CO10PI wrote: It's a pitty you've not been smart enough to get the fact that it's not the way things look what strikes me, but the way they are. But you're just as unable to get out of the topic, as you are of giving up teaching me whatever. As you once said, I don't care any more for what you know -I already knew all those topics Marx said, and not only do I know them, but I've also got to apply them to myself and practise them furiously, and you need to be a real stupid not to have noticed it at first glance. You don't know a bit of where does my knowledge about cars reach, and what kind of a car mine is, otherwise you wouldn't walk arround saying that sort of stupid things. But I'm not discussing over the same point any more. Consumism is far best shown by the liking of Saint Valentine celebrations -orchestrated by the big departament stores,- rather than by one's noticing the beautiful facts of life which of course include such an invention as a car wholy considered as a singular piece that has completely transformed human life in less than 100 years. I hate stupidity and dullness, mostly that shown by those who pride themselves in what they say and the way it sounds in the air, unable to listen, watch, nor understand a bit once you scratch the surface, those who die their hair not to let their age show but meanwhile give big lessons on what beauty is and is not, and so on. Listen, deary, Picasso, Bugatti, Michel Angello, Velázquez, Goya, Beethoven (to name just a few) were real artists, and they would have been so whether they would have worked alone in their study or produced their work maasively or in a street market, whether it would have been bought by those unable to understand it and just wanting to show it, or just for the ones you'll never know if they've got a real Picasso or just a poster. That's a fact, as much if I say it is as if I don't. And you should make up your mind: either you're a compulsive consumist that's got a Toyota, a Subaru and a Fiat (remember?), or you are on Marx's side. But if you're honest, you just can't be both sides at the same time unless you admit you are not coherent at all. But that's something you'll have to figure out in your own -or with a little help from a psychiatrist-, I'm not in the least interested any more. You're morally defective, a lot more than I could stand and can be mend. And you've still got a lot to learn, so watch out, you're running out of time! Bye. De: "david still"
I have seen in the flesh on the Ferrari and have seen in a film, one of the others mentioned. A car can look beautiful but for a man, it is not only looks but how it can perform (sorry about that) that interests him... a great looking car is a thing of beauty and then as such it become art. But as Marx noted: quantity drives out qualityh, so that if any car you greatly admired were as widely sold and available as the VW (example) it would not merit much attention, no? And the too as Thorstein Veblin has noted, conspicuous consumption: I sport my car (or very expensive diamond) to show my status in life rather than for practical reasons. What does it do for one if he owns a diamond worth 2 millions dollars but is afraid to take it out with him to say a party? But nice for folks to know he owns it though they can not see it.... how many Picasso's do you own (origianl)? I understand the Mattise -Picasso show a knockout (England)...