ford said "no"
Nathan W. Collier
http://MustangHeritage.com and as such, i am taking it offline. im going to
do an intensive trademark search before i put the site back up, and i will
announce the new url once i have done my research.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://HardcoreATV.com
Mike Duane Jr.
<wISB8.42880$YQ1.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>:
Hiya Nathan,
When it rains it pours huh? Good to see ya here by the way!
--
Mike D.
85 CJ7
65 Mustang Coupe (soon!)
He wondered reflectively what would happen if you asked a nun where the
Gents was. Probably the Pope sent you a sharp note or something.
-- In a monestary
(Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman)
Nathan W. Collier
news:Xns920779591943...@68.1.17.6...
> When it rains it pours huh? Good to see ya here by the way!
lol....thanks mike. good to be here, and will be even better when my
mustang comes in.
i knew when i purchased the url that ford probably would not allow me to use
it, but i took a shot and did everything the way i am supposed to
(requesting their permission). at least they are going to reimburse me for
my registration expenses which is far more than i can say for a certain
other automaker who sued me. i havent lost anything, i can just use what i
was going to use under a different url, once i can determine for sure what
ford owns and does not own.
i dont want to give the wrong impression, they havent done anything "wrong"
in my eyes. i asked, they declined, so im doing something else.
2.3Sleeper
Heritage of the Mustang horse????
Shit like this really pisses me off. Fuck them for even thinking they can
*own* or otherwise trademark the name. That is a bunch of B.S.
I say contact an attorney. Don't give up the URL. You own it...if they want
the damn thing they will have to pay you for it. That would be like them
telling MustangsUnlimited.com or any other Mustang related site that they
can't use the Mustang name.
Much like my site, www.mwcmustangs.com
Piss on 'em.
--
Don Manning
Black 89 GT, 5 speed, Steeda Tri-Ax
K&N, Pony's, LX Lights, 180 degree t-stat
Custom O/R H-Pipe, Tri-Ax short throw handle
(Shifter coming really soon)
"Nathan W. Collier" <webm...@hardcorejeep.com> wrote in message
news:r5TB8.43014$YQ1.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
CLLCTR5
>Heritage of the Mustang horse????
>
>Shit like this really pisses me off. Fuck them for even thinking they can
>*own* or otherwise trademark the name. That is a bunch of B.S.
>
>I say contact an attorney. Don't give up the URL. You own it...if they want
>the damn thing they will have to pay you for it. That would be like them
>telling MustangsUnlimited.com or any other Mustang related site that they
>can't use the Mustang name.
>
>Much like my site, www.mwcmustangs.com
>
>Piss on 'em.
>
>--
>Don Manning
This is the most ignorant post I have ever seen on ramfm...on so many different
levels. I would try to explain why...but surely it would be ignored too.
Kudos to Nathan for understanding the way our American Capitalist society
works and not getting all hot and bothered about it.
Randy
98 Canary Yellow Cobra Coupe
Nathan W. Collier
news:zLTB8.149$km2....@news1.east.cox.net...
> I say contact an attorney. Don't give up the URL. You own it...if they
want
> the damn thing they will have to pay you for it.
don,
recently i was sued by daimler chrysler over the same thing. they wanted 6
of my domain names that had "jeep" in them. there was no cybersquatting
going on, they were valid jeep enthusiast websites. attorneys wanted a
minimum of $50,000 to defend me on that case, and i could not face their
team of corporate lawyers by myself. i had no choice but to give them all 6
domain names they demanded. had i faced them in court and lost, i would
have taken a $600,000 judgement against me that would have bankrupted me.
it just wasnt worth it to fight, so i capitulated.
this is really no different, except the way that ford is conducting
themselves. they do own "mustang" and are well within their rights to
protect it. i hate it, in that i was really looking forward to building one
hell of a mustang site.....but as the law is currently written (thanks to
they anti-cybersquatting act signed by bill clinton in '99 that gives
corporations WAY too much power) they are well within their rights to do so.
why did clinton sign that ridiculous law? because hillary had to pay $6000
to purchase hillary2000.com from the owner.
> That would be like them
> telling MustangsUnlimited.com or any other Mustang related site that they
> can't use the Mustang name.
um, they _can_....and anytime, sue mustangsunlimited.com and would
ultimately take them offline. thats just the way it works today.
again, im not bitter about it. i asked, they declined, so im moving on.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://MustangHeritage.com
http://HardcoreATV.com
CLLCTR5
Again, good for you Nathan, keep us updated!
