In article
<3e84fe48-1157-4a49-bb7a-9eefa41f92af@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
KoshN <macthevorlon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 9:11 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > In article <foevl9$tt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >
> > "Obveeus" <Obve...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > "WQ" <w...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > --- Like, as if most people would really pick up on it or care for
> > > > that matter.
> >
> > > People will care. There are still lots of loyalist Gm/Ford nuts out
> > > there
> > > and most of the real nuts are on the GM side. The fact that the new
Kitt
> > > is
> > > a Ford might just be enough to cause the entire series to fail.
> >
> > I don't think it's the fact that it's a "Ford" as much as it's just a
> > run of the mill car that wouldn't turn anybody's head for an instant
is
> > the problem.
>
> That's a load of bull. The current Mustang is one of the most
> striking designs out there right now, and you know that the Knight
> Rider one is NOT going to be any ol' run of the mill V6 automatic. At
> the very least it's going to be Shelby GT500 level in power. Also,
> the Knight Rider Trans Am looked like any base level black Trans AM of
> the time, unless you looked at it's Cylon-like oscillating red light
> up front, or the interior (dash and center console). Similar mods.
> could *easily* be amde to *any* car, let alone the Mustang.
>
> Anim8r, your argument makes no sense.
>
> Mac Breck (KoshN)
We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the current Mustang is no more
distinctive than any million beige Ford Toruses.
--
Star Trek 08:
No Shat, No Show.
|
