Re: [CR]re: threats etc..

(Example: Bike Shops:R.E.W. Reynolds)

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:03:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <>
Subject: Re: [CR]re: threats etc..
To:, Charles Andrews <>
In-Reply-To: <1DC4F1ACE9F8439C9B235993867BB1B8@DELL>

So anyone is entitled to act in a frivilous and arbitrary manner against another member with no justification whatsoever?  I agree that legally one would be entitled to do just that, but it rather makes a joke of the rule of courtesy, don't you think.  Unless of course the rule means one must be curteous in posts to the list, but can treat fellow members in an outrageous manner offlist with impunity.   Maybe that's it.  I had hoped it meant a bit more.


Jerry Moos

Big Spring, Texas, USA

--- On Sat, 11/29/08, Charles Andrews wrote:
From: Charles Andrews
Subject: [CR]re: threats etc..
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:35:00 -0000

I didn't follow this entire clam-bake, but this did catch my eye:

Jerry Moos wrote, in part:

"Further, I think perhaps blocking other members should be made a violation of list rules, unless the blocker can demonstrate to Dale's satisfactio n that the blocked member has acted dishonestly toward the first member..."


sorry Jerry. Doesn't work that way. Any seller can block anyone they want for any reason. Just because a seller on this list solicits the entire list, doesn't mean *all* people on the list will be able to bid. That's just silly. Just because you happen to subscribe to this, or any, list, doesn't automatically qualify you to bid on something. That's an arbitrary connection that has no moral authority whatever.

Calling it like I see it, on an absolutely spectacular afternoon in coastal SoCal.

Charles Andrews Los Angeles

"Somebody has to be tireless... or the fast buck operators would asphalt the entire coast, fill every bay and slay every living thing incapable of carrying a wallet."

--John D. MacDonald