<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ford reintroduces the 1965&#160;Mustang</title>
	<atom:link href="http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html</link>
	<description>Brain candy for Happy Mutants</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 10:17:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blond-pony</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1260577</link>
		<dc:creator>Blond-pony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 05:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1260577</guid>
		<description>That is already available!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is already available!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Billy Brantingham</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1260547</link>
		<dc:creator>Billy Brantingham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 04:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1260547</guid>
		<description>Says you.  I&#039;d like to choose for myself, thankyouverymuch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Says you.  I&#8217;d like to choose for myself, thankyouverymuch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Billy Brantingham</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1260546</link>
		<dc:creator>Billy Brantingham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 04:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1260546</guid>
		<description>Nope.  Full weight of a 1964.5 Mustang is 2,500 pounds.  A Toyota Prius is around 3,100 lbs.  Frankly, today&#039;s cars are pigs thank to regulations and safety features.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nope.  Full weight of a 1964.5 Mustang is 2,500 pounds.  A Toyota Prius is around 3,100 lbs.  Frankly, today&#8217;s cars are pigs thank to regulations and safety features.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Billy Brantingham</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1260545</link>
		<dc:creator>Billy Brantingham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 04:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1260545</guid>
		<description>I doubt there&#039;s a way to update the Ford to today&#039;s regs without it looking awful...and insanely heavy.

However, the other thing you&#039;re talking about?  They&#039;re called kit cars.  Companies like Factory Five and Superformance already do that kind of stuff.  Every state deals with them differently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I doubt there&#8217;s a way to update the Ford to today&#8217;s regs without it looking awful&#8230;and insanely heavy.</p>
<p>However, the other thing you&#8217;re talking about?  They&#8217;re called kit cars.  Companies like Factory Five and Superformance already do that kind of stuff.  Every state deals with them differently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Billy Brantingham</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1260541</link>
		<dc:creator>Billy Brantingham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 04:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1260541</guid>
		<description>British companies, too, have been building bodies for their favored cars for a while as well.  Rust prone, you know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>British companies, too, have been building bodies for their favored cars for a while as well.  Rust prone, you know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Billy Brantingham</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1260540</link>
		<dc:creator>Billy Brantingham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 04:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1260540</guid>
		<description>You do realize that Pinto &#039;deathtrap&#039; thing was really just an early version of the media-driven scare story, right?  They weren&#039;t all that more dangerous than, say, a VW.  The amount of people who died in fires caused by rear end collision were somewhere around 30 (http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf ).  Out of 2 million cars built.  I mean, every death is a tragedy, but COME ON - that kind of ratio is a pretty low bar to set.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You do realize that Pinto &#8216;deathtrap&#8217; thing was really just an early version of the media-driven scare story, right?  They weren&#8217;t all that more dangerous than, say, a VW.  The amount of people who died in fires caused by rear end collision were somewhere around 30 (<a href="http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf</a> ).  Out of 2 million cars built.  I mean, every death is a tragedy, but COME ON &#8211; that kind of ratio is a pretty low bar to set.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Billy Brantingham</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1260534</link>
		<dc:creator>Billy Brantingham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 03:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1260534</guid>
		<description>Yes.  It could be considered either a kit car or a replacement body (you know, for cars that have been rusted through).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes.  It could be considered either a kit car or a replacement body (you know, for cars that have been rusted through).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sconley</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258867</link>
		<dc:creator>Sconley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258867</guid>
		<description>The Mexican Beetle was actually based on the 1968 model, swing axle rear suspension. The Super wasn&#039;t made in Mexico. You could import them if you had your Beetle re-manufactured as one (Use you VIN).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Mexican Beetle was actually based on the 1968 model, swing axle rear suspension. The Super wasn&#8217;t made in Mexico. You could import them if you had your Beetle re-manufactured as one (Use you VIN).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George Herbert</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258805</link>
		<dc:creator>George Herbert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258805</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;The assembled vehicle is not even REMOTELY legal to sell as a road vehicle in the United States.  Thank your fine friends in the Federal Government for what they have done to this country.  And be sure to thank your local &quot;Law Enforcement&quot; as well, for it is THEY who were the enablers.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
It&#039;s entirely legal to sell as a kitcar, which is exactly what this is.

