 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / February 2006'06 Mustang Colors, Part II
OK, I need a little more help, if you don't mind. I'm going to be buying an '06 GT Mustang convertible, with the Redfire exterior. I kind of think that the black leather seats would go well with the bright exterior. Question is, how hot do those seats get during the summer. Can anyone out there with the black leather seats let me know how they like them? Thanks again for your help! Ken Zwyers >OK, I need a little more help, if you don't mind. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Ken Zwyers I have a coupe. The seats do not get overly hot. They're leather, not plastic. With the top down, the seats will get hot, in the sunshine, no matter what color they are. I'd try to keep them from being exposed to much direct sunlight. Having had a convertible once (not a Mustang), I'd never have another one. But, each to his own. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** Hotter than a two dollar pistol. Leather gets hot - period. Black will be that much hotter. I had tan ones and they were bad. I ahve grey ones in my Libby and they are better than the tan was. Hell these are heated even but there is a simple solution. Keep a towel neatly folded up behind each seat on the floorboard. When it's too hot, grab the towel and toss it over the seat. The towels come in handy when you need to protect your trunk, carpet or seats from other potential hazards too, like muddy feet or that plant you bought or whatever. You can get nice black towels at Bed Bath and Beyond. Easy to wash and then they go right back where they were. Worked great for me for years. Kate 2O|||||||O5 Liberty Limited With a lot fewer mods on it now than it will have in six months. : OK, I need a little more help, if you don't mind. : [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : : Ken Zwyers OH! One other note. Ford has a reputation for not having the best leather. My experience was pretty much the same. It ages quickly and looks pretty rough after about four years. Black will be worse because of the heat it absorbs. You REALLY ought to go find a used Mustang with leather seats and ahve a look at them. It's not a pretty sight. At least with black you will have the option of dying things that go bad, unlike the tan. Kate > OH! One other note. Ford has a reputation for not having the best leather. > My experience was pretty much the same. It ages quickly and looks pretty > rough after about four years. Black will be worse because of the heat it > absorbs. The leather in my '97 is just fine except for the drivers seat, which shows wear that is probably acceptable for the milage. What did occur though is the foam inside the left bolster started braking down and the leather wore against the frame. I caught it in time and reinforced it from behind and filled in the bolster with additional foam. It's impossible to tell anything was done without removing the seat and looking inside, but without that action it would have quickly gotten very bad. : > OH! One other note. Ford has a reputation for not having the best leather. : > My experience was pretty much the same. It ages quickly and looks pretty [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : looking inside, but without that action it would have quickly gotten very : bad. With the height of the bolsters, I would think that should be expected. Good Save! It's the bolsers IMO that make the seats so great! I wish that Ford would just use a softer leather. >OK, I need a little more help, if you don't mind. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Ken Zwyers Ken, A lot of the "hot" depends on where you live. I live in South Louisiana, and during the summer, it gets "blue blazes hot" here almost every day, a white car with white interior would "roast" you on the way home if it was parked in the sun. My previous 'Stang was redfire with dark charcoal leather interior, it was MISERABLY HOT. My current one has the Light gray interior. I'm not sure there is much difference in temperature, I guess anything above 200 feels about the same <sigh> If you're "up north" then the black/drak gray interior probalbly would be OK, down here or out west in the desert, well, that's another story all together. Then again, I know people who "insist" on driving a black car with black interior, they "endure" because it's what they want to do. Get what you want, as long as you're "thrilled" with it and enjoy it, the difference in "seat temperature" won't make much difference. And then... When you get ready for a new one, hmmmm..... The "hot seats" will be a deciding factor and get you into the "new car smell" (which can be hazardous if you're an OLD FART) <wink> LOL Hope you enjoy your new pony when you get it :) John Thanks to everyone for your help. Well, looks like I have some decisions to make. I live in the Chicago area, but the sun can still beat down pretty well during the summer. I think my best bet is to go to a few dealerships, see some leather and some cloth seats, then decide which I like best, all things considered. If I prefer the leather seats, I'll go with the GT Premium, otherwise I'll go with the GT Deluxe. I'm replacing the stereo with an XM compatible one, so the stereo isn't all that big a factor to me, anyway. > >OK, I need a little more help, if you don't mind. > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > John Ford still isn't offering satellite radio? Wow.. even the dimwits at DC offer satellite. KJK : Thanks to everyone for your help. Well, looks like I have some decisions to : make. I live in the Chicago area, but the sun can still beat down pretty [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] : > : > John Ford does offer satellite radio, but they're aligned with Sirius. I've been an XM subscriber for over 4 years now, and I prefer to stick with them. > Ford still isn't offering satellite radio? > Wow.. even the dimwits at DC offer satellite. