Below you will find comments that did not meet Indie Auto’s comment guidelines. Comments are quoted in full or in part, and reasons for their rejection are summarized.
This page is continuously updated, although rejected comments are not quoted if they engage in crazy talk, hate speech or disinformation. Why give it a platform?
Rejected comments may also show up as a separate post, mostly as a “Letter to the Editor” (although most letters are approved comments!). I do this when the comment has some elements worth discussing but violates the guidelines enough that I don’t want to give commenting privileges to the writer.
This is not a ‘sucks-and-rocks’ kind of website
Most of the rejected comments display what Jack Baruth (2013) once described as a “sucks-and-rocks” reader. This is 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.”
In addition, a goodly portion of the comments relate to an ill-fated car, brand or automaker. This led me to add to the “Introduction” page a content warning:
“This is a journal of opinion — and critique is a central part of what we do (both in stories as well as comment threads). If you are sensitive to criticism of specific cars, designers, executives, automakers, journalists, media outlets or politicians, Indie Auto may not be your cup of tea.”
Corrections are appreciated, but cut the sanctimony
I consider auto history to be a team sport, both in terms of sharing information and pointing out errors in stories as well as comments. Our discussions can be more productive when people give and receive feedback in a collegial manner.
Former Jalopnik Editor Mike Spinelli has argued that old-car buffs can be sanctimonious when pointing out errors (go here). So just to be clear: Indie Auto is a bootstrap effort. Errors may sneak in, and I make corrections when they are pointed out. So do speak up, but how about showing a little grace?
— Steve
From Oct. 24, 2024
“SEEKING VEGA’S AND TYPES, I LIKE THE STYLES AND COMFORT OF VEG’AS AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE VARITY OF VEGA AND WONDERING DO YOU HAVE ANY MAGAZINES OR LOCATIONS OF SALES OR EVEN A SALVAGE VEGA YARD?”
— Comment in “Why the Chevrolet Vega turned out the way that it did”
Alas, this is not a collector’s website (learn more about Indie Auto here). Did you know that using all caps is considered shouting on the Internet?
From Sept. 8, 2024
“Idiot.”
— Comment in “Styling comparison: Chevrolet Corvette C8 versus C2”
The irony of this response to a lengthy (and rather nuanced) comment is that it lacks the basic elements of an intelligent argument, e.g., no facts or logic are presented — just empty invective. If this reflects the author’s preferred means of debating, he may wish to seek out more compatible automotive websites (check out our “Bibliography of Links”).
From Sept. 3, 2024
“Hmmm, IMHO a Lincoln is nothing other than a dressed up Mercury, which was a dressed up Ford. All Fords all trash. Sorry.”
— Comment in “What if the 1970 Lincoln hadn’t slavishly copied Cadillac?”
This is a classic “sucks-and-rocks” comment (see intro). The more sweeping your critique, the more necessary it is to back it up with facts and logic.
From Sept. 1, 2024
“If you were an employee you could walk With your car as it was built. When you got to the Point To put the motor in say give me a 401 and this one.”
— Comment in “Pat Foster barks up wrong tree by lauding Gremlin 360 V8”
Wut?
From June 3, 2024
“Interesting perspective on disengaging from automotive blog commenting. It’s important to reflect on how we engage online. Thanks for sharing [name removed] with unmatched [service removed], ensuring unparalleled [sales pitch removed].”
— Comment in “Why I stopped commenting on automotive blogs”
The point of comment threads is to cultivate thoughtful discussions, not bombard readers with thinly disguised sales pitches. That’s also why we don’t accept real advertising (although we do make fun of it with satirical ads here and here). If you appreciate our entirely reader-supported funding model, please consider making a donation here.
From June 23, 2024
“I’m fixing to attempt to get my great grandma studebaker president running anyone have any pointers for me.”
— Comment in “The Studebaker Hawk reached its high point in 1957”
I feel a little bad about not posting this comment, but this is outside of our swim lane. Indie Auto focuses on auto history. There are already plenty of other websites that cover the nuts-and-bolts aspects of owning old cars (see our “Bibliography of Links”).