It&#039;s not legal as a new car, because of modern safety standards.  Which is not a bad thing.  Libertarianism taken to the &quot;You&#039;re not letting me sell deathtraps anymore!&quot; extreme is a bit much.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>The assembled vehicle is not even REMOTELY legal to sell as a road vehicle in the United States.  Thank your fine friends in the Federal Government for what they have done to this country.  And be sure to thank your local &#8220;Law Enforcement&#8221; as well, for it is THEY who were the enablers.</p></blockquote>
<p>It&#8217;s entirely legal to sell as a kitcar, which is exactly what this is.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not legal as a new car, because of modern safety standards.  Which is not a bad thing.  Libertarianism taken to the &#8220;You&#8217;re not letting me sell deathtraps anymore!&#8221; extreme is a bit much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: donovan acree</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258583</link>
		<dc:creator>donovan acree</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258583</guid>
		<description>Just to clear something up, Ford is not selling or producing this body. Ford &#039;approved&#039; the bodies being built by Dynacorn Classic Bodies, Inc.
Dynacorn has been around for a while and this is not the first mustang body they build. The 67-70 bodies have been available for a while now  -  which is why you see more 67&#039;s than 65&#039;s on the road today.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to clear something up, Ford is not selling or producing this body. Ford &#8216;approved&#8217; the bodies being built by Dynacorn Classic Bodies, Inc.<br />
Dynacorn has been around for a while and this is not the first mustang body they build. The 67-70 bodies have been available for a while now  -  which is why you see more 67&#8242;s than 65&#8242;s on the road today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: michael</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258551</link>
		<dc:creator>michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258551</guid>
		<description>author asks&quot;I wonder why Ford doesn&#039;t also offer the 1965 Mustang, fully-made? Surely they&#039;d sell a bunch at any reasonable price&quot; Look no furthur than the retro Thunderbird at a reasonable 55k.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>author asks&#8221;I wonder why Ford doesn&#8217;t also offer the 1965 Mustang, fully-made? Surely they&#8217;d sell a bunch at any reasonable price&#8221; Look no furthur than the retro Thunderbird at a reasonable 55k.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bad Juju</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258497</link>
		<dc:creator>Bad Juju</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258497</guid>
		<description>They do, and have for years now. 67, 68, 69 and 70 fastbacks
http://www.dynacornclassicbodies.com/ford_models2.html
 
67-69 Camarobirds as well, but I don&#039;t see GM crowing about that licensing agreement..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They do, and have for years now. 67, 68, 69 and 70 fastbacks<br />
<a href="http://www.dynacornclassicbodies.com/ford_models2.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.dynacornclassicbodies.com/ford_models2.html</a></p>
<p>67-69 Camarobirds as well, but I don&#8217;t see GM crowing about that licensing agreement..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Halloween_Jack</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258495</link>
		<dc:creator>Halloween_Jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258495</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m thinking that it&#039;s in the same category, roughly, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://boingboing.net/2011/09/20/3d-printed-ar-15-parts-challenge-firearm-regulation.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;; the responsibility lies with the person putting it together. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m thinking that it&#8217;s in the same category, roughly, as <a href="http://boingboing.net/2011/09/20/3d-printed-ar-15-parts-challenge-firearm-regulation.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>; the responsibility lies with the person putting it together. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Halloween_Jack</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258472</link>
		<dc:creator>Halloween_Jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258472</guid>
		<description>Your statement is absurd. The only way to absolutely prevent a car accident is to not only never drive or ride in a car, but to stay away from roads entirely. There are any number of accidents and deaths every year that involve one car only, under conditions that are completely unforeseeable.  Feel free to stay out of this or any conversation if you&#039;re unable to bring anything more to it than blaming the victim. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your statement is absurd. The only way to absolutely prevent a car accident is to not only never drive or ride in a car, but to stay away from roads entirely. There are any number of accidents and deaths every year that involve one car only, under conditions that are completely unforeseeable.  Feel free to stay out of this or any conversation if you&#8217;re unable to bring anything more to it than blaming the victim. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: george57l</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258330</link>
		<dc:creator>george57l</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258330</guid>
		<description>Many years ago I had the pleasure of meeting a well-known designer of vehicles (been at at a few well-known names as head of design).  In the same forum was someone from RoSPA (Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents).