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > : > > : > John When I ordered my 2005 loaded F-450, I could not get a CD player that played MP3's, yet it was available on the $12.000 entry level Kids car. Go figure. I couldn't care less about satellite radio. I will never pay for it. It's just like cable TV and buying coverage for the items you buy. They can only sell it because a bunch of otherwise bright people pay for what they would otherwise get for free... > Ford still isn't offering satellite radio? > Wow.. even the dimwits at DC offer satellite. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > : > > : > John Well *I* haven't paid for a damn thing! Mine came with a free one year subscription and I am using it. Chances are good that I will subscribe when my year is up because out here in the middle of the bible belt where people only listen to gospel and old whiney country, I like to listen to things like jazz. old time radio, new country, rock n roll and the comedy that you can only hear on satellite because every other F-ing station here has been so sensored that they don't fart without a Bless You to follow. The local pastors have a very popular talk show that is actually quite funny but still, it is nice to have something from the 'outside world' even if I have to pay for it.. Man, I gotta get the hell outta here. KJK : When I ordered my 2005 loaded F-450, I could not get a CD player that played : MP3's, yet it was available on the $12.000 entry level Kids car. Go figure. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] : > : > : > : > John It's your choice whether to buy it or not, whatever works for you. However, I'm not paying for anything that I would otherwise get for free. For me, XM has so much more content than I can find on all the AM/FM stations combined in Chicago. Being in my mid-40's, there are no AM/FM stations that play only 60's, 70's or 80's music - without commercials. All the stations in my area combined don't play the diversity of music that XM (and I assume Sirius) have to offer. There are no comedy-only radio stations. There are no all-MLB, or all NASCAR (not my style, but it's very popular), etc. stations. There are no AM/FM stations that I can listen to throughout an entire driving vacation. And certainly not with the clarity of satellite radio. Like I say, if you don't want the service, there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't kid yourself that you can get the same content for free, because you can't. It just might not be worth the price to you. The fact that it is worth it to me doesn't make me less than bright. > When I ordered my 2005 loaded F-450, I could not get a CD player that played > MP3's, yet it was available on the $12.000 entry level Kids car. Go figure. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > : > > > : > John > It's your choice whether to buy it or not, whatever works for you. > However, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > you can't. It just might not be worth the price to you. The fact that it > is worth it to me doesn't make me less than bright. It absolutely is not worth the price to me. Just like paying extra for a warranty that the manufacture should and DID in the past. provide at no additional cost, with their products. Instead of the sponsors footing the entire bill, now they are getting money from the sponsors and directly from the listeners too. All they have done is repackaged the same old sh.t, sold it as something new and improved, suckered a bunch of otherwise bright people into paying for what they would otherwise get for free, abracadabra. It will work just like HBO and Showtime did, sell it as a great improvement, NO COMMERCIALS. Get the mindless cattle hooked, add the commercials back in, raise the rates 6-10% per year, now you have network TV for $60+ per month. Same as TiVo, again no Commercials, fast forward right through them, right, get everyone hooked, what's that? Commercials can't be skipped anymore? Surprised? Now they have you thinking you can't live with out their content, what a shame. That's a better racket than the $5 a day Starbucks one. I'm glad you feel you are getting a good deal. It is still a rip-off. I don't care what they are selling I can live a happy full life without it. My point was not that the exact same content was currently available over the air waves for free, it was simply that if nobody was duped into paying for it in the first place, you could get it paid for by the advertisers alone. I'm glad you think it is worth it, as long as you understand the game, then you know what you are getting, no harm no foul. I suppose you like having toll roads along with paying your road taxes too? To each his own, enjoy your pay radio. >> When I ordered my 2005 loaded F-450, I could not get a CD player that > played [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >> > : > >> > : > John : > It's your choice whether to buy it or not, whatever works for you. : > However, [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] : : To each his own, enjoy your pay radio. You do have some really REALLY good points. If I had a better selection of radio to listen to here -three stations I think that come in clearly- I wouldn't spend the money. Same thing for television. We only get one station with antenna so fall victim to satellite. Well, then if you have it you may as well go all the way. Same with internet. We only had dialup for two years. I wrote a dozen letters, made as many phone calls and now we have DSL. Again, the price is higher but we get what we want. Not NEED mind you but want. I seriously agree with you on nearly every point that you made and until moving to this place refused to pay for TV and would have scoffed the idea of paying for radio. If I am ever fortunate enough to move from here I will likely go back to my old ways. Antenna on the roof and free radio. Kate Snippage... > You do have some really REALLY good points. