Thomas wrote:
<<At this point I would suggest that WE own this list >>
Thomas, perhaps you should make a substantial monetary donation to Dale for the CR for operations and editing costs before you can vaguely claim "WE own the list". While bikelist.org is a donated service that Dale is associated with, he has placed substantial time and effort bringing up his own server and website to further the ideals and discussion of vintage bikes on the CR.
This forum is the BEST for vintage discussions and we are permitted participation at Dale's behest. May I suggest that there is MUCH that goes on behind the scenes to make the CR possible that you and I are unaware. Your claim to owning the CR list ignores the Dale's time, sweat, and may I say tears that sometimes are associated with the CR.
Thomas, if you are dissatisfied with how the CR functions that you declare "WE own this list," I suggest that you have every right to start your own listserver. Prehaps then you will fully realize the personal and monetary effort needed to sustain a winning effort. Of course, you could always transfer to the BOB forum...
Regards, Steve Neago
> Dale et al,
> Ive been hesitant to remind anyone I said this a couple years ago
> but indeed I am the guy who once suggested Dale's ruling (on some
> issue at the time) felt a little like the kid with the baseball
> bat who didn t like the way the game was going...
>
> I was reminded of that this morning as I noticed my body reaction
> to Dales words "list owner". I thought - wow is that how my
> friend Dale thinks of himself? He OWNS this list? If I wanna play
> he "owns" some piece of me?
>
> Dale your started this list. That makes you an original and the
> originator. You also manage this list - an ongoing requirement.
> That this list and your website exists means I "owe" you - big
> time, but in these troubled times Im spending a lot of time
> thinking about what it means to be a citizen and the notions of
> freedom of speech loom large for me. The internet is unique and
> we're all learning what the rules of engagement are. But Id like
> to suggest that no one owns this list and once someone starts to
> think of it that way and control the thinking, writing and
> communicating that goes on surely it will die. As it should. And
> lately it feels like it is.
>
> At this point I would suggest that WE own this list and that
> without the ability to push and shove each other a little and to
> explore topics of interest we all will stop coming. 700 members -
> really? Where are they? I count 20 or 30 regulars. Ive been quiet
> lately because Ive been bored with the topics. I often like E
> Ritchies threads and I really appreciated the Steinway story. It
> was absolutely relevant to me and others and if you cant find the
> relevance thats OK to. If you havent seen Red Violin and/or if
> you didnt get it, then you wont get this. Hearing Brian go on
> about Falierio and Alberto and Mario is way cool to. I have been
> waiting for our British friends who wanted to revolt and secede
> last year to start their own website about British Marques to
> speak up. Tell me about Ephgrave, Gillot, Thanet etc etc.
> Really - bring it on. Or we can talk about how California
> Cabernet influences your thinking about bicycles. Hilary has
> twice in recent times chimed in with exquisite insights to the
> Hetchins threads yet mostly hes about EBay selling. Thats not
> interesting to me. I dont complain but I gather he is a treaure
> trove of history and info - where is it? What would it take?
>
> Ive tried on several occasions to get things going in another
> direction but my sense is the "regulars" werent interested or
> didnt get it and the other 680 people werent listening??? Of
> course maybe my idea was OT or dumb. So I sit back and listen.
>
> But I wonder if our rules arent just a little too tight.
>
> Tom Rawson
> in Oakland, CA
> sans Cabernet, Euphroag AND Latte - yikes!