Said designer heard to opine, only partly tongue in cheek: &quot;Might as well have a Royal Society for  the Prevention of Rain.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many years ago I had the pleasure of meeting a well-known designer of vehicles (been at at a few well-known names as head of design).  In the same forum was someone from RoSPA (Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents).</p>
<p>Said designer heard to opine, only partly tongue in cheek: &#8220;Might as well have a Royal Society for  the Prevention of Rain.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: matism</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258310</link>
		<dc:creator>matism</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258310</guid>
		<description>You ask &quot;&lt;i&gt;I wonder why Ford doesn&#039;t also offer the 1965 Mustang, fully-made? Surely they&#039;d sell a bunch at any reasonable price.&lt;/i&gt;&quot;

The assembled vehicle is not even REMOTELY legal to sell as a road vehicle in the United States.  Thank your fine friends in the Federal Government for what they have done to this country.  And be sure to thank your local &quot;Law Enforcement&quot; as well, for it is THEY who were the enablers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You ask &#8220;<i>I wonder why Ford doesn&#8217;t also offer the 1965 Mustang, fully-made? Surely they&#8217;d sell a bunch at any reasonable price.</i>&#8221;</p>
<p>The assembled vehicle is not even REMOTELY legal to sell as a road vehicle in the United States.  Thank your fine friends in the Federal Government for what they have done to this country.  And be sure to thank your local &#8220;Law Enforcement&#8221; as well, for it is THEY who were the enablers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Fot</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258303</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Fot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258303</guid>
		<description>My 1965 2+2 Fastback (Yellow) cost exactly $2650 when I drove it off the lot. I loved that car.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My 1965 2+2 Fastback (Yellow) cost exactly $2650 when I drove it off the lot. I loved that car.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AirPillo</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258264</link>
		<dc:creator>AirPillo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258264</guid>
		<description>When I was in high school, one of my art teachers had a very similar experience. He was driving in his newly restored car (a mustang, in fact) on the highway, when the power steering failed. Unfortunately, this resulted in the car veering directly into a very nearby concrete retaining wall. He very nearly died, and the steering wheel shattered his jaw and knocked out the vast majority of the teeth attached to it. He was in the hospital for a very long time, and didn&#039;t return to work for months. When he finally did, he had a piece of steel where his teeth used to be.

Sadly, sometimes something just breaks, and you don&#039;t have a chance to avert what happens next.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I was in high school, one of my art teachers had a very similar experience. He was driving in his newly restored car (a mustang, in fact) on the highway, when the power steering failed. Unfortunately, this resulted in the car veering directly into a very nearby concrete retaining wall. He very nearly died, and the steering wheel shattered his jaw and knocked out the vast majority of the teeth attached to it. He was in the hospital for a very long time, and didn&#8217;t return to work for months. When he finally did, he had a piece of steel where his teeth used to be.</p>
<p>Sadly, sometimes something just breaks, and you don&#8217;t have a chance to avert what happens next.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Siem</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258259</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Siem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258259</guid>
		<description>This makes me wonder if the car companies can pull a Disney:  Every few years, they pull some classic out and make it &quot;available only for a limited time&quot; - I&#039;d buy a 66 fastback with modern seat belts and an air bags, and I don&#039;t even like Fords.  

It&#039;s not inherently far off of car companies strategies of reviving old classics, but instead of modernizing them, you&#039;re getting the old form with new internals.  That&#039;s actually a real product.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This makes me wonder if the car companies can pull a Disney:  Every few years, they pull some classic out and make it &#8220;available only for a limited time&#8221; &#8211; I&#8217;d buy a 66 fastback with modern seat belts and an air bags, and I don&#8217;t even like Fords.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s not inherently far off of car companies strategies of reviving old classics, but instead of modernizing them, you&#8217;re getting the old form with new internals.  That&#8217;s actually a real product.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Itsumishi</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258211</link>
		<dc:creator>Itsumishi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258211</guid>
		<description>Glen&#039;s already said it better than I will, but I&#039;ve had a similar experience with steering problems.

The power steering decided to give out just as I was turning a bend doing about 80km/h on a freeway. Driving a car that is supposed to have power steering that has given out is not the same as driving a car that does not have power steering. The car swung across the lane next to me into one of the oncoming lanes. At this point with both arms pulling violently on the wheel I managed to get the car back to where it was supposed to be. I turned on the hazard lights, slowed right down and managed to take the next exit and find a park. By the time it was done I was covered in sweat from the effort of trying to steer the bloody thing. Unless I had received some very specific training I can&#039;t see how being a better driver would have helped much. The only this whole thing didn&#039;t cause any accidents was thankfully a lack of traffic.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smh.com.au/national/cruise-control-terror-for-freeway-driver-20091215-ktxn.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;There was also this incidence in Melbourne in 2009&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glen&#8217;s already said it better than I will, but I&#8217;ve had a similar experience with steering problems.</p>
<p>The power steering decided to give out just as I was turning a bend doing about 80km/h on a freeway. Driving a car that is supposed to have power steering that has given out is not the same as driving a car that does not have power steering. The car swung across the lane next to me into one of the oncoming lanes. At this point with both arms pulling violently on the wheel I managed to get the car back to where it was supposed to be. I turned on the hazard lights, slowed right down and managed to take the next exit and find a park. By the time it was done I was covered in sweat from the effort of trying to steer the bloody thing. Unless I had received some very specific training I can&#8217;t see how being a better driver would have helped much. The only this whole thing didn&#8217;t cause any accidents was thankfully a lack of traffic.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/cruise-control-terror-for-freeway-driver-20091215-ktxn.html" rel="nofollow">There was also this incidence in Melbourne in 2009</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: badc0ffee</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258210</link>
		<dc:creator>badc0ffee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258210</guid>
		<description>&quot;There is no such thing as an &quot;accident&quot;. Whay you are refering to are 
infact &quot;collisions&quot; and they are are all preventable. That process 
starts with driver training and skill. Apparently your  friends are 
lacking in those things.&quot;

