PS, PPS and Boo on Hemmings

From earlier today a series of comments, replies and replies within replies.

 

56packardman

8 hours ago·

56packardman.wordpress.com

 

rulesoflogic

7 hours ago·

disaffectedmusings.com

Thanks, sir. I saw the Hemmings piece this morning. A sign of my malaise is that I just didn’t feel like contributing a comment even though I could have included a link to yesterday’s post. I wonder if it’s the damn awful weather we’re having here with dewpoints approaching 80°.

 

PS, I did submit a comment on the Hemmings piece about the C8 reveal that included a link to my post about it. Thanks again, 56packardman, for giving me a nudge.

 

PPS, Hemmings did not publish my comment. I can only surmise that since the post included a link to an AutoTrader listing they did the petty thing (I don’t mean Richard) and deleted without publishing. Boo on Hemmings! 🤬

 

Talk about small-minded…I think I will refrain from reading Hemmings for a while and I hope you will do the same.

 

#BooOnHemmings

 

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “PS, PPS and Boo on Hemmings

  1. It seems that to be able to get a comment published on Hemmings one must be a member of a secret club. I have never had a single comment published. I think I got on their $*Ά list when I wrote plainly about one of their frequent contributors, Patrick Foster. As long as Foster isn’t writing about Packard, his writing is somewhat tolerable, but on the subject of Packard, he never lets the facts get in the way of his hatred for James Nance. I’ve challenged him on many factual errors but none have been published. Since then any comment on any post by any writer that I try to post at Hemmings is never green-lighted.

    Like

Comments are closed.