Re: [CR] pseudo-science and fitting the facts


Example: History

Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:55:33 +0100
From: M-gineering <info@m-gineering.nl>
Cc: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <664083.36106.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <664083.36106.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] pseudo-science and fitting the facts


nicbordeaux wrote:
> Bike collectors inevitably seek to preserve knowledge. But where the knowle
> dge is missing, by deduction based on partial data, heresay and religious f
> ervor (hearing voices, visions, that sort of stuff) we start getting a whol
> e load of fantasy disguised as a scientific basis, which is then built upon
> . Whether a particular bike can be attributed to a particular maker is a go
> odc case.The guys who have seen a lot of a maker's bikes will dismiss anyth
> ing which they haven't seen before as "Not from maker x" because of somethi
> ng a little atypical, or the bike doesn't fit the scheme of what a maker is
> known to have been doing at the time. Turn up with a unusual bike, and the
> experts can't fit it into their already completed jigsaw puzzle, therefore
> it must be bogus/relabelled. It's inevitable, but maybe we could bear this
> in mind ?
>
> Nick March, Agen 47000 Lot et Garonne, France=0A=0A=0A _______________

Indeed, I just finished a fake M-gineering, if there ever was one ;) SS & polished lugwork, revised shorelines, socket style dropouts, capped seatstays & true temper tubing can't be right for somebody who only builds fillet brazed touring rigs!

-- mvg

Marten Gerritsen
Kiel Windeweer
Netherlands