IT BETTER BE A TRANS AM!!!

[PhineasBog]

allti...@aol.com wrote:

>If they are going to make a new knight rider, It better be a trans am..
Or
>else it'll suck

Amen! You'd think after Knight Rider 2000 and Knight Rider 2010 they
would learn that we love KITT! The *REAL* KITT! A black 1982 Pontiac
Trans Am. So what if it doesn't look as "advanced" now? He's *OUR* KITT!
Give us what WE want!
________________________________________________
<Insert so-called witty signature and lame ASCII art here>
Phine...@aol.com
________________________________________________

[Knight Industries Two Thousand]

ONE MAN CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE !!!

[Knight Industries Two Thousand]

[Knight Industries Two Thousand]

[PhineasBog]

I got flamed, gang. Check it out.

rras...@hotmail.com (L. Ross Raszewski) wrote:

>PhineasBog wrote:
>>
>> allti...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>If they are going to make a new knight rider, It better be a trans am..
>>>Or else it'll suck
>>
>>Amen! You'd think after Knight Rider 2000 and Knight Rider 2010 they
>>would learn that we love KITT! The *REAL* KITT! A black 1982 Pontiac
>>Trans Am. So what if it doesn't look as "advanced" now? He's *OUR*
KITT!
>>Give us what WE want!

[Snipped signature]

>I am getting SO sick and tired of people complaining that "If it doesn't
>have a 1982 Trans Am it'll suck" and "If it doesn't have hasslehoff,
>it'll suck" and "If it's not exactly the same as the old Knight Rider
>it'll suck" Come on, this is a NEW SHOW.
>
>Did anyone here ever see "Star Trek The Next Generation"? Well, if it
>Ssucked, it did it in a damn popular way, seeing as how it's the highest
>rated syndicated show of EVER.
>
>IT does not have to be an identical recreation of the original not to
>suck! As long as they are true to the spirit of Knight Rider, the show
>will RULE!!!
>
>Unless it sucks.