Nathan W. Collier
news:20020507132606...@mb-mc.aol.com...
> Again, good for you Nathan, keep us updated!
sure will. right now im still trying to determine for sure if ford owns the
term "pony car" before i move ahead.
Joe
Joe
Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
Silver '02 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
"Nathan W. Collier" <webm...@hardcorejeep.com> wrote in
news:h9UB8.43370$YQ1.19...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com:
ddb
remember Sprint made some money from MCI buy purchasing their URL before
they did. The same is true of Ford they can eithe rbuy the URL or let you
run it.
"Nathan W. Collier" <webm...@hardcorejeep.com> wrote in message
news:r5TB8.43014$YQ1.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
WindsorFox
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
attorneys wanted a
> minimum of $50,000 to defend me on that case, and i could not face their
> team of corporate lawyers by myself. i had no choice but to give them all 6
> domain names they demanded. had i faced them in court and lost, i would
> have taken a $600,000 judgement against me that would have bankrupted me.
> it just wasnt worth it to fight, so i capitulated.
>
I thought there was an international organization that kept up with all
of this???
--
"The frozen North will hatch a flightless bird, who will spread his
wings and dominate the Earth. He will cause an empire by the sea to
fall, to the astonishment and delight of all."
BOYCOTT Excessive Motorsports !!
http://www.geocities.com/fordracing68/xm.html
"I'm sorry, I'm afraid I subscribe to the theory of
intellectual osmosis. As such, I must now cease our
conversation and move away from you before my intelligence
begins to drop. Good day." the Gord http://www.actsofgord.com
Paul
in news:x1UB8.43328$YQ1.19...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com:
> again, im not bitter about it. i asked, they declined, so im moving
> on.
I agree it's a pity. But at least they are reimbursing you for the
domain. You do know that if you switch the domain registration to
a registrar outside the USA and set up a dummy corporation with a seat
outside the USA, that Ford has no leg to stand on? (Providing that the
country where the registrar is does not have a similar law) Contrary to
what most think, US law does NOT govern the internet. At least not
parts that are geographically outside the US. ;-) As Scientology found
out rather painfully a few years back...
Good luck with your site and let us know the new UR. I'll sure be
visiting it.
--
_
|_|
|__|o...@tampabay.rr.com
CLLCTR5
He already said they did.
Walt
valid claim on the Trade Mark of "Mustang" in the trade of automobiles.
If the website in question was truly going to ONLY be about
Mustang horses, and not at all about Mustang cars, the OP would
not have a problem. Horses are a different trade than cars.
Matter of fact, if the website was just about horses, I bet
the OP would not have even bother to contact Ford in the first
place.
This reminds me that Apple Computer has a Trade Mark of "Apple"
when it comes to the trade of computers. Apple Records has a
Trade Mark of "Apple" when it comes to the trade of music. It
was in the news a while back, that Apple Records had to 'remind'
Apple Computers about this when Apple Computers was trying to
push their Macs in the field of music.
I am very sure that Ford does indeed "own" the Trade Mark of
"Mustang" in the business of automobiles and rightfully so.
I know that the MCA, and its regional clubs, had to get, and did
get, the permission of Ford to use the "Mustang" name, logo, etc.
So Ford does give permission under the right circumstances.
Griff1324
on the web. I totally understand the purpose of the bill, but, in my mind, it
is way to forgiving to the corporations. If you want to see a very unique case
of cybersquawting check out Nissan.com. This gentleman owns a computer store
named Nissan Computers. Nissan is the guys last name so he "owns the rights"
to the name. His business has been up and running for many many years. In
fact, long before Nissan became Nissan (they were Datsun then). Well, Nissan
motor company wants the domain name and is sueing Mr. Nissan. The gentleman is
standing up to the lawsuit. A judge has already thrown out the basis of
cybersqwating since Mr. Nissan owns the rights to his name, and the company has
been up and running long before Nissan.
Anyway, all of the details of the lawsuit are on his site so check it out.
later,
Chris
'65 Mustang restomod in-progress
http://www.personal.psu.edu/cxs591
Walt
list of other domains which use the name "nissan". He claims
that most of the names aren't owned by Nissan Motors. What he
forgets, and this is what bothers me, is that many of the names
he lists are Nissan dealers.
