The growing success of AMG
05-28-2003, 06:53 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
The growing success of AMG
05-28-2003, 10:36 PM
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
"Turbo" V-8
Yeah, the article was fine except for the oversight there.
Perhaps that's what happens when Autoweek allows female contributing writers who are not familiar with the terms.
After all, being that she did write this:
"AMG buyers are totally familiar with Mercedes-Benz and cars - they don't want ads from us," Allen says. "They want to know why the supercharged AMG has better acceleration than a biturbo or V-12 car and why we limit their speed to 155 mph."
Perhaps the "supercharged" labeling did not register via her complacency and indifference to effectively proofread (which is one word, by the way ) her own article. She probably has a pretty face and has got by in spite of her knowledge gap, not because of it. Either this, or she simply made an uncommon silly error. 
Maybe she has a passion for turbos.
Nevertheless, I emailed Dutch Mandel with the notation. The editors are responsible for proofreading their outgoing items, as you indicate.
Besides the slip up, I liked the article.
Christopher
Perhaps that's what happens when Autoweek allows female contributing writers who are not familiar with the terms.
After all, being that she did write this:
"AMG buyers are totally familiar with Mercedes-Benz and cars - they don't want ads from us," Allen says. "They want to know why the supercharged AMG has better acceleration than a biturbo or V-12 car and why we limit their speed to 155 mph."
Perhaps the "supercharged" labeling did not register via her complacency and indifference to effectively proofread (which is one word, by the way
) her own article. She probably has a pretty face and has got by in spite of her knowledge gap, not because of it. Either this, or she simply made an uncommon silly error. Maybe she has a passion for turbos.Nevertheless, I emailed Dutch Mandel with the notation. The editors are responsible for proofreading their outgoing items, as you indicate.
Besides the slip up, I liked the article.
Christopher
05-29-2003, 03:51 PM
#5
Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Germany
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porsche 997 Turbo
May I ask what is wrong with that article? I don't understand, can't see anything where the writer claims that AMG cars are turbo charged.
Oops, there is indeed something wrong in this article:
AMG Boss's name is not Brunke, it is Bruhnke.
Oops, there is indeed something wrong in this article:
AMG Boss's name is not Brunke, it is Bruhnke.
Trending Topics
05-29-2003, 04:50 PM
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Article
You two need to reread the article. Notice the picture caption.
Regarding the female thing, it was just a joke. (Notice the smiles.) AUTOWEEK took an article from a female writer of another source and did not edited said article, by their own admission.
I wrote an email to AUTOWEEK. They responded and we discussed this. See next posting.
Christopher
Regarding the female thing, it was just a joke. (Notice the smiles.) AUTOWEEK took an article from a female writer of another source and did not edited said article, by their own admission.
I wrote an email to AUTOWEEK. They responded and we discussed this. See next posting.
Christopher
05-29-2003, 04:56 PM
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
AUTOWEEK
Ah, I now see why you others don't see the error. Becuase they (AUTOWEEK) went in and fixed it!
My letter exchanges must have done the trick. Looks like they caught the AMG person's name, too.
Trust me, and the earlier posters; the article at one time indicated "turbo V-8" throughout.
Again, see my email exchanges with them, upcoming.
Christopher
My letter exchanges must have done the trick. Looks like they caught the AMG person's name, too.
Trust me, and the earlier posters; the article at one time indicated "turbo V-8" throughout.
Again, see my email exchanges with them, upcoming.
Christopher
05-29-2003, 05:10 PM
#10
Senior Member
Thread Starter
AUTOWEEK email discussion
AUTOWEEK (Perhaps Auto'Weak') responses:
I was shocked and disappointed to say the least.
First, my letter to them:
Hey Dutch (Mandel - Editor & Associate Publisher),
Can you help your contributing editor with some clarification, as well as help maintain the accuracy of us Autoweek purists a little here? Are you aware of a recent turbocharged Mercedes whatsoever, much less the famed new E-Class AMG? Please. The name Kompressor (supercharged) is becoming almost synonymous with Mercedes-Benz. Could you use a part-time proofreader?
