RE: [BaadAssGremlins] My Hornet is in PHR magazine...PHR's reply

["John W Rosa" <JohnRosa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I got an awfully quick response for John Hunkins, PHR's Chief Editor.
Seems I struck a nerve!

The note below is my reply to his Email. His statements are quoted. ("
")

JRosa


===============================================

John H.,

Just for the record, my note, though addressed to you, wasn't directed
toward you alone, but at those that perpetuate the 'AMCs aren't good
enough' attitude so prevalent over the years. Your Email address is the
one on the Reader's page, so that's where it got sent. But I have to say
it is nice to see that you can be riled by a strangers opinion, just as
easily as I was. :)

My note may have been 'heat of the moment' reactionary, but then, if
every time someone said 'Chevy', the magazines  said 'Vega', or every
time people said 'Ford', PHR said 'Pinto', there would be a lot of GM
and Ford fans that get sick of being treated as 'failure lovers'. AMC
was never a failure. They were a small company that produced vehicles
every bit a good as the big guys. Yet every time they are mentioned in
print, they get 'qualified' with a snide remark to make the masses of
big three fans (and your advertisers?) feel superior. If you want to
knock something, why not go with Aztecs, SSRs, Corvairs, Edsels and the
myriad of other 'wrong turns' of the Big Three?

Taking your response point-by-point...


-----Original Message-----
From: Hunkins, John

"Sorry you didn't like the story, but when I read between the lines of
your letter, it looks like you actually liked this story a lot."

Huh?? How does one arrive at that opinion (short of assuming facts not
in evidence)?


"So I've got to ask, what's the real problem here? You're obviously a
Hornet fan. That's one of my all-time favorite cars."

Good to hear, but then, again, where does the screwball comment come in?


"You've got to understand that PHR isn't a personal vendetta against
you."

I never said that. I said the reasoning behind not including the Hornet
was unsound, going against the very criteria that allowed the others to
be included.


"For that matter, I know how angry Franklin residents were when the
Wal-Mart opened up on Rt. 23 and closed many local businesses."

...which is completely outside the scope of this discussion, and has no
validity in it, unless you're suggesting Franklin is where all those
'weird AMCers' come from.


"We're just trying to come up with cool, interesting stories. Most of us
in this line of work have given up much better paying careers to do
something we love for not much money. We work hard for what we have, and
given the choice, most people choose not to do what we do. In short,
nothing is given to us that is not earned twice over. In this area,
you're treading on very thin ice."

Instead of being indignant, why not justify the criteria of the article
and how cars that fit get cut while cars that don't, get in? My letter
was certainly stuffed full of hyper-nastiness, but it was an attempt to
make the letter interesting (and judging by the speed of your responses,
it worked in your case). I simply expected to see part of my note
printed with a snide editors note following it, like most mags do. But
you replied direct, which means a nerve was struck, and if you want to
make it about 'work ethic', you're free to. But my note was about the
warped criteria, with some jabs at the pedestrian nature of the
so-called 'custom' cars shown...all of which looked exactly the same to
my eye (and to others- if you think I'm alone, you're mistaken). I may
have been harsh, but it wasn't a personal launch against you...it was
about the whole hobby and the few left that still won't cut the little
guy, AMC, a break when AMC has proven over and over that it deserves
equal treatment (not in quantity of coverage, but it reverence for the
make).


"Why don't you rewrite your letter. Think about what you're saying,
who's going to see it, and how you're going to look to everybody else."

If I did that, I'd never have bought my first AMC. I'd be another
lemming with a Camaro. I don't worry about the opinions of those that
can't justify their own. For every Big Three nut that ever laughed at a
Rambler, there's another that learned the hard way at the track that AMC
V8s pull like Big Three engines of much larger displacement. It's the
'poor slow, ugly AMCs...' myth that your article helps to
reinforce...and it's a good 20 years late, as AMCs are quickly rising in
popularity and value these days...just check the pricing on the clean,
original cars that are left. I'm not uninformed- PHR is behind the times
in this regard.


"If you're honest with yourself, you'll want to cool down and try again.
Being in the minority with an opinion like yours is cool (especially to
AMC fans), but if you look like a fool at the same time, it doesn't give
your opinion any leverage. Remember, the object of a letter to the
editor is to try and convince other readers of your point of view."

No, it's to voice an opinion, regardless of whether it's popular. It's
to correct false information that was printed as fact. If I come off as
a fool, it's only to the real fools that want to stick a 350 in
everything with wheels.


"If I cut your letter loose on the public (or even a clean, edited PG
version), you're going to look petty, uninformed and pissed off at the
world."

If that's all you got out of it, who's uninformed? Petty is being unable
to exclude a Camaro from an article dubbed 'There's more to life than
Camaros and Mustangs'. Uninformed is suggesting the Hornet has anything
but four round tires in common with a '67 GTX. And being 'pissed' is
dragging Franklin's Wal-Mart and your indignance at being challenged
into a discussion of the biases that caused the two articles to form as
they did.


"I suggest you try to make just one or two points (such as our omission
of the Hornet). You might get more of our readers in sync with your
opinion."

Nah- it isn't about 'my Hornet'. Mine just happened to be the AMC
slighted. If it had been a total stranger's Gremlin, I'd have written
the exact same note. This isn't about me- it's about AMC and the
perpetual knocks it has to endure. I don't need any of this printed in
public, as I know the knuckleheads are out there, waiting to proclaim
that 'Chevys Rule'. I wrote to vent, regardless of whether it got
printed. You're absolutely right about how PHR's readers would
react...but that just proves my point anyway.


"As a final note, my uncle was a VP of engineering at AMC for many
decades. Wagoneers, Ramblers, Jeeps, Matadors and Ambassadors were all
we knew growing up. My family is from Toledo and we are hardcore AMC
people. Of course, you didn't know this. If my head is up my ass, so be
it."

Again, not your head or 'azz'. The collective group that created that
articles are, by the evidence presented in those articles, the intended
target of the comments. If you're part of it, well then, you're free to
change my opinion by providing the facts that make sense. 'Screwball'
doesn't cut it, as there is nothing 'screwball' about the car...or about
the Pinto, for that matter. I've seen fantastic hot rods built on the
platform...and by that, I mean actual hot rods where numerous pieces are
home-made and beautiful...not the 'off the rack' collections of whatever
is available 'NOW!' from Summit.

Hey- I was gonna stomp on anything about the AMCs you might have gotten
wrong, even if the article had been a color, six-page feature on my
Hornet. I'd have still written to say 'You screwed up...the tach was not
optional for '73- I added it from a '77 donor!'. Biting the hand that
feeds me? Nah...just nibbling! Don't take it so personal. I was jawing
at the establishment. Thanks for taking the time to reply at all.

Glad to hear you're part of a Rambler family. Now be brave, buck the
advertisers and do a feature on REAL 'Alternative Rides'....exclude all
Big Three models. See what turns up! Maybe include the big three but set
the production criteria to exclude cars that sold more than X number of
units...or some similar thing that will actually spark new ideas instead
of hehashing the same old ones.
 
Finally...if you do find a workable '72 Gran Sport for cheap, I'll take
it! I've always wanted to (don't tell anyone) create a 'what if' Starsky
& Hutch variation on that far better looking Torino version. Your
article even showed it in red! I'm going to scan it and edit a similar
white stripe on it and see if I can find the right 'tweak' (and I'll
restore some ride height and drivable wheels)!
 
Thanks again,

John



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/YtqqlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BaadAssGremlins/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    BaadAssGremlins-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/