Re: [CR]Enough on parting out/privacy counts

(Example: Books:Ron Kitching)

From: "Brian Baylis" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]Enough on parting out/privacy counts
References: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:35:38 -0700


I stepped in this mess by accident; and I feel bad as well. Not knowing the nature of the "internal" discussions that had taken place I responded with a strong opinion, but I also believe it to be of UTMOST importance to not make judgements about other people's choices, regardless of one's own opinions. Many of my friends have different or opposing viewpoints on controversial topics and concepts. It is a difficult thing to control emotions and temper ones' opinions when exposed to these things. I sincerely hope the parties involved will be able to work things out and that all of us can learn a little something from this turn of events.

Once a topic is in open forum there is no controlling the outcome. I think extreme care should be taken to respect the privacy of others and respect their position relative to "sensitive" issues. My opinion is that the owner of any item in question should have the right to determine what is private and what is public, and no one else. Along those lines then, the owner should make it absolutely clear that the conversations are confidential. The risk of not making this perfectly clear are showing themselves at this time. Let us all take care to be clear on these subjects so that we can all remain friends.

As Brian Blum suggests, parting out of bikes will continue but my feeling, as I said before, is that what to do depends on the bike in question and the condition it's in when found. A well used bike with a history (and I mean something famous or monumental) should always stay intact in my view. The "more significant" bikes should probably be given more consideration as compared to bikes of lesser quality that were made in huge numbers. At this point in time pretty much any bike that is virtually new and 20 to 25 years plus old is significant because not only is that rare in itself, but as a piece of referance material it is of value to others who are seeking historical information about the details of that particular machine. The thousands of other old bikes with a part or two or more of value can be used to make more complete bikes whole again without any guilt. Our "standards" of which bike(s) are in which catagory will vary somewhat based on the owner and their situation. Hopefully no one will have to break up a bike of importance to feed their family. If I was rich, I'd step up to the plate for every one of them, but alas, I'm probably as from from able to do that as anyone on the list.

Again, I hope this thing works out well in the end. I want all of my friends to be happy and love one another. Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But I will do my part to avoid these misunderstandings in the future.

Brian (the hippy dippy love doctor) Baylis La Mesa, CA

> I want to apologize for putting part of a private email to the list. I've had
> sort of a bad week and not enough sleep but that's not an excuse. It looked
> like the topic had been broached, but I exercised bad judgment in how I
> responded. Private posts/responses should stay that way. My mistake and I
> feel like dirt.
> Stevan Thomas
> Alameda, CA