From May 11, 2024
“It’s HUGE! It guzzles gas! It pollutes the air! It scares the birds! Other cars part like the Red Sea to get out of the way! I LOVE it 😀”
— Comment in “Was 1978 Eldorado the most excessive car of brougham era?”
This is one of six repetitive comments made in a single thread. While I can appreciate the reader’s enthusiasm, that’s overkill. This is not a contest where the side with the most comments and exclamation points wins.
From May 9, 2024
“I stopped reading this after ‘Ford has a idea’. Properly written grammer might be in the crapper now but back when this slogan came out everyone knew the proper usage of a vs an. I think that’s something you need to reacquaint yourself with. There is no way that slogan was written like that back then which leads me to question the accuracy of everything else in this article. Maybe you consider it nitpicking but sentence structure and proper grammer (sic) can make or break someone’s first impression of a site and it certainly broke it for me.”
— Comment in “Why did Ford’s styling go downhill in the 1970s?”
I appreciate that this reader pointed out a typo, which has been fixed. Of course, he is free to decide that such an error is unforgivable. His sanctimoniousness is not a good fit for our comment threads, so perhaps we’ve got a win-win.
From April 23, 2024
“Good information; for additional information, click this site. . . .”
— Comment in “Why I stopped commenting on automotive blogs”
Here’s a lazy attempt to generate visibility for their activity in Australia that is well outside the scope of both the specific article and Indie Auto in general.
From Aug. 16, 2023
“WHY is the question mark inside the quote marks? The word being quoted is ‘honest,’ not ‘honest?'”
— Comment in “Was the 1973-77 Chevrolet Monte Carlo’s styling ‘honest’?”
Indie Auto appreciates when readers point out an error — which I fixed. That said, I have stopped approving first-time comments if the writer makes little, if any, effort to engage the substance of a story.
From July 15-23, 2023
“Well hell, here’s an old man yelling at clouds for you . . . I think you get the drift, though.”
— Comment about “The 10 worst single-year redesigns of postwar American cars”
This reader went on to post five other dismissive comments in this thread that were off topic and lacking in productive feedback, so they were removed.
Please don’t hijack a comment thread. If you want to embark on a more general discussion of Indie Auto’s approach, send me a message here. I will post it as a stand-alone letter to the editor if your missive meets our guidelines.
If you have a sincere desire to help improve Indie Auto, offer tangible ideas and avoid snarkiness, personal attacks and gaslighting. In other words, fight fair.
If that crimps your style, then other venues will definitely be more to your liking.
From April 10, 2023
“The Government put severe emissions restrictions on the engines from 19 76 through 79’s”and burden them down with goverment mandatet emission controls that was not the fault of the car I was around the dealerships then and I remember very few problems with the paint, Maybe out of one of the factories I don’t remember that though, The oil embargo-gas prices were there main demise.”
— Comment about the “Defective 1977-79 Mark V showed how Lincoln lost its way”
This is an excerpt from a comment. I posted an edited version of it but didn’t give this reader commenting privileges because the quality of their writing was so bad.
From April 2, 2023
“Vertically-stored — as the photos here will show. . . .”
— Comment about the “Kaiser-Frazer’s new models showed limits to innovation”
Indie Auto focuses on automotive history. We are not a conduit for buying and selling cars and parts because there are plenty of other websites that provide that service. Some are listed in our “Bibliography of Links.”
From March 24, 2023
“Perhaps the automotive media doesn’t cover climate ‘science’ because there is no actual science in it. . . .”
— Comment about “U.S. auto media still downplay the biggest story of our era”
This is a portion of the first of two comments. They are classic examples of what our guidelines prohibit — climate-denialist disinformation.
I see Indie Auto’s swim lane as debating automotive-related topics. If you wish to talk about the particulars of climate science, I would invite you to check out realclimate.org. This is a website run by working climate scientists who see it as an important part of their job to discuss with the media and the public how their field operates.