I would suspect that Nissan dealers have the right to use
the name "nissan", and that was granted to them by Nissan
Motors.
By this guy "mudding up the waters" like this, I wonder what
else he is skewing in terms of facts on this website. :(
From other lawsuits and settlements that I know of, I would not
be surprised if they end up having to switch to NissanComputer.com
since that is their real, full, company name. Unfortunately,
judges aren't computer geeks. :)
Nathan W. Collier
news:5kUB8.77529$vX.4904@rwcrnsc53...
> If you purchased the URL maybe they would interested in buying it back. I
> remember Sprint made some money from MCI buy purchasing their URL before
> they did. The same is true of Ford they can eithe rbuy the URL or let you
> run it.
everything changed in '99 when clinton signed the sweeping anti-cyber piracy
act. trademark holders have sweeping authority now.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://MustangHeritage.com
http://HardcoreATV.com
Nathan W. Collier
news:Xns92078D03EF...@65.32.1.6...
> Contrary to what most think, US law does NOT govern the internet.
while true, the u.s. does own or control all 13 primary name servers
throughout the world. aside from this, ICANN does whatever WIPO tells them
to do so the trademark holder could still petition WIPO to take a domain
name and they would win. look at http://wipo.int for more information.
> Good luck with your site and let us know the new UR. I'll sure be
> visiting it.
many thanks. it will be my best work, because of my degree of passion for
motorsports.
Nathan W. Collier
news:3CD81237...@cox.net...
> I thought there was an international organization that kept up with all
> of this???
there is, its called WIPO (world intellectual property organization) but
they dont have authority over our court system. regardless of what WIPO
says, if any court says you are violating a trademark, you will pay dearly.
2.3Sleeper
the hell have you been? You skip a couple years ofreading or something?
You can give Kudo's to him for not *getting all hot and botherered* about
it, but I believe it is my right to get however I want in a public forum
correct? That is the beauty of free speech.
I will grant you the ignorance part...being as the word does mean
*uninformed*. So inform me. Show me the light. Why is my post so ignorant?
--
Don Manning
Black 89 GT, 5 speed, Steeda Tri-Ax
K&N, Pony's, LX Lights, 180 degree t-stat
Custom O/R H-Pipe, Tri-Ax short throw handle
(Shifter coming really soon)
"CLLCTR5" <cll...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020507131757...@mb-mc.aol.com...
2.3Sleeper
> "2.3Sleeper" <st...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> news:zLTB8.149$km2....@news1.east.cox.net...
> > I say contact an attorney. Don't give up the URL. You own it...if they
> want
> > the damn thing they will have to pay you for it.
>
> don,
> recently i was sued by daimler chrysler over the same thing. they wanted
6
> of my domain names that had "jeep" in them. there was no cybersquatting
> going on, they were valid jeep enthusiast websites. attorneys wanted a
> minimum of $50,000 to defend me on that case, and i could not face their
> team of corporate lawyers by myself. i had no choice but to give them all
6
> domain names they demanded. had i faced them in court and lost, i would
> have taken a $600,000 judgement against me that would have bankrupted me.
> it just wasnt worth it to fight, so i capitulated.
I understand not having the money to go to court over it...but the Mustang
is part is a little far fetched.
>
> this is really no different, except the way that ford is conducting
> themselves. they do own "mustang" and are well within their rights to
> protect it.
They can't own that word though...it was around way before Ford was. What
about the horse? The airplane?
i hate it, in that i was really looking forward to building one
> hell of a mustang site.....
You want to spend time doing a site....build mine!!! Please!!!! I have no
time...and will have ti wind up letting someone else do it anyways.
but as the law is currently written (thanks to
> they anti-cybersquatting act signed by bill clinton in '99 that gives
> corporations WAY too much power) they are well within their rights to do
so.
> why did clinton sign that ridiculous law? because hillary had to pay
$6000
> to purchase hillary2000.com from the owner.
>
> > That would be like them
> > telling MustangsUnlimited.com or any other Mustang related site that
they
> > can't use the Mustang name.
>
> um, they _can_....and anytime, sue mustangsunlimited.com and would
> ultimately take them offline. thats just the way it works today.
You would think they would have done it already. Who knows...maybe Ford
already has a part in it eh?