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Kate Kate, Don't check in here as much as I used to but after staying up with the 'Mustang Colors' thread, sumpin' goin on between the lines... are you dissatisfied with the move out of the big CA??? Surely you're not thinking of coming back are you?? Regrets?? I can't believe ANYTHING could be as bad as life out here and the costs to live here...what say ye?? Personally, I'm counting the days (~2 years till retirement) when I can escape... nohitter in Ventura '98 triple black Cobra 'vert >> It's your choice whether to buy it or not, whatever works for you. >> However, [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > >To each his own, enjoy your pay radio. I agree with most of your points and basically feel the same way myself. However, there are tons of places that radio reception either sucks or there isn't a station worth listening to. In that case I usually revert to listening to CD's. Personally I like classic rock and I'm fortunate enough to have a really good Radio station in my area that plays that format. I even enjoy some of the Ad's & PSA's. As they let me know about events that are happening in my area. Now all that being said; if I lived in area with shitty reception or limited selection I might actually subscribe to one of the services. It would be a lot cheaper then buying even one CD a month.  SignatureDecember 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend) >>> It's your choice whether to buy it or not, whatever works for you. >>> However, [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > limited selection I might actually subscribe to one of the services. > It would be a lot cheaper then buying even one CD a month. You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO. Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself and the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a no-brainer. BTW, most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at 192 or higher, so the fidelity is still right there. > You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO. > Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love > alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself and > the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a no-brainer. BTW, > most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at 192 or higher, so the > fidelity is still right there. I've been cursing you under my breath ever since you previously mentioned that group. :) It consumes *way* too much time trying to keep up with the posts. There are a lot of posters there supplying a _lot_ of HQ rips. Good stuff! SignatureJohn C. '03 Cobra Convt. >> You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO. >> Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the posts. There are a lot of posters there supplying a _lot_ of HQ > rips. Good stuff! John, there are several things you might do to save time. One would be to use something like Grabit which lets you search for specifics; the other would be to look only in the "sub-groups" for specific genres or time periods. HTH. > You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO. > Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love > alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself and > the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a no-brainer. BTW, > most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at 192 or higher, so the > fidelity is still right there. I've been cursing you under my breath ever since you previously mentioned that group. :) It consumes *way* too much time trying to keep up with the posts. There are a lot of posters there supplying a _lot_ of HQ rips. Good stuff! SignatureJohn C. '03 Cobra Convt. >>>> It's your choice whether to buy it or not, whatever works for you. >>>> However, [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at 192 or higher, so the >fidelity is still right there. Understood, but while I think the prices for store bought CD's to be to high, I still refuse to obtain the material without paying the appropriate royalties to the artists. Now if it is the artist themselves putting their work into the public domain, I have no problem with obtaining that which the artist him/herself released for all to enjoy. SignatureDecember 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend) > >You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO. > >Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > problem with obtaining that which the artist him/herself released for > all to enjoy. I'm with you on that, up to a point. My rule is: If I own the material on *any* form of media (LP, cassette or CD), I'll snag the mp3 without a trace of guilt. I'm certainly not going to pay (again) for a digitally remastered disc of previously purchased material. If it's new material, and I like it, I buy the disc. Ripping HQ mp3s from CD is tedious, so even if I have it on CD, I'll snag the post. -- John C. '03 Cobra Convt. >> >You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO. >> >Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > John C. > '03 Cobra Convt. At this point I'm not concerned about the "illegality" of dl'ing stuff from USENET. It's my personal way of thumbing my nose at