From Feb. 28, 2023
“This is one of the whiniest, childlike articles I’ve read in a long time.”
— Comment about “Hotcars.com calls 1958 Studebaker ‘ahead of its time'”
We don’t do flame wars here. You are welcome to critique Indie Auto stories, but how about engaging the substance of the article with facts and logic instead of just name calling?
From Jan. 31, 2023
“This article was surely written by a Chevy fan boy. Who in the hell do you think GM copied its C-pillars from? I’ll wait for a response.”
— Comment about “1968-70 Dodge Charger: Who should get credit?”
If the reader’s point is that styling can often be derivative, of course! What’s curious is that an obvious observation — Chrysler copied styling cues — would lead to the allegation that Indie Auto is a fanboy of another automaker.
This reminds me of the tribalistic debates we had in 10th grade about Chevy versus Ford. That’s not our thing here at Indie Auto.
From Dec. 15, 2022
“As the owner of a 67 Plymouth Belvedere, i detect a considerable amount of ‘opinion-justification’ in this article, and very little fact outside of sales statistics. Anyone who considers a 67 GTX as being plain, or the Belvedere RO23 as ‘bland’ clearly gas an agenda to ‘run down’ the brand. D Minus…must do better.”
— Comment about “1966-67 Plymouth Satellite was most anonymous car of era”
Disagreeing with an article can generate a healthy discussion, but it helps to understand what Indie Auto is trying to do. As discussed here, this is a journal of opinion. In addition, this is a “Design Notes” essay so is focused on styling.
I strive to ground my opinions in evidence. If you disagree with something, how about presenting a counter-argument that also provides evidence? Criticism is integral to what we do, so if a reader considers it “running down” a brand, Indie Auto clearly isn’t their cup of tea.
From Dec. 12, 2022
“I enjoyed every word of your article about Ed. Ive watched almost every video he produced so far. I suspect I will be reading all your automotive articles too. When Im not producing my own videos and articles of course. . . .”
Comment about “Ed’s Auto Reviews offers a lite but fun take on auto history”
This is a portion of a comment. The prime goal seemed to be to boost this commentator’s media projects. Indie Auto likes to connect readers to good auto history on the web, but this content falls largely outside of our swim lane, e.g., his YouTube channel has lots of videos on mechanics and hot rods.
From Oct. 29, 2022
“. . . .”
— Comment about “Dean’s Garage: An insider’s look at car design”
I am not printing the actual words from this submitted comment because everything this person alleged has been proven to be false by credible, independent experts. This writer also did not display the capacity for reasoned debate, e.g., their rhetoric had a “you’re either with us or against us” certitude.
From Oct. 9, 2022
“Peter DeLorenzo is the classic auto industry critics. Living off of family credentials (in his case, his father and this brothers), his one note symphony remains the same. While his desire to be the next incarnation of David E. Davis (anther clown) through his once amusing website, he jumped the shark when song lyrics replaced content and his jumped in to woke politics.”
— Message about “Peter DeLorenzo continues to continue with his usual swagger”
In addition to submitting comments, you can also send messages to the editor (go here). These messages are usually published unless they are marked as a private communique or don’t meet commenting standards — which this one does not.
In the above quote, which is a portion of a message, the writer engaged in name calling rather than describing what he didn’t like about DeLorenzo’s work. By the same token, he invoked the term “woke,” which has been so politicized that it lacks analytical meaning. Be more specific! For example, if the writer objects to DeLorenzo’s recent championing of electric vehicles, then say so.
From July 28, 2022
“2iem pacer en 20ans acheté le 22 07 22 payé un peu cher mais je la voulais un peu deçu et il y a du travail pour en faire une merveille mais apres quel MERVEILLE.”
— Comment from “Six mistakes that killed the AMC Pacer”
English, please. I don’t have the expertise to translate.