I had posted this on a well-known MB web forum, only to have this pointed out to me. I had labeled it a “great article.” My beloved Autoweek has blackened my eye a little here. We’ll look for the correction in the TV segment.
AUTOWEEK: (And don’t dare leave out the uppercase LETTERS!)
“If you can spell AutoWeek correctly, I'll try to make sure my people know about the supercharger.”
Thanks, Dutch
My response:
And not until, right? So, your standards follow mine? I'm flattered. And, it isn't about a gap of knowledge; it’s about letting the article go out this way. No one presumes you don’t know better, of course.
My, my, Dutch, testy aren't we? I'll keep this in mind. I'll also post your response (along with Bob's) in the heavily saturated MB forums that brought the corrected item to me, in that they may gauge your demeanor for themselves.
What a disappointment from a source I (and many of my customers, associates, and fellow car club members) have supported for years (through several of my offices). You put this out of proportion and your reactions are akin to a badly under-slept grump. Perhaps you perceived the same from me? (I used smiles throughout!)
Thanks anyway. I actually thought you might care, not reduce yourself to trivialities. Missing capital letters is hardly the same as placing turbo instead of supercharged. How ridiculous. (“And wait, there’s more.” Yes, there certainly was, sadly.)
AUTOWEEK: (Bob Gritzinger - Senior Editor)
“To which I would add, the "turbo" reference was a Diana Kurylko/Automotive News story picked up on our web site only (the use of "LLC" after Mercedes-Benz USA was my first clue).
“Our most recent print mention included this from our Feb. 17, 2003 Chicago Auto Show story: "At the opposite extreme, Mercedes-Benz is showing its fastest production sedan ever, the E55 AMG that made its worldwide debut last fall at the Paris show. The E-Class flagship receives a supercharged 5.5-liter V8 engine that makes 469 hp and 516 lb-ft of torque, good for 0 to 62 mph in just 4.7 seconds, Mercedes says. Buy it starting in April or May, for about $75,000."
My response:
Bob, it is not about what one perceives is a knowledge gap on your collective part. No one believes that AutoWeek does not know the difference. Rather, it has to do with your monitoring of outgoing content. Who you get your stories from then, is most irrelevant. (And website is one word, since you’re reducing yourselves to trivialities.)
AUTOWEEK: (Bob)
“I would suggest that if Christopher so loves his Autoweek (sic), perhaps he ought to check his sources a little more carefully--or maybe buy a subscription--before dashing off emails and suggesting we need a part-time proofreader.”
My response:
The incorrect sources applied here are yours! Should oversights in literary content go excused in nationally (and internationally) circulated media sources simply because previous articles indicated things differently? That’s absurd. You guys getting worked up over my omission of uppercase characters, while looking to dismiss a greater item in turbo versus supercharger is rather sad and disappointing. “Dashing off emails”? I was merely trying to help. After all, when I posted an article I labeled “great” on these MB forums, I took it on the chin for your oversight!
What proofreaders do, Bob, is monitor outgoing content for clarity and accuracy, not rely on earlier “mentioning” to offset said accuracy. Preposterous. And, for your astute information, I have many subscriptions, with several of my businesses throughout the country that have been receiving your publication for years. Just because you don’t see my name specifically, need not indicate that there are no subscriptions. I guess this stands to reason though, that you would jump to such conclusions. Just look at how you processed the other information…
AUTOWEEK:
“that is all”
Yes, “that is all.” (Capital letter omitted to “that,” aside. Since we’re mincing words here.)
I will factor this into my continued subscriptions nationwide and furthermore, forward your comments to these forums for their own assessments. What a learning experience this was from the organization I once so respected.
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“Not out of proportion, not in the least. We just want you to understand from where the information comes; this was picked up from a sister publication by a writer whose stuff we didn't edit.”