CLLCTR5
>the hell have you been? You skip a couple years ofreading or something?
When I think of ignorance...I think of me...and I take away reason and
accountability...
>You can give Kudo's to him for not *getting all hot and botherered* about
>it, but I believe it is my right to get however I want in a public forum
>correct? That is the beauty of free speech.>
Beauty? I've seen more beauty in a Siberian whorehouse!
Nathan W. Collier
> They can't own that word though...it was around way before Ford was. What
> about the horse? The airplane?
you would _think_ so. there are things going on that are too unbelieveable.
see http://www.fordreallysucks.com/more_info.html for some really shocking
details.
when bill clinton signed the anti-cyber piracy act it not only changed free
speech on the internet, it took it away.
> You want to spend time doing a site....build mine!!! Please!!!! I have no
> time...and will have ti wind up letting someone else do it anyways.
lol.....im actually well underway already, but would be glad to lend any
assistance that i can, time permitting.
Preferred User
> And what the hell would Ford do if you were making a site based upon the
> Heritage of the Mustang horse????
>
> Shit like this really pisses me off. Fuck them for even thinking they can
> *own* or otherwise trademark the name. That is a bunch of B.S.
>
> I say contact an attorney. Don't give up the URL. You own it...if they
want
> the damn thing they will have to pay you for it. That would be like them
> telling MustangsUnlimited.com or any other Mustang related site that they
> can't use the Mustang name.
I agree that it is petty and counterproductive of Ford. What he could do is
just donate the name to some Russian Porn purveyor and let them turn it into
some fetish site. It would teach Ford a lesson, and require little work on
our victims part...
Preferred User
Perhaps you would be better suited to incorporate in Texas where they would
run a risk of frivolous lawsuit penalty. Fair-use standards apply, and
'jeep' is not just a trade mark, it is also a common used slang term for a
number of 4 X 4 activities. The fact is, they would very likely lose a case
against you unless they could show that you were abusing the term in a way
that slanders their product. Think about the fact that there are hundreds of
registered companies that make after-market products for jeeps and using the
jeep name, you could show that they have customarily accepted the use of the
term jeep throughout their history.
"Nathan W. Collier" <webm...@hardcorejeep.com> wrote in message
news:x1UB8.43328$YQ1.19...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Preferred User
> "WindsorFox" <windsorf...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3CD81237...@cox.net...
> > I thought there was an international organization that kept up with all
> > of this???
>
> there is, its called WIPO (world intellectual property organization) but
> they dont have authority over our court system. regardless of what WIPO
> says, if any court says you are violating a trademark, you will pay
dearly.
>
You will not Pay Dearly. They can only seek damages. They really have no
damages to claim, and you have a First Amendment presumption that would be
hard to overcome.
What exactly is the content of these sites?
Nathan W. Collier
news:A54101C247D11032.5D22A4C8...@lp.airnews.net...
> What exactly is the content of these sites?
while its still online, see http://hardcorejeep.com/tv for specific details.
Johnny Johnson
> "2.3Sleeper" <st...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> news:4gXB8.1384$km2....@news1.east.cox.net...
>
>> They can't own that word though...it was around way before Ford was.
>> What about the horse? The airplane?
The motorcycle? <g>
http://www.tower.org/museum/mustang/mustang.html
> you would _think_ so. there are things going on that are too unbelieveable.
> see http://www.fordreallysucks.com/more_info.html for some really shocking
> details.
"Ford didn't sue in England or Sweden. They sued all these people in
Detroit, Michigan."
The defendants should have entered a "Plea of Privilege" instead of an
Answer to the Complaint.
Make Ford come to them, instead of them coming to Ford's "playground."
ph...@no.way
early 80's over the Apple Lisa. Seems the Lisa could play music, and they
were touting it as such.
"Walt" <Wa...@Early.com> wrote in message news:3CD81AFC...@Early.com...
<snip>
>
> This reminds me that Apple Computer has a Trade Mark of "Apple"
> when it comes to the trade of computers. Apple Records has a
> Trade Mark of "Apple" when it comes to the trade of music. It
> was in the news a while back, that Apple Records had to 'remind'
> Apple Computers about this when Apple Computers was trying to
> push their Macs in the field of music.