the recording industry. If companies want to charge me ridiculous amounts of money to purchase a CD, I will simply circumvent the whole thing and get it for nothing from USENET. When the price of a CD comes down to something reasonable, I will gladly purchase it. Most artists make their money from concerts and tours - not CD sales. The recording/distribution companies are the ones profiting from selling CDs, which is simply another reason to avoid supporting their ripoff tactics. Even though the mp3 -> CD process is a bit tedious, I enjoy it as I "tweak" the recordings with my wave editor to improve the sound to my liking. A lot of the older recordings (i.e., classic rock) need a bit of "spice" to compete with today's sound, so I will add a bit of high and low end, maybe a bit of compression, etc. It's a personal thing, but my CDs sound awesome. :) >>> >You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO. >>> >Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >from USENET. It's my personal way of thumbing my nose at the recording >industry. I'm really not either. More of a personal thing. >If companies want to charge me ridiculous amounts of money to purchase a >CD, I will simply circumvent the whole thing and get it for nothing from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >recording/distribution companies are the ones profiting from selling CDs, >which is simply another reason to avoid supporting their ripoff tactics. I know, I know. A band can expect an average of $1.00 in royalties for each full-priced ($16.98) CD sold through normal retail channels. Which I'm here to tell you don't happen all that often. Sometime when you are bored read http://www.music-law.com/contractbasics.html to get a real good idea on what's what in % points. >Even though the mp3 -> CD process is a bit tedious, I enjoy it as I >"tweak" the recordings with my wave editor to improve the sound to my >liking. A lot of the older recordings (i.e., classic rock) need a bit of >"spice" to compete with today's sound, so I will add a bit of high and low >end, maybe a bit of compression, etc. It's a personal thing, but my CDs >sound awesome. :) Ahh a budding re-producer :) SignatureDecember 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend) >>>> >You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system >>>> >IMO. Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >> > Ahh a budding re-producer :) A throwback to my first life as a musician. It never leaves you. >> >You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO. >> >Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >disc. Ripping HQ mp3s from CD is tedious, so even if I have it on CD, I'll snag >the post. I've followed that rule since the days of vinyl. Once the artist has gotten my money for the song, I feel I have the right to have multiple copies. Now I wouldn't want to have to use that as a defense in court, but I am not doing it from a legal perspective either. SignatureDecember 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend) >I'm with you on that, up to a point. My rule is: If I own the material on *any* >form of media (LP, cassette or CD), I'll snag the mp3 without a trace of guilt. >I'm certainly not going to pay (again) for a digitally remastered disc of >previously purchased material. If it's new material, and I like it, I buy the >disc. Ripping HQ mp3s from CD is tedious, so even if I have it on CD, I'll snag >the post. Use CDEx - fast, simple, and practically automatic. All you have to do is put in the disc and hit 2 buttons. It will organize your ripped files any way you want, and it has better legal standing(fair use) than d/l from the internet. I did my whole CD collection over the course of a week while I was working on other stuff at the computer. >Instead of the sponsors footing the entire bill, now they are getting money >from the sponsors and directly from the listeners too. All they have done >is repackaged the same old sh.t, sold it as something new and improved, >suckered a bunch of otherwise bright people into paying for what they would >otherwise get for free, abracadabra. Well... not really. There are no ads, therefore the sponsors - whomever they may be - receive no benefit for their sponsorship, if any. The competitor to satellite radio is over-the-air radio. As long as there are a good number of competitors coming from the over-the-air segment, there won't be any pressure on the sat. radio broadcasters to add in commercials. If commercials were added, customers would leave in droves because the content on the satellite networks would be no different than what you get over the air for free - a condition that doesn't exist today. Personally, I have a great number or FM radio stations to choose from and I still opted to get a Sirius satellite radio system. The major reason for that was because I can listen to 50-55 minutes of music per hour. Compare that to the measly 20 minutes per hour of the same old rehashed pop songs that are on the FM band, and Sirius starts to look like a great value. The other thing no one has mentioned is the variety you get on the satellite stations. What I listen to today is going to be very different from what I'm going to hear 2 months from now. As for FM, they're still playing the same songlist they had nearly a year ago. Just my opinion. If you don't want to pay for radio, that's your choice and I can respect that. >>Instead of the sponsors footing the entire bill, now they are getting >>money [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > because the content on the satellite networks would be no different than > what you get over the air for free - a condition that doesn't exist today. Not true. That has not happened with "commercial free" cable TV. Now there are as many commercials as on FREE Network TV, yet cable TV has not suffered from customers leaving in droves, and they still jack up the prices 6-10+ % every year. Have you gone to a movie theater lately? 