My response:
So you don't monitor outgoing content with your own labeling? Besides, missing uppercase letters versus an inaccurate intake device (especially for MB) and calling in question my loyalty to your magazine and challenging my subscription status is most assured blowing the matter out of proportion. Your reaction in no way fit the application.
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“And the presumption on your part, that we don't know the difference between supercharging and turbocharging did rankle us. Rightly so.”
My response:
There was NEVER such an assumption. This is of your own misperception. The matter of proofreading (as stated), which by definition means to evaluate and check for accuracy, not educate, illustrates this. Besides, “rankle” you? Surely you have been through much worse from far less customers. You rankle far too easy, then.
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“But thanks for keeping us in the loop. And in your thoughts.”
My response:
“In the loop?” If that’s how you would have perceived this in the first place, there would not have been an issue. Now, the “loop” includes the aforementioned saturated forums, you see. Still hurt over your reactions. I’m going to have my accountant reproduce the statements of my expenditures for AutoWeek over the last five to seven years. This ought to give me some real perspective.
AUTOWEEK: (Bob)
“No intention to offend--just making sure we aren't blamed for stuff we didn't compose. That'd be akin to you being blamed for posting something that was inaccurate as though it was your own. Oh wait, that sort of happened... Anyway, no offense intended.”
My response:
Indeed, yes, you’re right about that. I should have “proofread” your article and made a disclaimer before posting it. If this somehow equates to the same as allowing oversights to circulate from my own magazine, well, I am not quite in-tune with you. Trust me, the forums will see your responses, though.
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“Okay, okay. Enough. Uncle. Way too much criticism all the way around; way too much time spent on this subject.”
My response:
I posted you for a harmless correction. You admittedly got "rankled."
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“As for monitoring information on our website, that comes from a sister pub. We don't have the manpower (one web editor and one intern) to oversee all the technical correctness of each story that gets posted. That's it.”
My response:
You’re good, Dutch. This almost cuts it. (I wish I could escape responsibility so easily. “No wait,” I have no real interest in that, actually.)
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“As for our name, that has always (I would put "always" in caps for emphasis, but don't want to shout) been a point of contention for us; way too many people misspell the name and, in so doing, confuses us with Automobile.”
My response:
Trust me; I will never omit the full uppercase spelling of your name. I know you have a soft spot there.
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“To spend this much time on what was obviously a point of contention for you in the MB world ("taking it on the chin") and for us to be flip about it is not getting us anywhere. If it caused you difficulty, our apologies.”
My response:
“Difficulties”? No, just a desire for clarification. You have made this far more exaggerated than it need be. I am an AUTOWEEK enthusiast.
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“Bottom line: understand that we know the difference between turbocharging and kompressing.”
My response:
Yeah, this just in… I have clarified this several times:
No one thinks this is a gap in your knowledge! Again, it’s about clarity, accuracy, and responsibility, Dutch. (You need to switch vitamin lines, my friend.)
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“Best to you and the MB clan.”
My response:
“Clan?” Okay, I’ll give them your best.
Thanks for your responses, although far from what we would expect.
You see, despite the long measure this turned into, it stated out as harmless pointing out of a silly error. I am sorry and quite disappointed that the reactions carried on the way they did. Perhaps more to do about ruffled egos than anything else.
NOTE: If AUTOWEEK responds further, I'll post as much.
Thanks for your time.
Christopher
I was shocked and disappointed to say the least.
First, my letter to them:
Hey Dutch (Mandel - Editor & Associate Publisher),
Can you help your contributing editor with some clarification, as well as help maintain the accuracy of us Autoweek purists a little here? Are you aware of a recent turbocharged Mercedes whatsoever, much less the famed new E-Class AMG? Please. The name Kompressor (supercharged) is becoming almost synonymous with Mercedes-Benz. Could you use a part-time proofreader?