You&#039;re trolling. If someone runs a stop sign and hits your car, how is that preventable, or reflective of your skill as a driver?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;There is no such thing as an &#8220;accident&#8221;. Whay you are refering to are<br />
infact &#8220;collisions&#8221; and they are are all preventable. That process<br />
starts with driver training and skill. Apparently your  friends are<br />
lacking in those things.&#8221;</p>
<p>You&#8217;re trolling. If someone runs a stop sign and hits your car, how is that preventable, or reflective of your skill as a driver?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sam</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1258184</link>
		<dc:creator>sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 04:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1258184</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m gonna get one of these and put a VW motor in the back and a Honda motor in the front.  Then I&#039;m going to put 30 inch rims on it.  And a body kit.  And a giant carbon fiber spoiler.  And a hot tub in the back seat.

-Xzibit</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m gonna get one of these and put a VW motor in the back and a Honda motor in the front.  Then I&#8217;m going to put 30 inch rims on it.  And a body kit.  And a giant carbon fiber spoiler.  And a hot tub in the back seat.</p>
<p>-Xzibit</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GlenBlank</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1257956</link>
		<dc:creator>GlenBlank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1257956</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;There is no such thing as an &quot;accident&quot;. &lt;/blockquote&gt;
Oh, for f*ck&#039;s sake.  Look up &#039;accident&#039; in a decent dictionary.  

Here, I&#039;ll help.  From  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Merriam-Webster&lt;/a&gt;:

[...]
2a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
[...]

&lt;i&gt;Most&lt;/i&gt; accidents are preventable - the word doen&#039;t mean what you seem to think it means.  &#039;Accidental&#039; is the antonym of &#039;intentional&#039;, not the antonym of &#039;preventable.&#039;

&lt;blockquote&gt; they are are all preventable. That process starts with driver training and skill. Apparently your  friends are lacking in those things.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Preventable or not, it&#039;s possible his friends were the victims of &lt;i&gt;someone else&#039;s&lt;/i&gt; lack of training or skill.  

No matter how skilled a driver I may be, I can&#039;t prevent someone from rear-ending me at a stoplight, or having a defective tie rod snap and make the car not respond to steering input - both of which have happened to me.

Both of those things were accidents, and nether of them could have been prevented by better driver training or skill.  (The guy who rear-ended me had a massive stroke while driving, so that one wasn&#039;t even &#039;preventable.&#039; )

