brianbaylis@juno.com wrote:
>Phil,
>
>Welcome to the list! Stick around and you'll see what I'm like. Generally I'm VERY diplomatic, respect EVERYONE'S opinion, tolerant of most things; but on this issue I have a hard time believing someone has a sincere interest in vintage bikes when they treat them as a slab of meat.
>
>
Well, your original statment left little room for...err, compromise. I'm
not saying my opinion is different (I wouldn't dare now), but if it
were, do you really wish not to know me? Or even hear my thoughts?
Seems to me that anyone who has an interest in preseving a 40-year-old
bike/frame/ in any form/ is at least one step ahead of the guy who would
throw it on the junk heap to rust and replace it with a plastic frame
with a seat tube resembling a tree trunk, no?
I owned a '67 MGB when it was new. I didn't leave it stock. Did this mean I have no sincere interest in British roadsters of the '60s? Or another view: I build vacuum tube amplifiers using the radio receiving triodes of the '20s - beautiful globes that are becoming /unobtanium/. But I build them into modern, music reproducing designs. Am I showing a lack of sincere interest in these devices because I don't build replicas of Atwater-Kent receivers? Does this make me a heretic? (Have you ever heard what a 45 triode does for Lester Young's tenor sax tone?)
Seems like there has to be some room here. Although I definitely know where not to go with you now. ;-)
Phil Sieg
Knoxville, Tennessee