15-30 minutes of COMMERCIALS before you get to see the movie you just paid $8+ to see. Give it a few years, your beloved satellite radio WILL be broadcasting commercials soon enough, and the vast majority of satellite radio subscribers will keep right on paying for it. This is virtually guarantied.. They only get away with what we the consumers put up with and pay for... Like I said, to each his own, enjoy your pay radio. > Personally, I have a great number or FM radio stations to choose from and > I still opted to get a Sirius satellite radio system. The major reason [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Just my opinion. If you don't want to pay for radio, that's your choice > and I can respect that. You're not making any sense. On the one hand, you say "I'm not paying for anything that I would otherwise get for free.", meaning that the same content is available over the airwaves. Then at the end of your post, you state "My point was not that the exact same content was currently available over the air waves for free, it was simply that if nobody was duped into paying for it in the first place, you could get it paid for by the advertisers alone." Now you're saying that your point wasn't that the content is the same, despite the fact that your original statement said that it was the same. Again, the content isn't the same, and, if it were available over the airwaves, then of course I wouldn't pay for it. But it isn't available. In my mind, it's worth the price. If it's not worth it to you, that's your choice. The other problem that I have is that you don't seem to just be happy to have your choice. Sure, you state "To each his own, enjoy your pay radio.". But you also have to slam anyone who does subscribe to satellite radio: "I suppose you like having toll roads along with paying your road taxes too?", and "...suckered a bunch of otherwise bright people ...". Fine, it has no value to you - that's your choice. So why aren't we allowed to our choice without having to be insulted by you? I don't agree with your choice either, but you don't see me insulting you for your choice - because you're entitled to it, same as I am. > > It's your choice whether to buy it or not, whatever works for you. > > However, [quoted text clipped - 142 lines] > >> > : > > >> > : > John > The other problem that I have is that you don't seem to just be happy to > have your choice. Sure, you state "To each his own, enjoy your pay [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you're > entitled to it, same as I am. I'm happy with my choice, I'm not happy with yours. I guess it's because you may not realize that your "choices" help cost us all in loss of choice and quality if not eventually cash. Try this angle, I like to take my dogs places, I follow all of the leash laws and other dog control related rules I make sure my dogs do not scare or bother others. When I come across other (Pick your description) careless, rude, selfish, out of control, inconsiderate, dog owners that are not being considerate, I say something to them, because their so called "choice" directly contributes to the loss of places that allow all responsible people to bring their dogs. Your choice to pay for radio is no less harmful to free radio listeners than your choice to pay for "extended warranties" is to consumers who still believe a manufacture should stand behind their product. If nobody paid for radio and simply demanded what they wanted over the free air waves, it would work in the same way as if nobody ever bought another extended warranty, and demanded that manufacture still stand behind their product. We would all get what we want at no additional cost. The more people that choose to pay for radio, the smaller the pool of people and options available for those that don't choose to pay for radio. Look at the big picture. Like I said, to each his own, enjoy your pay radio at what results in cost to us all... > > The other problem that I have is that you don't seem to just be happy to > > have your choice. Sure, you state "To each his own, enjoy your pay [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > say something to them, because their so called "choice" directly contributes > to the loss of places that allow all responsible people to bring their dogs. Except that, contrary to your assertion, my choice doesn't have any effect on your options. If anything, it improves your options. Satellite radio, at least for me, has far and away better quality (sound as well as content) than AM/FM. It's worth it to me to pay for it. If you don't want to, that's up to you. As far as the "loss" regarding AM/FM, I'm noticing that the quality of the few AM/FM stations that I listen to is improving - they know that they have to improve to keep from losing more customers. Another reason that your above analogy doesn't make any sense is that, the actions you speak of are ILLEGAL. I'm not doing anything illegal, and what I'm doing does not directly contribute to any decline of AM/FM at all. In fact, as I asserted above, I think that AM/FM radio is improving becuase of it. And again, my other problem with you is that, once again, you turn to direct insults. You describe me (per your analogy) as careless, rude, selfish, out of control, etc. Where do you get off describing me that way? We've never met, and we've never even conversed at all before this thread. Have you ever heard of common decency, or treating others with a semblance of respect? I disagree with you