Earlier today I wrote a post about a lawsuit that Bristol Cars just lost. I called Bristol "weird," and said that its cars were known for "iffy construction quality." Apparently, this was wrong. And somebody wrote in just to let us know.
Bristol Cars, which was weird, has a long history as a British automotive manufacturer, going back to its days as the spawn of the Bristol Aeroplane Company. It produced not very many cars, especially towards the end of its life, and the ones they did make were known for panel gaps that could be seen from outer space, according to one owner.
Its last offering, the Bristol Fighter, came with a Viper engine. It cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Bristol let hardly anybody drive it, pending personal approval from the owner of the company. Because that's the way Bristol Cars, which was weird, did things.
But I am wrong, as a Person on the Internet e-mailed us. Bristol is not weird. Those panel gaps were built to exacting tolerances. And also, I am a bowel movement.
The e-mail is below, in full:
From: XXXX@xxxx.com
To: tips@jalopnik.com
Subject: Insufferable Idiocy
Dear purveyors of falsehoods and general misinformation,
I don't often write emails as I have better things to do, but this is one instance where I will make an exception. While struggling to evacuate a rather large bowel movement (which I have since named Michael Ballaban) from the depths of my colon, I stumbled upon your quaint website. Noticing it to be automotive in content, I must say that my interest was immediately piqued. Imagine my disappointment in realizing it was a member of the Gawker conglomerate of journalistic abominations. My hopes were quickly dashed. Still, I soldiered on. After perusing several pages of poorly-written articles which were pseudo-automotive at best, I soon encountered something I found utterly deplorable. It was the recent article entitled, "Bristol Cars Still Pissing Everyone Off, As Traditional." My rage was almost palpable - so much so that my Michael Ballaban was sucked back up into the depths of my bowels, and I have only now realized that I have forgotten to rid myself of it. After stumbling through this textbook example of how an article should not be written, I felt that I had no recourse other than to write and inform your editors (if they even care) that they have in their employ a genuine buffoon. Let me address my complaints, one at a time.
I shall begin with the second paragraph. Though it contains a veritable grab-bag of grammatical errors, I shall not focus on them. I will instead focus on Mr. Ballaban's claim that Bristol was "weird" as he so eloquently put it. Bristol is not "weird". Kindly explain to me in your own special way, sir, how a company that manufactured fighter planes for both World Wars was "weird". Kindly explain to me how a company whose automotive division was founded to produce luxurious, rapid, and attractive grand touring cars, using in-house components was "weird". Explain to me sir, if you are capable, how a car company that has achieved multiple victories in European rallies and has even competed at Le Mans was "weird". Despite the idiocy of this alleged writer's first line, he has somehow managed to top even himself: "What we don't know is pretty much everything else about the company." Strange then, that someone who professes ignorance to a topic has no qualms about writing about it at great length. Perhaps Mr. Ballaban is also in the employ of a certain Fox News Channel? The next line is quite ridiculous. The alleged author claims that Bristol "stuffed" Viper motors into "coupes with iffy construction quality". At this stage, I am convinced that jolly old Ballaban's research consisted of visiting Top Gear's website, which is only slightly less trustworthy than your own, and banging his drool-encrusted keyboard until the word "Bristol" appeared in the search bar. It is now that his utter lunacy and complete lack of mental faculties becomes apparent. He has the sheer gall to compare a company that manufactured hand-made automobiles to aerospace tolerances, and made extensive use of aerospace-grade parts, to a fly-by-night company that has made itself famous by re-packaging Chinese cell phones. It truly saddens me to realize that I inhabit the same planet as a person such as this. I am gladdened by the fact that he is mortal, and thus the world need only be exposed to his drivel for a short time.
I will not address the legal issues between Bristol and a certain Mr. Olins, as they may or may not even be true, considering that the information originates from the Telegraph and has been relayed by a soon-to-be-defunct blog operated by Gawker. I will, however, address my sheer disappointment that uneducated fools such as Mr. Ballaban continue to contaminate the internet with their spewings about what is arguably the most underrated car company to date. Rest assured, sirs, that I shall not be honoring your blog with my presence in future, and I shall tell everyone I know that your site advocates the clubbing of baby seals, so as to decrease your traffic even further.
Good day to you all,
XXXX XXXXXX
In my defense, the drooling is a dental issue.
Photo via Shutterstock