Very interesting Mike. So why then isn't Dale posting? It would be nice to have some clarification on whether the penalty for these violations is going to be enforced or not.
Chuck Schmidt South Pasadena in California America
On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:49 PM, mdschmidt56@verizon.net wrote:
> Dale has a BlackBerry and is watching.
>
> Mike Schmidt
> Gaiole in Chianti
> Italia
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "The Maaslands" <TheMaaslands@comcast.net>
>
> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:29
> To:"CR" <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Cc:Dale Brown <OROBOYZ@aol.com>
> Subject: [CR]John Thompson and Jerrry Moos are called to the
> principal's office
>
>
> If you open the following link:
>
> http://search.bikelist.org/
> 10709.
> 0637.eml
>
> You can read Dale's very precise desire to limit the number of
> posts of
> any CR listmember to 3 per 24 hour period. It is also very clear
> that as
> of September 13th, anybody violating this rule would face a one week
> suspension.
>
> Given that in the last 24 hours, Jerry has now posted 5 times, and
> John
> 4 times, it would appear that they are the first people to infringe
> this
> rule. Given that Dale is away and not necessarily able to impose his
> selected 'punishment', and that both or very correct and gentlemanly
> fellows, it would only seem fair to me that the two that are in
> infraction self-suspend themselves for the week. This is also
> perhaps a
> good time for all of the rest of us to remember that multiple
> topics can
> be combined into one post and all posts should be weighty.
>
> Steven Maasland
> Moorestown, NJ
> USA
>
> PS: If John or Jerry has some important information that needs to be
> shared to the complete CR-list during their self-imposed period of
> suspension, please feel free to send me the information and I will
> do my
> best to convey it onwards, as it is my understanding that Dale's
> suspension rule is not intended to prevent the expression of
> information
> or ideas, but rather to simply teach a degree of self-restraint. It
> would indeed be a pity to lose some important information due to this
> rule.