A reader I’ll call G stopped by to respond to our story, “Car and Driver playfully roasts a 1964 Ford Thunderbird convertible.”
G wrote: “Supremely tired of hearing today’s auto ‘authorities’ comment on classic cars like the ’64 Thunderbird….keep your opinions on today’s rolling boxes of windows known as SUVs.”
It’s unclear what specifically G has grown weary about. Did he agree with Car and Driver’s criticisms of the Thunderbird from back in 1964 but didn’t like Indie Auto’s contemporary interpretation? Or did he disagree with both?
I wonder whether G may be what Jack Baruth (2013) has called a “sucks-and-rocks” reader. That’s someone who refuses to permit a “review to have a nuanced meaning. . . . Nothing short of a full-throttle, unequivocal endorsement of their personal beliefs will satisfy.”
If that is indeed what he wants, Indie Auto clearly isn’t his cup of tea. However, we have a lengthy bibliography of links to other auto history websites that he might find helpful (go here).
RE:SOURCES
- Baruth, Jack; 2013. “Avoidable Contact: Torture, forgiveness, meaning.” The Truth About Cars. Posted March 29.
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- 1964 Ford Thunderbird courtesy of Ford Heritage Vault
Always been a big fan of ford’s made a really reliable car and truck love all the tbirds,still drive a 73 mustang