just as much as you do I, but I haven't called you one name yet. I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it. It would be nice if you thought the same and treated me with some sense of common decency. > Your choice to pay for radio is no less harmful to free radio listeners than > your choice to pay for "extended warranties" is to consumers who still [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > demanded that manufacture still stand behind their product. We would all > get what we want at no additional cost. This is a democracy, and it's called free enterprise. If the AM/FM stations were putting out programming with the quality of satellite radio, there wouldn't be any problem. You want analogies, OK, I've got one for you. How about slide rules and calculators (I'm showing my age now). When calculators first hit the market in the '70's, who needed a slide rule anymore? Yeah, calculators cost more than slide rules, but it was worth it, as they were much more accurate, and a lot faster. Were the people who went out and got calculators "rude, selfish, etc." for doing that? No, because it was an improved product and worth the extra cost. If you want to stick with your "slide rule", that's fine - it's your choice. But if the "slide rule" business suffers becuase of improved quality, that's not my fault for buying a "calculator". Or another analogy. Free radio was at it's peak in the '30's and '40's. Then television came along, and all the shows moved to TV. As a matter of fact, if I wanted to hear some of those old classic radio shows, could I hear them on AM/FM now? No. But I there's a channel entirely dedicated to these shows on XM. Should we have stuck with radio because TV sets were so much more expensive than radio? Or maybe we should've stuck with horse drawn carriages, since they were a lot less expensive than automobiles. As far as your comments about "if nobody paid for radio", that's just not true. Satellite radio only started about five years ago. People have been demanding that AM/FM radio improve for decades now. Despite that, the content of AM/FM radio has been declining since the '40's. > The more people that choose to pay for radio, the smaller the pool of people > and options available for those that don't choose to pay for radio. And the better chance that free radio will improve its content, in an attempt to compete with satellite radio. Without this competition, why would they have any incentive to do so? > Look at the big picture. I am looking at the big picture. Your version of the big picture seems to be that you like free radio, and want everyone else to conform to your standards in order to retain the status quo for your benefit. In other words, from what I can tell, to you, the big picture seems to be you. If you prefer save some money and listen to mediocre programming, that's your choice, and I support that. Just don't expect the rest of us to conform to your standards in order to retain your status quo. And don't blame us for the poor quality of free radio - it's been declining for a long time - long before satellite radio was even close to a reality. > Like I said, to each his own, enjoy your pay radio at what results in cost > to us all... It's not costing you anything at all. The AM/FM stations put themselves in this position, with the poor quality of programming and the glut of ads. >> > The other problem that I have is that you don't seem to just be happy >> > to [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > out > of control, etc. Where do you get off describing me that way? Read it again, I described inconsiderate dog owners that way. Are you one of them too??? >We've never > met, and we've never even conversed at all before this thread. Have you [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > for > buying a "calculator". You are comparing an improved product (calculator VS slide rule) with an entire change in corporate revenue generation schemes (non listener pay verses pay to listen), They are not the same thing. I have no problem with the product improvement, if indeed it is that, my problem is with the revised corporate revenue generation schemes being swallowed hook line and sinker by so many consumers. > Or another analogy. Free radio was at it's peak in the '30's and '40's. > Then television came along, and all the shows moved to TV. As a matter of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > than radio? Or maybe we should've stuck with horse drawn carriages, since > they were a lot less expensive than automobiles. The progression from FREE radio to FREE TV was not a problem. Just a the progression from FREE standard TV to FREE HDTV is not a problem. Again, it's the revised corporate revenue generation schemes, not the product. > As far as your comments about "if nobody paid for radio", that's just not > true. Satellite radio only started about five years ago. People have [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > in > this position, with the poor quality of programming and the glut of ads. My issue is not with your choice of what you perceive as a better product, or even that product on it's face, it is with your total willingness to accept this revised corporate revenue generation scheme and any other that comes down the pike in the name of getting a better product... Like I said, to each his own, enjoy your pay radio at what results in cost to us all, in the way directly changes how American pay for and receive their products... > >> > The other problem that I have is that you don't seem to just be happy > >> > to [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Read it again, I described inconsiderate dog owners that way. Are you one > of them too??? As