Dale,
Don't view this as a personal attack but I disagree strongly with you on this subject.
I think you're on dodgy ground ethically and possibly legally with your/Jan's decision to go public with a private email, regardless of its contents.
Private emails should remain private unless failure to disclose them results in some criminal activity. I'm no lawyer (could have been if I hadn't got fed up at university!) but you have effectively broadcast private correspondence. The US seems to be far more litagatious than the UK but I'm not so sure that your decision wouldn't be actionable even over here. Maybe some solicitors on the list can help (to explain the situation, not sue you!). I'm sure you don't want to have Ken winning your Flying Scot in a damages claim!
Aside from the legal question, I don't agree with the "outing" of private correspondence anyway. For God's sake, we're all supposed to be adults on this list and surely we can settle our differences off-list without having to go running to the list master! I've just explained this latest spat to my 72-year-old mother and she said, "For goodness sake, you're all so childish!"
For what it's worth, I read Jan's Carminargent post and took it exactly the same way that Ken did although I obviously didn't have the same personal interest in it. Ken decided, as is his way, to challenge the post in a "colourful" fashion off list as he is no longer a member. Had I been Ken, I wouldn't have dignified it with a response. It was a cheap shot and tantamount to trolling as I've no doubt Jan would have known that Ken would have read it. It was also completely unnecessary. Ken wasn't mentioned by name but a retarded amoeba who keeps up to date with the CR posts and is aware of the "difference of opinion" between the two antagonists could have identified the object of Jan's comment readily enough.
I also fail to see how publishing Ken's post "advances our knowledge of lightweight cycles" as Jan hilariously claims. Maybe that was a joke-or another troll? In fact, I can't even see the point of publishing Ken's post. What wisdom is it supposed to impart, that Ken swears? As John Gielgud said, "I'll alert the media".
As for your statement that some people are reading the archives-so what? They are open to the public. If someone reads a public document which mentions him by name or implication, he's entitled to challenge the author. As for "stealth membership", with the archives now being readily accessible, I can't think what's to be gained from this.
As far as I can see, the only "behind the curtain back-biter" here is Jan. Ken responded up front, Jan, apparently, told tails. Come on Jan-learn to fight your own battles.
In fact let's really advance our knowledge of lightweight cycles a bit further. Jan doesn't seem to think Carminargents are as rare as Ken does. I don't have a clue. There are almost 1000 list members who probably know thousands more collectors. If everyone who has a Carminargent or knows of someone with a Carminargent posts this information (with owners' names so there is no duplication), we can quickly build up a fairly accurate picture of this model's rarity or otherwise-at least in comparison with other marques. Instead of just arguing, we'd then have a concrete bit of information to add to the knowledge bank.
Bruce "yes, I did have too much time on my hands today" Robbins Dundee Scotland
From: Jan Heine <heine@mindspring.com> Listers,
I received the following message upon posting that Caminargents may not be quite so rare. I posted the original statement as a disclaimer when offering to broker the sale of a Caminargent frame...
After consulting with the listmaster, I believe that in the interest of advancing our knowledge of classic lightweight bicycles, this new evidence should be shared with the list.
Jan Heine, Seattle
>Status: U
>Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:59:16 -0800 (PST)
>From: kenneth denny <kendenny55@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Your CR Comments
>To: heine@mindspring.com
>
> >>You have no idea what you are talking about. My advice for you is
>to simply know when to shut the fuck up!!
>
>
>
>Kenneth E. Denny
>70 River Street
>Boston, MA 02108
>kendenny55@yahoo.com
>617-523-1173 H
>617-620-2011 M
From: OROBOYZ@aol.com
I must comment here.................
It has been apparent to me for some time that a few folks are "stealth" members of the CR list or read the Archives daily, and then frequently these peripheral members "let loose" in antagonistic private e-mails to those posts they read from forthright, contributing members. This forwarded message I just read is just the tip of the iceberg in a flow of similar anti-social messages.
It was in exactly such a situation a few years ago that I received a lot of criticism from some list members when I embarked on a rarely exercised disciplinary action and booted a CR member. The circumstances were that a female CR member had received an absolutely obscene, vitriolic and threatening e-mail from another CR member, off list but in response to what the sender perceived as an on-list zinger! I was criticized by some because this message was "private e-mail" and I was being a despot and "Hitler-like" because I took deep offense and appropriate action...
So.... Let me say here as clearly as I can, that I consider ANY attack on a member of this group, as a result of their participation in the forum, as a direct attack on the whole; whether it be on list, off list, in person or in e-mail.
I have little power to distance myself or my friends (That's ya'll!) from these attackers except through this list, controlling the access to it and being able to make pointed condemnation on list. I will use those methods when it becomes necessary! Hopefully that will not be necessary and the idea of being exposed to nearly a thousand vintage bike buffs, world wide, will inhibit the behind-the-curtains back-biters!
Whew! Let's get back to the fun part, eh?
Dale