From June 19-20, 2022
“Im tired of reading all the negative opinions but nobody has the facts (until now). Get the facts”
— Comment from “Why the Chevrolet Vega turned out the way that it did”
Indie Auto received a total of 31 comments in two days from the same IP address about the Chevrolet Vega. These comments were submitted under three different names but they read like the same person.
The commentator railed about getting “the facts” but came off like a rigidly pro-Vega propagandist. In addition, he seemed to equate sheer volume of copy with quality of analysis. He utterly deluged Indie Auto with factoids that were not relevant to the core of our conversation, which was whether the Vega represented a strategic error by General Motors. For example, one comment itemized in mind-numbing detail the dozens of changes made to the 1976 Vega, such as new “grained vinyl seat trim for the custom interior with a new houndstooth type ‘Sport Cloth’ for an additional charge of $18.”
When I warned the commentator that he was pushing it too far, his response was, “I’ll make it easy for you Bye asshole.”
From May 31, 2022
“The 1961 Imperial is one of the coolest cars of ALL TIME!! HOW can you like the 57-59 cars and not the 60-61 cars! This car is VERY cohesive! Mind blown, The Exner era RULES!”
— Comment from “What’s the most excessive American car design of all time?”
This writer is so deep into high schoolish “sucks-and-rocks” rhetoric that he couldn’t acknowledge that the 1961 Imperial was controversial — and even Exner’s biographer criticized it (Grist, 2007). If this blows the commentator’s mind, perhaps he may want to stick with websites devoted to the Imperial.
From April 25, 2022
“Obviously written by a heavily biased Cadillac fan based on the overall tone and title taken from one small segment well into the article.”
— Comment from “1964-65 Lincoln was a step backward rather than forward”
This is a journal of opinion. And no, I have always personally preferred Lincolns to Cadillacs. Another example of how car buffs can get so “tribal” that any criticism of their favorite cars is considered disloyal.
From April 24, 2022
“Nice hack job article. It would appear you worked for the Big 3 or Consumer Reports Lies! There is so much negative anecdotes from ‘so-called enthusiasts’ rags, THAT IT IS ALMOST MEANINGLESS. btw, The Spirit WAS a Gremlin. They finally had some time and money to upgrade things like adding plastic wheelhouse liners to prevent fender top ‘speed burns’ and door hinge face rusting. Funny thing is at shows you see far more Gremlins, than any of those other 3 companie’s ‘gems’. It isn’t worth my time to pee all over them, for so many things they did far worse. And Gremlins were and are well-appreciated! All of the quality complaints likely had more to do with lack of any maintenance than design issues, with one of the best six engines made.”
— Comment from “Four reasons why the AMC Gremlin was a bad idea”
This is a portion of a longer comment. The writer is overly defensive and makes ad hominem attacks. For example, if you are going to say that Consumer Reports lies, then back up your allegation. And would the writer still think I have worked for the Big Three after reading articles like this one?
From April 23, 2022
“Buzzkill! Why so negative? Would it be better if there was no Avanti? All of the independents were being crushed by motor city, so it was a matter of time. If you don’t have something nice to say. . . .”
— Comment from “1963-64 Studebaker Avanti: A classic failure”
When Curbside Classic Publisher Paul Niedermeyer was confronted with a similar complaint, he stated in part, “I have zero ambition to be associated with a web site that just fawns over old cars. . . . What I enjoy most of all is busting the myths around many old car histories. I need to dig and get at what I perceive as the real truth, at least for me. But that’s not everyone’s cup of tea” (Niedermeyer, 2019).
My motivation is similar to Paul’s but more specific. As the “Introduction” further discusses, Indie Auto’s focus is exploring why the U.S. auto industry experienced one of the biggest industrial collapses of the last century.
This commentator sounds like he is not interested in this kind of analysis.
