John, I found this from an earlier post I made and thought I would share and hope you read the humor:
"I wrote a response last night then deleted it as I didn't want to step on toes, but I know it is only in jest, but there are members out there who take it seriously and some of the responses posted are not related to the OP question. As with any thread, one does not know the path the thread takes. If we did know, we wouldn't be working nor here on this forum, maybe.
I wrote:
Sixty-seven's are a good attempt and a good learning platform - a doable year.
Sixty-eight's are perfect design, GM got it correct. Look at the body at any angle and compared to a female body nice shape - the rear quarters are nice well-rounded hips, a slim waist line, and powerful upper body - any one of James Bond women, Pussy Galore comes to mind, Ann Margaret, Raquel Welch - exquisitely shaped for the time period of design.
Sixty-nine's with the gills looks like cellulite along with the flat wheel opening looking like extra weight.
And as far as the new design, Fifth Generation, GM chose the sixty-nine year because they knew there was no improvement by choosing the sixty-eight, the perfect year.......................LMAO.
So, as you read, I deleted it, the better decision of the two.
Thank you for listening/reading, I'm done. I need therapy........my hands are on the desk if you decide to use the ruler.............."