's easy to come
> along after the fact spouting criticisms and drawing aspersions
> onto people's thoughts, however, the real work was creating something
> from nothing, hour after hour and for that, my hat is off to all those
> that contributed their sweat and toil for the greater good, and not
> just on their personal car! YOU are correct in your assumption that I
> DO NOT CARE how many more sovereign gold Imperials you have seen than
> haze green ones! I DO NOT CARE what little faith you have in
> newcomers thinking that "Haze Green Era" is an official designation!
> I DO NOT CARE that you and the others so concerned about this term
> are so insecure in the standing of the 67-68 in history. I own a 67
> Imperial, know it intimately and I am not put off by any description
> put upon that model. Whatever bias toward it that I may have
> developed over time, does not make it the best Imperial ever made,
> indeed there is no "best" Imperial, rather they are all equal in their
> glory! I DO HOPE that those in charge of this matter stand their
> convictions and do not bough to this late summer boredom in bringing
> up such a FRIVOLOUS exercise in semantics!
>
> Roy
> 67 Crown FDHT
>
> In a message dated 8/21/2005 7:49:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> Roy,
>
> The fact that's it's been there since the page was created is no reason
> to keep it there. If it's wrong it's wrong, and it needs to be
> changed, the sooner the better. I've also put plenty of sweat and toil
> into my Imperials, and I don't like seeing them demeaned by such a
> frivolous term. I'm not asking for change for the sake of change, I'm
> asking for change because the term "Haze Green" is the least flattering
> and least accurate of any of the descriptive terms used on the website.
> I've personally seen about ten times as many Sovereign Gold Imperials
> as I have green ones, and I don't see any reason AT ALL why the 67s and
> 68s should have to suffer with this label any longer.
>
> What's even worse is, the people who have joined this site since you
> created that page now believe it is the "Official" designation of those
> years! Did you give ANY THOUGHT at all to how this term would be taken
> by others??? No, apparently not. And now that you know how many of us
> feel you STILL don't care. The whole list of names you provide--
> "Stamped Wheel Wonder"-- shows just how little you respect those years.
>
> Let's treat the website and the owners of ALL years of cars with equal
> respect, how 'bout that? The name needs to be changed.
>
> Mark
>
>