<snip>
Bill
Backyard Mechanic
The fact is that if the site was about the horse or the fighter plane (which
inspired the Mustang name, NOT the horse..BTW), Ford wouldnt have a problem
with it.
They couldnt.
Trademarks using common terms are associative.
"CLLCTR5" <cll...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020507170647...@mb-fq.aol.com...
Chip Stein
> "ddb" <fa...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:5kUB8.77529$vX.4904@rwcrnsc53...
> > If you purchased the URL maybe they would interested in buying it back. I
> > remember Sprint made some money from MCI buy purchasing their URL before
> > they did. The same is true of Ford they can eithe rbuy the URL or let you
> > run it.
>
> everything changed in '99 when clinton signed the sweeping anti-cyber piracy
> act. trademark holders have sweeping authority now.
i'd just rename it to a .am domain and reregister. that's armenia
and i bet they can't touch that.
remember when ford sent the mustang to germany and had to rename it
the T-5 ?
A bicycle company over there already owned the rights to the mustang
name. i think that was about 67 or 68, i don't know.
Chip
Matt
> themselves. they do own "mustang" and are well within their rights to
> protect it. i hate it, in that i was really looking forward to building
one
the horse enthusiast's site? They don't own that name... :)
-Matt
Snow
ford owning or being able to do anything if your site delt with either the
mustang hourse or the airplane, Nathan always could make a true
mustangheritage site. Thats right incorperate all the mustangs into one
very large site, all the hourse,planes and cars, and providing he kept it
clean <sorry Nate no babes like before> I dont see how ford could claim you
to be defacing their mustang name. I suppose that ford and lockheed could
both team up and force you to remove their products from the site though.
My 2 CDN cents which ='s about .75 cents USD
Snow...
Johnny Johnson
> Well since it has pretty much been agreed to here that the likely hood
> of ford owning or being able to do anything if your site delt with either
> the mustang hourse or the airplane, Nathan always could make a true
> mustangheritage site. Thats right incorperate all the mustangs into one
> very large site, all the horse, planes and cars, and providing he kept it
> clean <sorry Nate no babes like before> I dont see how ford could claim
> you to be defacing their mustang name.
Already done (less the horses):
http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/
> I suppose that ford and lockheed could both team up and force you to remove
> their products from the site though.
Since the P-51 Mustang was built by North American Aviation, Lockheed
wouldn't have a say in the web site's content. The Boeing Company is the
successor to NAA:
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/history/bna/chron.html
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/history/bna/p51.htm
BTW: the P-51's name was created on December 9, 1940, when the British
Purchasing Commission (who had contracted with NAA to develop a new
fighter plane for the RAF) sent a letter to North American Aviation
stating that the prototype airplanes (NA-73) have been given the
official designation of "Mustang".
http://216.219.216.110/north-american/p51.html
Wonder if FoMoCo got permission from the Brits to use the name
"Mustang"?!? <g>
Anthony S
>ford declined my request to run my mustang enthusiast website at
>http://MustangHeritage.com and as such, i am taking it offline. im going to
>do an intensive trademark search before i put the site back up, and i will
>announce the new url once i have done my research.
Just one more reason to never buy another Ford. Car companies squashing
enthusiasts just because they can. Pathetic.
Anthony S
www.mcagraphix.com
"Winning an argument on the internet is like beating the Texas Rangers. It
proves nothing."
C. E. White
>
> I read through his website, and what really bothers me is his
> list of other domains which use the name "nissan". He claims
> that most of the names aren't owned by Nissan Motors. What he
> forgets, and this is what bothers me, is that many of the names
> he lists are Nissan dealers.
>
> I would suspect that Nissan dealers have the right to use
> the name "nissan", and that was granted to them by Nissan
> Motors.
>
> By this guy "mudding up the waters" like this, I wonder what
> else he is skewing in terms of facts on this website. :(
>
> From other lawsuits and settlements that I know of, I would not
> be surprised if they end up having to switch to NissanComputer.com
> since that is their real, full, company name. Unfortunately,
> judges aren't computer geeks. :)
It seems to me that if Mr. Nissan has to use Nissancomputer.com, Nissan
Motors should have to use Nissanmotors.com (which they own) or
Nissancars.com (which they don't own) or Nissanvehicles.com (which they
also don't own), or Nissanautomobiles.com (which they also don't own).
Heck they could just tell people to go to http://www.nissan.co.jp/ (the
"official" japanese web site) or http://www.nissan.co.uk/ (the UK web
site) .
