Re: [CR]COMMENT: Remove From List, etc.

(Example: Production Builders:LeJeune)

Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 09:29:46 -0800
From: "Brian Baylis" <rocklube@adnc.com>
To: Richard M Sachs <richardsachs@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]COMMENT: Remove From List, etc.
References: <20030301.113940.-4001301.13.richardsachs@juno.com>
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

Richard,,

I'm not privvy to the email you are refering to as far as I know. The origin of it I might be able to guess within two or three persons, but whoever you are referring to is unknown to me. Like I said, each of us has a different relationship with Ken. Mine is most certainly different than theirs probably because my experiences have to do with both personal communications and doing business with Ken. I suspect the others have relationships that revolve around eBay to a large degree. My thoughts and feelings are all my own. They are independent from all others. Furthermore, I act EXACTLY the same way on list as off list. There is only one Brian Baylis; I do not split personalities dependant upon wheather I am public or private. That may be uncommon, but it's a fact. Obviously, I might write a few word in private that I hesitate to use onlist, but my personality and demeanor are always the same. So let's begin with that.

Whatever you recieved off list, if it wasn't a hurtful, vindictive, and distasteful fabrication of whatever the topic is, directed at you personally with malice intent; then whoever sent it to you hasn't sent you the sort of thing one might recieve from Ken when he's angry. That is not to say Ken does not send complimentery and informative emails to people. He does. As a matter of fact, I've gotten emails on the same day where the first one is calling me every name in the book for something that was completely rediculous; and then later recieve an email requesting some information or some other small talk as if we were the best of friends. I believe I have an explaination for how that can be.

After a period of time I finally figured out how to deal with Ken for myself. All I had to do was not react to the trash talk. Not easy considering the sorts of tactics he uses and the things he says. The trick is to not take it seriously, and above all, do not argue the points. It's useless as he drifts further from reality opon each exchange. If you get caught up in that there is no resolution. Until a few hours later, or a few days, or a few weeks; however long it is before the pleasant Ken comes calling.

I'm sorry I can't cop to whatever evil is taking place offlist. It's none of my business unless it involves me directly. Whatever is going on, all of you are STILL my friends. Not all of my friends see everything from the same perspective. More accurately, NONE of my friends sees life from the same point of view. I account for that. It is said, "you like you friends in spite of their faults". Some faults are more difficult to accept than others. For many, Kens' faults are very difficult to understand and get a grip on. I have accomplished it for myself. What everyone else does is their business and has nothing to do with which coast they reside on.

I'm done with this. I'm moving on to dancing with glee as I make arrangements to take possession of the early 70's 51cm Ron Cooper frame that was outed yesterday. I can already feel that baby between my legs! YAHOOOOOO!

Brian Baylis La Mesa, CA
>
> snipped:
> brian writes,
> 1) "But to whitewash Kens' offlist behavior and make people
> think that maybe Kens' detractors are fabricating or imagining what Ken
> has done to them and others is a little irresponsible in my opinion. He
> did send zingers to several persons onlist right from the first day"...
> cut..."I told them I had many of the same experiences and in fact I have
> a long list of my own that are not at all flattering to the way conducts
> himself
> offlist"...cut..."The bad side of his behavior can stay away. If the
> knowledge
> comes with abuse, we will have to do without."
> and
> 2) "You seek to invalidate me and others when you say he was railroaded
> out."
> *** *** *** ***
> i say,
> 1) who among us hasn't acted offlist list in a way that makes us beyond
> scrutiny? we're not all saints here, ya' know.
> 2) he was jobbed. if you want to say that my opinions about thursday
> serve to invalidate you, so be it. that was not my intent.
> and
> 3) and i suppose that the offlist mail (that was forwarded to me by
> a certain west guy...) regarding hypothetical "Las Vegas odds" was
> representative of the kind of behavior that <is> tolerated. i reckon
> you've seen the mail i'm referring to.
> yeah-i saved that mail. it is not flattering for the folks involved.
> its author, participants, and 'forwarders' are not a group of
> folks i'd like to party with.
> e-RICHIE
> chester, ct
>
> replyng to:
> Brian Baylis <rocklube@adnc.com> writes:
> .
> Richard,
>
> I appreciate your defence of Ken on the list. My point yesterday was
> along the lines of as long as Ken behaves and follows the rules that the
> rest of us do, there is no reason for him not to participate on the list
> as Ken Denny. But to whitewash Kens' offlist behavior and make people
> think that maybe Kens' detractors are fabricating or imagining what Ken
> has done to them and others is a little irresponsible in my opinion. He
> did send zingers to several persons onlist right from the first day.
>
> Each of us knows a slightly different person, based on our actual
> experiences with him and things that this small community with this
> interest observe about his dealings. Perhaps Ken treats you differently
> than he treats most others. Having talked to Ken and had email exchanges
> over a period of years; I suspect this is the case. I spent a fair amout
> of time yesterday responding to several persons who found my defence of
> Ken objectionable. I heard a few more "Ken stories" from people. I told
> them I had many of the same experiences and in fact I have a long list
> of my own that are not at all flattering to the way conducts himself
> offlist.
>
> As people, those of us who don't get their rind massaged by Ken have a
> more difficult time saying he is a good person. He is a good person. He
> is ALSO a person who does and says bad things that boggle the mind. So
> in all fairness, to invalidate all of us who know full well the part of
> Kens' behavior that is unacceptable; I have to say that Ken got what he
> deserved. I was hoping those of us who know how Ken well would cut him
> some extra slack and ignore the zingers long enough to see if this thing
> could settle in and work. Some may have been oversensitive too soon, but
> make no mistake, people are not making this stuff up. My position is
> that Kens' knowledge is welcome here. Many could benifit from it. The
> bad side of his behavior can stay away. If the knowledge comes with
> abuse, we will have to do without.
>
> Kens' reputation is due solely to his behavior and how he treats people.
> His use of fake names and his eBay antics are no secret to those who are
> affected by it. The reputation does not change by saying the bad part
> does not exist. Trust me Richard, it DOES. You seek to invalidate me and
> others when you say he was railroaded out. He's not here (as Ken Denny)
> right now NOT because anyone threw him off the list. He's being childish
> now, and if he doesn't want to come out and play it is now HIS choice.
> Ken is welcome to come play by the rules or sulk in a corner. Dale
> didn't give him a time out. If Ken's feelings are hurt, now you know
> what it feels like to some of these poeple, Ken.
>
> I like, and try to tolerate everyone. Ken included. But leave the
> baggage home. If anyone can't work with that, then lurk or bail out. All
> everyone is asking of Ken is keep a lid on it and don't go off on people
> offlist. For Ken, that is asking the world. Well, the rest of us do it.
>
> Brian Baylis
> La Mesa, CA
> I know what it's like when Ken lets it fly. I suspect Richie has not had
> the pleasure of this experience.