Re: [CR]Please Read: New emphasis on proper CR list message sign offs..

(Example: Production Builders:Frejus)

From: <hersefan@comcast.net>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR]Please Read: New emphasis on proper CR list message sign offs..
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:41:37 +0000


Folks may not be aware, but there is very good reason for identifying who-is-who on posts to the group. Over the years, there have been occurances on bicycle discussion groups of unsavory characters taking on identities in order to commit fraud.

Dale takes on the task which is quite thankless of making an attempt to keep the goings on here "clean". It is a pain for sure, and I'm sure not pleasant. I'm sure it would be much easier for Dale to ignore everything and simply let the list run its course. But the outcome I assure you would not be pleasant - or it will seem fine until something goes terribly wrong.

Think about it - how many times have you seen a fake ebay auction or been approached with a shaddy second chance offer - or a phising scam. Now how many posts on CR list have we seen that are scams? I can't remember one! Now Dale can't gurantee the safety of the list, but it is pretty amazing how clean it has been. So lets give Dale a big thank-you for doing the great job that he does!

Mike Kone in Boulder CO USA


-------------- Original message --------------
From: Charles Wahl

> At the risk of becoming, like the pope's bike, excommunicated: in the

\r?\n> immortal words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!"

\r?\n>

\r?\n> I guess it hasn't occurred to ListOberHauptmann that indolence

\r?\n> regarding the (many, petty) rules might be passive-aggressive chafing

\r?\n> at the bondage-and-discipline tenor of this list. Or that the time

\r?\n> invested maintaining that might be more productively spent doing

\r?\n> something else. Some things for the membership to consider: how

\r?\n> popular is this particular rule, and is it really necessary?

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Dale Brown carped, sanctimoniously:

\r?\n> > Well, I just wrote my 10 thousandth private message (possibly an

\r?\n> >exaggeration but it seems like that many) to a list member asking

\r?\n> >them to sign off on their message to this list serve.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> >It is only common courtesy in my judgment to tell people who you are

\r?\n> >when you write a message. The behavior of many of the Internet's

\r?\n> >participants makes it a most rude and obnoxious environment; people

\r?\n> >hiding behind pseudonyms in the most cowardly way.... or people just

\r?\n> >being grossly inconsiderate and self absorbed so as to not care

\r?\n> >whether their correspondents know who is addressing them.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> >I simply will not tolerate that behavior here in my "living room"

\r?\n> >filled with friends who share their fascination with vintage

\r?\n> >lightweight bicycles. And most of you agree that our standards are

\r?\n> >similar. And nowadays it is relatively easy to add an AUTOMATIC

\r?\n> >"signature" to all your emails containing the basic info about you

\r?\n> >and where you are from, etc.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> >Now, with yet another very nice non-USA member, I come to realize

\r?\n> >again how wonderful it is to have a "community" that knows no

\r?\n> >boundaries, indeed a worldwide fellowship here on the web. And

\r?\n> >therefore it is even more important to say where you are writing

\r?\n> >from, without lazy or casual abbreviations.? Let me quote from rule

\r?\n> >#1 here:

\r?\n> >" Please spell that info in a

\r?\n> > "straight up" way, using no abbreviations or short cuts so people can

\r?\n> > readily understand. We want our members to know where we are from; that

\r?\n> > will assist in creating a community, one in which we are communicating

\r?\n> > "real person to real person," so to speak. If you cannot do this, for

\r?\n> > whatever reason, please do not join."

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> >What to do about those of you who are lazy or inattentive or

\r?\n> >indifferent to oblige on this basic requirement?

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> >I am already spending tons of time writing individual, non-form

\r?\n> >messages asking those who do not sign off properly. There seems no

\r?\n> >end to it. So my latest idea is to just simply suspend those

\r?\n> >offending persons and require them to sign up again with an

\r?\n> >accompanying pledge to follow the rules.... The hassle to sign up

\r?\n> >again is not any more than my time cost to write these redundant

\r?\n> >warning messages; it seems only fair.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> >So, I will try that for a while and see how it goes.... (Sigh)

\r?\n>

\r?\n> --

\r?\n> Charles Wahl

\r?\n> NYC -- if anyone reading is unsure where that is, then just email me,

\r?\n> and I'll be happy to help you out