From March 6, 2022
“You dislike of Packard throughout you little opinion piece was obvious. Why didn’t you pick a 55 Imperial to compare? Besides being luxurious and beautiful, it was a performance brute. It left Cadillac far behind. Packard still had more horsepower though! When Packard literally bought Studebaker without a thorough accounting, they were doomed. Studebaker’s union killed them. According to your economies of scale, companies like Rolls Royce should never have survived. Mercedes shouldn’t have either. I could go on. But they did survive and prosper. A few struggled. Anyway, I disagree with your synopsis of Packard. I think MANY would. Your article is just inaccurate and negative. It reminds me of the Democrat/communists/socialists/globalists. Packard was a truly great American automobile company. They built the cars of American Presidents and movie stars. Maybe Packard should have just been Packard instead of all things for all people like GM used to be?”
— Comment about “The 1955 Packard’s styling was an evolutionary dead end”
This is a portion of a rather long and rambling comment. (Pro tip: Paragraph breaks can help you structure your thoughts.) The writer appears to have such a strong “sucks-and-rocks” attitude that he confused analytical nuance with me disliking Packard.
Unlike some other auto history websites, I don’t mind getting into politics. However, the reference to “Democrat/communists/socialists/globalists” wasn’t relevant to the story. In addition, indiscriminately mashing together these often very different political actors strikes me as lazy name calling.
This post was labeled a “Design Notes” feature, so the focus was on styling.
From Feb. 3, 2022
“. . . BTW, the tail fins aren’t fiberglass, not sure where you picked up that inaccurate myth, more than likely, from some other Boob on Curbsideclassic, the place of mis-information and stupidity.”
— Comment about “A 1958 Packard without fins and bug eyes?”
Correcting an inaccuracy is very much appreciated. However, this writer was too busy putting others down to say what was correct — and ideally to offer a citation where that information could be verified.
And how about some analysis instead of name calling? You don’t have to like Curbside Classic to acknowledge that its content is largely produced by volunteers — who likely won’t have the knowledge of professional writers.
From Jan. 11, 2022
“So, this clown thinks Teague should have design everything like the ‘big 3’? That would be just stupid, like this ‘article’.”
— Comment about “Richard Teague’s styling helped to kill American Motors“
This commentator completely misinterpreted the point of this article. Everyone will not have time to read a magazine-length story, but how about ditching the condescending attitude if you are going to weigh in on a piece that you only skimmed through?
From Jan. 7, 2022
“Not really.”
— Comment about “Richard Teague’s styling helped to kill American Motors“
I have started to not approve comments from people who show minimal engagement, such as by offering an opinion without any facts or logic.
A terse thumbs up or thumbs down on a lengthy story adds very little to the conversation. If the above reader had been in a hurry, even a one- or two-sentence summary of their rationale would have sufficed.
From Sept. 10, 2020
“Worst stupid article I have ever read on any car review. Moron author probably thinks a Citroen Ami looks great. The 74 Ambassador has a very handsome front end and like all manufactures had to integrate new bumper regs into designs. He should look at other 74 models from the big 3 but is obviously clueless. I hate idiots that enjoy bad mouthing anything with no knowledge or taste. Can’t argue with stupid. Last time I waste time on your website.”
— Comment about “1974 AMC Ambassador: GM envy to the ZiL degree”
Remove the name calling from this comment and one interesting question remained: How the new federal bumper regulations impacted the Ambassador’s styling vis a vis its Big Three competition. I thus wrote a follow-up story that compared bumper designs (go here).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Baruth, Jack; 2013. “Avoidable Contact: Torture, forgiveness, meaning.” The Truth About Cars. Posted March 29.
- Grist, Peter; 2007. Virgil Exner, Visioneer. Veloce Publishing, Dorchester, England.
- Niedermeyer, Paul; 2019. Commentator in “Ralf K Outtake: An Historical Oddity.” Curbside Classic. Posted Jan. 15, 9:48 p.m.
ADVERTISING & PHOTOGRAPHY:
- oldcaradvertising.com: AMC Ambassador (1974)
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Gremlin (1976); AMC Javelin (1973); Chevrolet Monte Carlo (1976)
Be the first to comment