I mentioned in my last response, you're making a direct analogy that people who buy satellite radio are just like inconsiderate dog owners. That means that your opinion of them is analogous to your opinion of us. And that was not necessary. It was rude and uncalled for, as you could make your point just as well without the name calling. > >We've never > > met, and we've never even conversed at all before this thread. Have you [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > entire change in corporate revenue generation schemes (non listener pay > verses pay to listen), They are not the same thing. That's the point, it is an improved product. And, since it's improved, it costs more. As such, it's everyone's choice as to whether the additional price is worth the benefit. To some, it's not, and that's just fine. But, conversely, to some it is worth the added expense, and there's nothing wrong with that, either. > I have no problem with the product improvement, if indeed it is that, my > problem is with the revised corporate revenue generation schemes being > swallowed hook line and sinker by so many consumers. You're making it sound so revolutionary, when in fact, it's very simple. Free radio can only produce so much quality (and I use the term "quality" loosely). For improved quality, it's going to cost money to do it. If you're satisfied with free radio, great, more power to you. But, just the same, I have the right to decide to pay for better quality radio, without having all the problems of free radio blamed on me. The quality of free radio has been declining steadily since the late 40's, 50 years before satellite radio ever came along. > > Or another analogy. Free radio was at it's peak in the '30's and '40's. > > Then television came along, and all the shows moved to TV. As a matter of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Again, it's the revised corporate revenue generation schemes, not the > product. Do you think that the work to create these advances comes at no cost? Like anything else in our society, if you want better quality, it's going to cost. There's nothing wrong with the fact that I choose to pay for better quality. If you don't want to, that's fine as well, as we both are entitled to our choice, not just you. > > As far as your comments about "if nobody paid for radio", that's just not > > true. Satellite radio only started about five years ago. People have [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > to us all, in the way directly changes how American pay for and receive > their products... First of all, you make it sound like free radio is going to be gone in two weeks. There's no sign of any type of crisis in the free radio realm. And, if there were, it's called progress. There's one constant in our world, and that's change. Yeah, I'd like it a lot if we went back to a time where there weren't elaborate touchdown (and sack) celebrations, where gas cost $0.27, and where people didn't feel like they had to be accessible via a cell phone 24x7. But you know what, those days are long gone. Get over it. You want to live in the past, that's your choice. Just quit pretending that change is everyone else's fault. Maybe the problem is that you're too inflexible to even budge on what you want. Nah, it's not your fault - it's everyone else's, right? I'm tired of wasting my time on this. I doubt that you're going to consider anything that I have to say on the subject, and that's a shame. Please be assured that I did listen to what you had to say, and considered it before responding. And for whatever it's worth, at least I know MY shortcomings. So I'm going to killfilter you, so I won't be tempted to continue to respond. I hope that you eventually have the ability to expand your horizons, at least to the point that you don't feel the need to blame others because the world around you is changing. <snip> >Or another analogy. Free radio was at it's peak in the '30's and '40's. >Then television came along, and all the shows moved to TV. As a matter of >fact, if I wanted to hear some of those old classic radio shows, could I >hear them on AM/FM now? No. But I there's a channel entirely dedicated to >these shows on XM. They have a channel on XM dedicated to the old serial shows of the 30' & 40's like the Dark Shadow? If so I now have a reason to get XM. Oh and know I am not showing my age, but if you've never heard the intro to the Dark Shadow you don't know what you are missing. "Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men...." the Shadow do! SignatureDecember 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend) > <snip> > >Or another analogy. Free radio was at it's peak in the '30's and '40's. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They have a channel on XM dedicated to the old serial shows of the 30' > & 40's like the Dark Shadow? If so I now have a reason to get XM. Yeah, it's my in-laws' favorite channel - channel 164. I'm too young for the original shows of The Shadow, but I've certainly heard the opening. Don't know about the younger generation, but I don't know how anyone my age (45) or older could have not heard it! > Oh and know I am not showing my age, but if you've never heard the > intro to the Dark Shadow you don't know what you are missing. > > "Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men...." the Shadow do! > OK, I need a little more help, if you don't mind. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ken Zwyers Ken, Don't know about the GT colors, but I have posted some Red 2007 Shelby GT500 convertable interior shots with red seat inserts in the alt.binaries.pictures.drag-racing group for your viewing pleasure. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.