I had posted this on a well-known MB web forum, only to have this pointed out to me. I had labeled it a “great article.” My beloved Autoweek has blackened my eye a little here. We’ll look for the correction in the TV segment.
AUTOWEEK: (And don’t dare leave out the uppercase LETTERS!)
“If you can spell AutoWeek correctly, I'll try to make sure my people know about the supercharger.”
Thanks, Dutch
My response:
And not until, right? So, your standards follow mine? I'm flattered. And, it isn't about a gap of knowledge; it’s about letting the article go out this way. No one presumes you don’t know better, of course.
My, my, Dutch, testy aren't we? I'll keep this in mind. I'll also post your response (along with Bob's) in the heavily saturated MB forums that brought the corrected item to me, in that they may gauge your demeanor for themselves.
What a disappointment from a source I (and many of my customers, associates, and fellow car club members) have supported for years (through several of my offices). You put this out of proportion and your reactions are akin to a badly under-slept grump. Perhaps you perceived the same from me? (I used smiles throughout!)
Thanks anyway. I actually thought you might care, not reduce yourself to trivialities. Missing capital letters is hardly the same as placing turbo instead of supercharged. How ridiculous. (“And wait, there’s more.” Yes, there certainly was, sadly.)
AUTOWEEK: (Bob Gritzinger - Senior Editor)
“To which I would add, the "turbo" reference was a Diana Kurylko/Automotive News story picked up on our web site only (the use of "LLC" after Mercedes-Benz USA was my first clue).
“Our most recent print mention included this from our Feb. 17, 2003 Chicago Auto Show story: "At the opposite extreme, Mercedes-Benz is showing its fastest production sedan ever, the E55 AMG that made its worldwide debut last fall at the Paris show. The E-Class flagship receives a supercharged 5.5-liter V8 engine that makes 469 hp and 516 lb-ft of torque, good for 0 to 62 mph in just 4.7 seconds, Mercedes says. Buy it starting in April or May, for about $75,000."
My response:
Bob, it is not about what one perceives is a knowledge gap on your collective part. No one believes that AutoWeek does not know the difference. Rather, it has to do with your monitoring of outgoing content. Who you get your stories from then, is most irrelevant. (And website is one word, since you’re reducing yourselves to trivialities.)
AUTOWEEK: (Bob)
“I would suggest that if Christopher so loves his Autoweek (sic), perhaps he ought to check his sources a little more carefully--or maybe buy a subscription--before dashing off emails and suggesting we need a part-time proofreader.”
My response:
The incorrect sources applied here are yours! Should oversights in literary content go excused in nationally (and internationally) circulated media sources simply because previous articles indicated things differently? That’s absurd. You guys getting worked up over my omission of uppercase characters, while looking to dismiss a greater item in turbo versus supercharger is rather sad and disappointing. “Dashing off emails”? I was merely trying to help. After all, when I posted an article I labeled “great” on these MB forums, I took it on the chin for your oversight!
What proofreaders do, Bob, is monitor outgoing content for clarity and accuracy, not rely on earlier “mentioning” to offset said accuracy. Preposterous. And, for your astute information, I have many subscriptions, with several of my businesses throughout the country that have been receiving your publication for years. Just because you don’t see my name specifically, need not indicate that there are no subscriptions. I guess this stands to reason though, that you would jump to such conclusions. Just look at how you processed the other information…
AUTOWEEK:
“that is all”
Yes, “that is all.” (Capital letter omitted to “that,” aside. Since we’re mincing words here.)
I will factor this into my continued subscriptions nationwide and furthermore, forward your comments to these forums for their own assessments. What a learning experience this was from the organization I once so respected.
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“Not out of proportion, not in the least. We just want you to understand from where the information comes; this was picked up from a sister publication by a writer whose stuff we didn't edit.”