I don't support cybersquatting and it appears to me that Mr. Nissan may
have had that in mind when he chose his domain name, but I still think
he has a legit reason for keeping the name.
I wonder who the heck owns Datsun.com? If you go there you get the logo
and an old advertising song, but no referral anywhere.
C. E. White
> I suppose that ford and lockheed could
> both team up and force you to remove their products from the site though.
Lockheed? North American Aviation built P-51s. I thought that ended up
being part of Rockwell. I am not sure who "owns" the trademarks for
military planes. Maybe the USAF (or the USAAF)? I doubt if anyone does.
Heck I still don't understand how Diamler-Chrysler ended up with the
"Jeep" trademark. I though the military guys started calling them Jeeps,
not the original builders of the GP vehicles (Ford, Bantam Cars and
Willys). I wonder how often the Jeep trademark has been challenged in
court?
One of the problems with our legal system is the unfair advantage money
provides. Even if you are right and win your case, you still loose
because of all the time and money you had to spend to defend yourself.
Personally I think we need at a minimum a looser pays system.
Regards,
Ed White
C. E. White
>
> >From: "Nathan W. Collier"
>
> >ford declined my request to run my mustang enthusiast website at
> >http://MustangHeritage.com and as such, i am taking it offline. im going to
> >do an intensive trademark search before i put the site back up, and i will
> >announce the new url once i have done my research.
>
> Just one more reason to never buy another Ford. Car companies squashing
> enthusiasts just because they can. Pathetic.
You the same reasoning you can't by GM products, or Nissans or Toyotas
or..........either.
Ed
Walt
cases that I know about. It was from that, that I was simply
projecting that this will end up with Mr. Nissan switching to
use NissanComputer.com. I wasn't trying to say that this
switch would be fair.
The only "nice" settlement I know of, was with Mr. McDonalds.
McDonalds Family Restaurants paid him a fair price for his
ownership of McDonalds.com. :)
A Guy Named Steve
That's Dave Lum. He used to be a somewhat regular (or somewhat irregular)
poster here.
I've had a ride in the red car.
--
Steve
71 Buick GS455
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3CD9549E...@mindspring.com...
97 Droptop
>
> ford declined my request to run my mustang enthusiast website at
> http://MustangHeritage.com and as such, i am taking it offline. im going to
> do an intensive trademark search before i put the site back up, and i will
> announce the new url once i have done my research.
>
> Nathan W. Collier
> http://HardcoreATV.com
Sorry to hear that, Nate. Welcome to RAMFM, by the way, since I missed
the other thread. Do you still hang around AADT much? Hogan Whitall
used to be a regular here as well, until he sold his horse.
Lon P
--
97 GT Vert, Triple Black
68 Fastback, Wimbledon White
see the ponies at:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/jsalign/fastback.html
http://showcase.netins.net/web/jsalign/convertible.html
lo...@spamsux.ramfm.org
"No barbarian is ever silly"-Thundarr
Snow
Snow...
Nathan W. Collier
news:3CD9B8...@invalid.address.com...
> Welcome to RAMFM
many thanks! i look forward to participating as a mustang owner. for
various reasons i cancelled my initial order. im going to a different ford
dealer in the morning to re-order my car so it looks like the whole 6-8
weeks process will start over from square one.
> Do you still hang around AADT much?
nah, not all all anymore. people there just arent who they once
were.......even some whom i had a lot of respect for turned out to be
assholes.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://MustangHeritage.com
http://HardcoreATV.com
Chad
>various reasons i cancelled my initial order. im going to a different ford
>dealer in the morning to re-order my car so it looks like the whole 6-8
>weeks process will start over from square one.
Nathan, could the dealer not find one on a lot somewhere exactly as you want
it? There are dealership around with tons of cars on the lot and in the
showroom. Should give it a shot if you already haven't. BTW, did you get my
Email?
Chad
1969 Mach1
1983 GT 5.0 5-speed
2000 Jeep Wrangler Sport Solar Yellow
Nathan W. Collier
news:20020508215610...@mb-ft.aol.com...
