Re: [CR]Somebody...anybody, stop this guy!

(Example: Framebuilding)

In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 06:27:41 -0800
From: "joel metz (ifbma/sfbma)" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]Somebody...anybody, stop this guy!

i always marvel that everyone on this list seemingly is willing to assume the worst case scenario - that since theres a set of used dropouts sawn out of a frame, the conclusion everyone jumps to is that the seller cut them from something significant, and is guilty of some great travesty, of a blasphemy against all bicycle history.

sure, a few have mentioned the possibility that they may have come from a damaged frame - but that always seems to come as an afterthought, and seems to come with the hope that the frame might have been saveable at least as a visual artifact. it never seems to occur that the frame might possibly have been completely mangled or something - old bike frames of all descriptions can be found locked up and smashed by the unknown hand of fate (otherwise known as the backing motorist) in cities all over the world. ive taken parts off of these bikes myself, and doubtless, were i provided with a hacksaw, would take frame bits as well, were the frame unsaveable.

as well i will concede that the separation of parts and frame bits from perfectly good bits can indeed be a tragedy - much as it is in the example given of sellers tearing pages from complete magazines to sell the advertising images - but this is by no means the exclusive domain of ebay, and we should not be so naive as to think that ebay is its cause, either.

sure, i am given to wonder, as with the rest of you, what became of the rest of the bike that those dropouts came from. but i am also aware that the sellers of the pieces in question are collectors of some repute, one of whom (speedbicycles), at least, is known to me as someone who i seriously doubt would cut dropouts from a useable or displayable frame.

what comes to a head in this for me is the continual tendency of the list to assume the worst, to act in a manner that gives the air that somehow its membership is superior in its ability as custodians of bicycle history - that *we* would never have done what we assume *they* have done, and that *they* are villians for having done it - with nothing beyond shoddy circumstantial evidence that a frame of any use or significance was destroyed.

perhaps im willing to give unknown persons more benefit of the doubt than most, but i would rather cautiously give that benefit than descend into assuming the worst of anything that raises my eyebrow.

just a bit of an appeal to step back from the lists seemingingly typical "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to this sort of thing. if this would be considered off-topic, my apologies, but i couldnt refrain any longer.


joel metz : :
bike messengers worldwide : ifbma :
san francisco ca | ...soon to be... |
portland or
i know what innocence looks like - and it wasn't there,
after she got that bicycle...