Re: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: "Dick T's Rehtoric VS Historical Facts"?

[<badass73gremlin@xxxx>]

From: "ndaracer1975" <ndaracer1975@xxxx>
Date: 2004/08/25 Wed AM 02:51:16 EDT
To: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: "Dick T's Rehtoric VS Historical Facts"?

actually he'd be sharing with us a whimsical tale of a bird that shat all over his windshield.
Bart



If Bildo owned a Javelin, this dicussion wouldn't be taking place. 
Instead he would be asking the proper way to put air in his tires, or 
how to refill washer fluid. Installing seat belts in his car baffled 
him for a couple weeks so this really isn't far off base for him.


--- In BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "John W Rosa" <JohnRosa@xxxx> 
wrote:
> 
> Bilwin dared to type...
> "Dick T's Rehtoric VS Historical Facts"
> 
> Richard (Dick) Teague was the VICE PRESIDENT OF STYLING 
> at AMC when the two cars were designed. How dare you 
> call his first-hand, hands-on knowledge of the history 
> of these cars 'rhetoric'! It takes a special kind of 
> idiot to dismiss the man that was there building the 
> car, to go with your own fantasy version of the events.
> 
> Bilwin also challenged...
> "So let's hear it, give the chronology that I somehow 
> am missing."
> 
> I have, below, but you'll call every piece of it 'rhetoric', 
> no matter who it comes from if it doesn't agree with your
> mysterious, home-made version of the actual events.
> 
> Have you noticed that every person answering in this thread 
> has told you that you're wrong? Did you miss that, too?
> 
> Here are the HISTORICAL FACTS. Start deleting the crap 
> you've typed, because this is the real thing.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> AMAZING AMC MUSCLE (c)1988
> by Edrie J. Marquez
> 
> Page 20
> Vice President of Styling Richard A. Teague was the 
> man most responsible for the design of AMC models 
> from 1964-85."
> 
> JR note: So much for poor Dick's 'rhetoric'.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> JAVELIN PHOTO ARCHIVE (c)2002
> by C. L. Zinn (owner of one of the very best restored AMXs 
> in the world. It's unlikely he'd give away credit to a 
> Javelin if it belonged to any form of AMX)
> 
> Page 7
> "Please keep in mind (contrary to what has been said before)
> that the AMX II, as with all the rest of the Project IV cars, 
> was strictly a show car. The production cars came off other 
> clay models done in-house. The production cars did not come 
> from the Project IV cars."
> 
> Page 23
> "Please note: this car (AMX II) debuted on Monday, June 20, 
> 1966, at the New York Auto Show as one of the Project IV cars.
> This car had absolutely nothing to do with the Javelin. The 
> Javelin was in clay back in February and was pretty much 
> finished in March before work was even started on this car."
> 
> JR note: If you look at photos of the AMX II, you'll see 
> it has almost NOTHING in common with a Javelin except four 
> tires and a windshield, and even they are nothing like a 
> Javelin wore.
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> The fact is Project IV was a completely separate operation
> from the work being done to create production-type cars.
> The only reason Project IV existed was to excite the public 
> with wild new ideas and to impress banks that AMC was a 
> viable force in the marketplace worthy of financing. NONE 
> of the Project IV cars were ever intended to become 
> production cars.
> 
> And when Javelin, born of regular styling exercises that 
> got much less press, became a hit, AMC decided the Project 
> IV AMX could be 'faked' using the Javelin as it's base.
> Hence, AMXs in all forms had no influence on Javelin.
> 
> You go ahead and quote the bad info again. It won't change 
> this correct history.
> 
> John