My response:
So you don't monitor outgoing content with your own labeling? Besides, missing uppercase letters versus an inaccurate intake device (especially for MB) and calling in question my loyalty to your magazine and challenging my subscription status is most assured blowing the matter out of proportion. Your reaction in no way fit the application.
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“And the presumption on your part, that we don't know the difference between supercharging and turbocharging did rankle us. Rightly so.”
My response:
There was NEVER such an assumption. This is of your own misperception. The matter of proofreading (as stated), which by definition means to evaluate and check for accuracy, not educate, illustrates this. Besides, “rankle” you? Surely you have been through much worse from far less customers. You rankle far too easy, then.
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“But thanks for keeping us in the loop. And in your thoughts.”
My response:
“In the loop?” If that’s how you would have perceived this in the first place, there would not have been an issue. Now, the “loop” includes the aforementioned saturated forums, you see. Still hurt over your reactions. I’m going to have my accountant reproduce the statements of my expenditures for AutoWeek over the last five to seven years. This ought to give me some real perspective.
AUTOWEEK: (Bob)
“No intention to offend--just making sure we aren't blamed for stuff we didn't compose. That'd be akin to you being blamed for posting something that was inaccurate as though it was your own. Oh wait, that sort of happened... Anyway, no offense intended.”
My response:
Indeed, yes, you’re right about that. I should have “proofread” your article and made a disclaimer before posting it. If this somehow equates to the same as allowing oversights to circulate from my own magazine, well, I am not quite in-tune with you. Trust me, the forums will see your responses, though.
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“Okay, okay. Enough. Uncle. Way too much criticism all the way around; way too much time spent on this subject.”
My response:
I posted you for a harmless correction. You admittedly got "rankled."
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“As for monitoring information on our website, that comes from a sister pub. We don't have the manpower (one web editor and one intern) to oversee all the technical correctness of each story that gets posted. That's it.”
My response:
You’re good, Dutch. This almost cuts it. (I wish I could escape responsibility so easily. “No wait,” I have no real interest in that, actually.)
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“As for our name, that has always (I would put "always" in caps for emphasis, but don't want to shout) been a point of contention for us; way too many people misspell the name and, in so doing, confuses us with Automobile.”
My response:
Trust me; I will never omit the full uppercase spelling of your name. I know you have a soft spot there.
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“To spend this much time on what was obviously a point of contention for you in the MB world ("taking it on the chin") and for us to be flip about it is not getting us anywhere. If it caused you difficulty, our apologies.”
My response:
“Difficulties”? No, just a desire for clarification. You have made this far more exaggerated than it need be. I am an AUTOWEEK enthusiast.
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“Bottom line: understand that we know the difference between turbocharging and kompressing.”
My response:
Yeah, this just in… I have clarified this several times:
No one thinks this is a gap in your knowledge! Again, it’s about clarity, accuracy, and responsibility, Dutch. (You need to switch vitamin lines, my friend.)
AUTOWEEK: (Dutch)
“Best to you and the MB clan.”
My response:
“Clan?” Okay, I’ll give them your best.
Thanks for your responses, although far from what we would expect.
You see, despite the long measure this turned into, it stated out as harmless pointing out of a silly error. I am sorry and quite disappointed that the reactions carried on the way they did. Perhaps more to do about ruffled egos than anything else.
NOTE: If AUTOWEEK responds further, I'll post as much.
Thanks for your time.
Christopher
05-29-2003, 05:20 PM
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Pbglas response
Re: Pbglas
Quite all right, my friend, and felllow "clan" member.
See exchanges with AUTOWEEK.
PS, All I was trying to do was help and get the correction made. I think I accomplished both, at expense of too pointed exchanges with my beloved AUTOWEEK magazine and TV show.
Christopher
Quite all right, my friend, and felllow "clan" member.
See exchanges with AUTOWEEK.
PS, All I was trying to do was help and get the correction made. I think I accomplished both, at expense of too pointed exchanges with my beloved AUTOWEEK magazine and TV show.
Christopher
