Re: [CR]Framebuilding blather

(Example: Production Builders:Frejus)

From: "Raoul Delmare" <Raoul.L.Delmare@worldnet.att.net>
To: "C.R. List" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <1066384399.brucerobbins@supanet.com> <002301c394bc$64559a40$dbddd8d1@baylis>
Subject: Re: [CR]Framebuilding blather
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:53:11 -0500


simply ,

I vote to keep the "keeper" clause ,

and I realize that we are not voting .

:^)

Happy Cycling ,
Raoul Delmare
Marysville Kansas


----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Baylis
To: brucerobbins@supanet.com
Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [CR]Framebuilding blather



>
> Bruce,
>
> I would go for that. The "keepers" are a very small group anyway. They
> really are off topic unless it was built before 1983. I was active beginning
> in 1974 as far as bikes with my brand or name on them. Almost none of the
> "Keepers" who were building frames at that time are still building frames
> now that completely embody the principals we seek to study on this list. I'm
> comfortable with eliminating the "Keeper" thing if everyone else feels the
> same.
>
> Brian Baylis
> La Mesa, CA
> Let me know what I need to do to aquire the "Wee Scot" for my collection.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <brucerobbins@supanet.com>
> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 2:53 AM
> Subject: [CR]Framebuilding blather
>
>
> >
> > We could circumvent all this discussion about framebuilding (isn't there a
> > list somewhere for this anyway) by restricting list topics to bikes built
> > before 1983 and doing away with the "keepers of the flame" clause that
> gives
> > rise to it all in the first place. Just a thought.
> >
> > Bruce
> > Dundee
> > Scotland
> >
> > --