If you can&#039;t bother to dispel your ignorance by looking up a word, at least try not to be a jerk about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>There is no such thing as an &#8220;accident&#8221;. </p></blockquote>
<p>Oh, for f*ck&#8217;s sake.  Look up &#8216;accident&#8217; in a decent dictionary.  </p>
<p>Here, I&#8217;ll help.  From  <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident" rel="nofollow">Merriam-Webster</a>:</p>
<p>[...]<br />
2a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance<br />
[...]</p>
<p><i>Most</i> accidents are preventable &#8211; the word doen&#8217;t mean what you seem to think it means.  &#8217;Accidental&#8217; is the antonym of &#8216;intentional&#8217;, not the antonym of &#8216;preventable.&#8217;</p>
<blockquote><p> they are are all preventable. That process starts with driver training and skill. Apparently your  friends are lacking in those things.</p></blockquote>
<p>Preventable or not, it&#8217;s possible his friends were the victims of <i>someone else&#8217;s</i> lack of training or skill.  </p>
<p>No matter how skilled a driver I may be, I can&#8217;t prevent someone from rear-ending me at a stoplight, or having a defective tie rod snap and make the car not respond to steering input &#8211; both of which have happened to me.</p>
<p>Both of those things were accidents, and nether of them could have been prevented by better driver training or skill.  (The guy who rear-ended me had a massive stroke while driving, so that one wasn&#8217;t even &#8216;preventable.&#8217; )</p>
<p>If you can&#8217;t bother to dispel your ignorance by looking up a word, at least try not to be a jerk about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kroon</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1257920</link>
		<dc:creator>kroon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1257920</guid>
		<description>&quot;...I know at least 5 people who would be dead right now if the cars they had been riding in during an accident...&quot;
There is no such thing as an &quot;accident&quot;. Whay you are refering to are infact &quot;collisions&quot; and they are are all preventable. That process starts with driver training and skill. Apparently your  friends are lacking in those things.  
Remember, cars whether they be old or new and regardless of their installed features and equipment do not cause collisions, drivers do. 
Stop blaming cars for the mayhem on the roads these days. Blame those responsible.
Stupid and  lousy drivers</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;I know at least 5 people who would be dead right now if the cars they had been riding in during an accident&#8230;&#8221;<br />
There is no such thing as an &#8220;accident&#8221;. Whay you are refering to are infact &#8220;collisions&#8221; and they are are all preventable. That process starts with driver training and skill. Apparently your  friends are lacking in those things.  <br />
Remember, cars whether they be old or new and regardless of their installed features and equipment do not cause collisions, drivers do.<br />
Stop blaming cars for the mayhem on the roads these days. Blame those responsible.<br />
Stupid and  lousy drivers</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Fox</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1257902</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Fox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1257902</guid>
		<description>British Motor Heritage has been doing this for MGBs for a while now. They&#039;re not the original manufacturer per se, but make body shells using original tooling under license from whatever constitutes MG and BMC these days. http://www.bmh-ltd.com/mgbshell.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>British Motor Heritage has been doing this for MGBs for a while now. They&#8217;re not the original manufacturer per se, but make body shells using original tooling under license from whatever constitutes MG and BMC these days. <a href="http://www.bmh-ltd.com/mgbshell.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.bmh-ltd.com/mgbshell.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evanplus</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1257901</link>
		<dc:creator>evanplus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1257901</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a good idea but I bet just the steel frame is heavier than most hybrid cars.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a good idea but I bet just the steel frame is heavier than most hybrid cars.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlexG55</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1257869</link>
		<dc:creator>AlexG55</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1257869</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t see the point of banning car companies from selling cars that lack safety features for the occupants (who, after all, choose to ride in such a car) while it&#039;s still legal to sell motorcycles. And no, I don&#039;t want to ban motorcycles either!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t see the point of banning car companies from selling cars that lack safety features for the occupants (who, after all, choose to ride in such a car) while it&#8217;s still legal to sell motorcycles. And no, I don&#8217;t want to ban motorcycles either!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Martel</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1257817</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Martel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1257817</guid>
		<description>The big question for me is, can someone work out a partially open source business model where classics like the Mustang, updated to meet today&#039;s regs, can be sold? Could there be some hybrid approach between original maker and open source makers? Or treat them as &quot;experimental&quot; the way home built aircraft are? Imagine a world where you can own a new copy of whatever industrial classic you want--Eames chair, 57 Chevy, Loewy pencil sharpener, etc.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The big question for me is, can someone work out a partially open source business model where classics like the Mustang, updated to meet today&#8217;s regs, can be sold? Could there be some hybrid approach between original maker and open source makers? Or treat them as &#8220;experimental&#8221; the way home built aircraft are? Imagine a world where you can own a new copy of whatever industrial classic you want&#8211;Eames chair, 57 Chevy, Loewy pencil sharpener, etc.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Cruickshank</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1257816</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Cruickshank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1257816</guid>
		<description>My birthday is the same day that the Mustang was introduced.  When I turned 25, I woke up, and groggily picked the newspaper up off the doorstep, and their was a big birthday cake on the front page, with a &quot;25&quot; on it.  Took me a second or so to realize that it was a story about the car.   So yeah, I want this.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My birthday is the same day that the Mustang was introduced.  When I turned 25, I woke up, and groggily picked the newspaper up off the doorstep, and their was a big birthday cake on the front page, with a &#8220;25&#8243; on it.  Took me a second or so to realize that it was a story about the car.   So yeah, I want this.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daneel</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/10/29/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html#comment-1257803</link>
		<dc:creator>Daneel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 14:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=126809#comment-1257803</guid>
		<description>&#039;65? Call me when they&#039;re doing the 1968 fastback.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8217;65? Call me when they&#8217;re doing the 1968 fastback.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
