Re: [CR] Was: Robert's spoke brouhaha. now: Question for Dale...

(Example: Production Builders:Cinelli)

Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:14:43 -0700
From: <mrrabbit@mrrabbit.net>
To: FujiFish1@aol.com
References: <2e0c9.220ec471.39519421@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <2e0c9.220ec471.39519421@aol.com>
Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR] Was: Robert's spoke brouhaha. now: Question for Dale...


"it is precisely because you fail to use such palatable wording"

Did you read my post clearly? There have been several times where I have used such palatable wording:

As a matter of fact and literally:

"Off-Topic?"

and

"search.bikelist.org"

No color...no commentary...no description...not even another post....nothing to

interpret. Just those two suggestions...nothing more. On two separate occasions. Per Dale's request...i.e., to be a little more friendly and tone it

down.

On one, I immediately got an expletive email in private - literally right away.

Why? Because coming from simply another member - it's taken as a bone of contention by some no matter what.

But if it came from a senior member listed in the rules or as declared by Dale as an authority to be taken as a hint - folks will understand that it's not up for argument - it a hint. Adjust accordingly...

Dale is busy...often away for a day or so...

By doing this - you'll nip a lot of this in the bud up front.

Dale asked the question...what's your straight up answer?

=8-)

Robert Shackelford San Jose, CA USA

Quoting FujiFish1@aol.com:
> snip from Robert's post below:
> "I am merely making a suggestion. Dale is busy...and I of course being a
> less
> senior member with no authority achieve nothing but a flamewar - even at
> times
> when all I said was, "Off-Topic?" without any color or commentary. I
> really do
> think it would be nice to have 1-3 SENIOR members having the declared
> authority
> to simply say one of the following:
>
> 1. Off-topic?
> 2. Maybe another forum is better for this?
> 3. Please make use of various search engines beforehand including our own
> out
> of respect for the hardworking members and site owners...
>
> Coming from me - it's a point for contention. That's a fact."
>
> Robert,
> I intend to post no more publicly on the subject, in order to keep from
> offending others of more tenure, but in my opinion, it is precisely because
> you fail to use such palatable wording, that you elicit flame wars upon
> yourself. There's a saying that if you meet too many ***holes in one day,
> that
> you'd better take a look in the mirror to see who it really is. By this,
> I do not intend to call you a bad name, but E-lists are difficult to attach
>
> a smiling face to, when tone of voice cannot be heard. Indeed, Dale has
> written of this time and again, and YOU SHOULD HAVE FOUND IT IN THE
> ARCHIVES, if not on Bikeforums, etc. Temper your temper with a good dose of
> modest
> control, and your "yet another aggravating violation" posts will be much
> easier received by the bulk of us, even if they are OFF-TOPIC ... as Dale or
>
> whomever he enlists to do the after-monitoring are the only ones who should
> be sending such on-list replies. Kind regards.
>
> Ciao,
> Mark Agree
> Southfield, Michigan, USA
> ~ ~ ~
>
>
> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:54:48 -0700
> From: mrrabbit@mrrabbit.net
> Subject: Re: [CR] Was: Robert's spoke brouhaha. now: Question for
> Dale...
> To: "Dr. Paul B. Williams" _castell5@sympatico.ca_
> (mailto:castell5@sympatico.ca)
>
> Hi guys!
>
>
> The question Dale finished with per my request was:
>
> "But taking your question to heart, I do not at all reject the idea of
> Bob
> or Jerry helping in that way. Both I consider excellent fellow and good
> friends. What say you, fellows?"
>
> So far in this new updated thread - 4 responses I've seen...no one has
> answered. Instead the old version has been brought back to life...in
> other
> words for this thread we are...
>
> ...oops...can't say that...else Dale will be inclined to say, "Help me out
> here
>
> Bob, stay still..." as he preceeds to grab a golf club. And that's a
> pretty
> big club figuratively speaking...=8-)
>
>
> Folks, I am not telling Dale and Co. how to run this server and list.
> However,
>
> we do get serious spats here and there where off-topic occurs or when
> someone
> asks a question for which the answer is right there at the tip of their
> nose -
> via search.bikelist.org no less.
>
> I am merely making a suggestion. Dale is busy...and I of course being a
> less
> senior member with no authority achieve nothing but a flamewar - even at
> times
> when all I said was, "Off-Topic?" without any color or commentary. I
> really do
>
> think it would be nice to have 1-3 SENIOR members having the declared
> authority
>
> to simply say one of the following:
>
> 1. Off-topic?
> 2. Maybe another forum is better for this?
> 3. Please make use of various search engines beforehand including our own
> out
> of respect for the hardworking members and site owners...
>
> Coming from me - it's a point for contention. That's a fact.
>
> Coming from a senior member who everyone knows has been giving that
> authority -
>
> it's a hint. Either get on-topic as Don Guilles expertly often does
> (thank you
>
> Don) or take the bandwidth and clutter to a more general forum.
>
> The last is more serious in my honest opinion. When you blow right by
> search.bikelist.org - whether intentionally or unintentionally - you are
> showing some disrespect for the site maintainers who provided that tool
> for
> you - and those who after awhile get tired of answering the most simple
> questions over and over while knowing the search tool is right there to
> begin
> with.
>
> Alot of the points I make are actually suggested or even noted in Dale's
> CR
> rules.
>
> As to Jerome and Bob, their names were suggestions - though I wouldn't
> mind
> nominating them with their okay. They are senior members...one knows one
> heck
> of alot. Don Guilles is another as he is very skilled at flipping threads
> from
>
> off-topic to on-topic.
>
> =8-)
>
> Robert Shackelford
> San Jose, CA USA
>
>
>
> --
> PRIVACY WARNING: For auditing purposes, a copy of this message has been
> saved in a permanent database.

--
PRIVACY WARNING: For auditing purposes, a copy of this message has been
saved in a permanent database.