> Nathan, could the dealer not find one on a lot somewhere exactly as you
want it?
hi chad,
the first dealer sold me a car with the mp3 player and mach 1000 system.
come to find out (thanks to the second dealer), you cannot get the mach 1000
with the mp3 player. the first dealer still insists that you can get the
mp3 player with the mach 1000 system even though half a dozen dealers have
verified otherwise for me. having the mach 1000 is more valuable to me than
having the mp3 player, so im going to deal with a dealer that actually cares
enough to research things before selling them to me.
> There are dealership around with tons of cars on the lot and in the
showroom. Should give it a shot if you already haven't.
when i test drove the first gt, the dealer was encouraging me to test the
acceleration....or "stomp it" as he put it. i wont buy a performance car
off the lot where they have potentially been dogged out on test drives. i
know that might seem a little picky.....but hey.....its my $24,000 right?
:-)
> BTW, did you get my Email?
no, i havent gotten an email from you.....resend it?
Chad
>the first dealer sold me a car with the mp3 player and mach 1000 system.
>come to find out (thanks to the second dealer), you cannot get the mach 1000
>with the mp3 player. the first dealer still insists that you can get the
>mp3 player with the mach 1000 system even though half a dozen dealers have
>verified otherwise for me. having the mach 1000 is more valuable to me than
>having the mp3 player, so im going to deal with a dealer that actually cares
>enough to research things before selling them to me.
>
The Mach 1000 is pretty impressive. I've only had the chance to listen to one
once. It's just the price tag of it that gets me.
>when i test drove the first gt, the dealer was encouraging me to test the
>acceleration....or "stomp it" as he put it. i wont buy a performance car
>off the lot where they have potentially been dogged out on test drives. i
>know that might seem a little picky.....but hey.....its my $24,000 right?
Same happened to me. I test drove a 01 GT 5-speed last year. The salesman
wasn't much older than me. The car I drove had 11 miles on it, and he kept
urging me to "lay into it" , "don't be afriad to shift hard" and "lets hear
them tires squeal". Of course I didn't do either. At worse I shifted from 5th
to 3rd when passing a car on the test drive. I can just imagine how some of
these guys treat these cars before they are bought. I work beside the Honda
dealership in Burlington, and it's terrible how those mechanics treat those
cars. I got tired of it one day and told the service manager, and all he could
say was "It doesn't hurt them". If someone was pulling out of the shop doing a
burnout in my car, or getting the car sideways coming around the building, I'd
be a little hot on that issue. I hope most Ford mechanics have a little more
respect for customers cars (or new ones on the lot). I'm sure most don't.
>no, i havent gotten an email from you.....resend it?
>
Email resent to webm...@hardcorejeep.com.
Nathan, not sure if any dealers you deal offer this, or if you mind buying from
a dealer a good ways away, but Ciener Woods Ford in Kernersville (off Hwy 40
between Greensboro and Winston Salem) gives a 10 year/100k mile warrenty with
each new Mustang they sell. Not sure how mods affect the warrenty however. The
salesman I spoke to was very informative. I spent the better part of two hours
talking to him, going over this yellow GT on the lot I was interested in. The
dealership had even converted this GT with a Mach1 style ram air shaker. The
same type that's on my 69 Mach1.
Matt
Unfortunately that isn't really relevant. The real point is that they
can sue you for anything they damn well please, and you have to
capitulate if (when) you can't afford to defend yourself.
Here's another horror story: http://www.nissan.com/ (and yet another
reason never to buy a Nissan)
--
Matt <matt at somedamn dot com>
1999 Cobra Vert, Triple Black
http://www.telepath.com/matt/cobra
Nathan W. Collier
> The Mach 1000 is pretty impressive. I've only had the chance to listen to
one
> once. It's just the price tag of it that gets me.
while i agree that the price is sort of steep, this car is going to be a
keeper. years down the road the enjoyment of going top of the line will
live a lot longer than the memory of the amount i paid for it. :-)
> he kept urging me to "lay into it" , "don't be afriad to shift hard" and
"lets hear them tires squeal".
lol...._precisely_ why ill be ordering my car and waiting 8 weeks instead of
getting one tomorrow off the lot.
Anthony S
>You the same reasoning you can't by GM products, or Nissans or Toyotas
>or..........either.
Fine by me. I have no desire to see car companies squashing enthusiasts. It's
pathetic. Heck the U.S. can nuke Zimbabwe and blow them into oblivion with
little to no repercussion too. We don't. Why support auto makers who exercise
such poor judgement?