Ozark Bicycle-Did I do or say something to offend you?

[Mecha397]

On 23 Apr 2007 12:47:07 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> On Apr 23, 1:16 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mecha397 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 23 Apr 2007 05:31:12 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>>> > On Apr 22, 10:26 pm, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >> I sent this email to [email protected] back in December,
>>> >> never got a reply, but maybe that's not a good address?
>>
>>> >> Sorry to have to resort to a posting, but I'm really puzzled...
>>
>>> > Dear Sheldon,
>>
>>> > On May 19, 2006, Carl Fogel forwarded to me an unsolicited copy of an
>>> > email dialog between you and he. You and he were "discussing" (I'm
>>> > being kind here) another RBT regular who also was your customer. In
>>> > that email, you said of this person, among several less kind remarks
>>> > (exact quote):"I have taken to ignoring his emails".
>>
>>> > Seeing that was your attitude toward others, I decided to apply it to
>>> > you.
>>
>>> > I would have preferred not to go public like this, but you seem to
>>> > have wanted it this way.
>>
>>> > Cheers!
>>
>>> I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that bike dealers would communicate amoungst
>>> themselves about certain customers!
>>
>> I'm shocked, SHOCKED that bike dealers have poor opinions of some of
>> their customers!
>
> Bike dealers, plural? Only one "bike dealer" was involved in the email
> dialog between Sheldon Brown and Carl Fogel.
>

So it looks like Carl was trying to do you a favor, I don't see ill intent
on his part

Also, Sheldons entitled to his opinion on this 3rd person

So what's the issue? If your feelings were hurt by receiving carls email of
a discussion between him and sheldon, you could have emailed him back
indicating that you don't appreciate the advice, or the way it was
presented

Instead you bring it to the newsgroup...*sniff* *sniff* ...do I smell drama
queen?

 

[Sledge Hammer]

On Apr 23, 6:55 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Agreed. It's amazing how some people get their panties in a wad when
> someone (in this case, me) doesn't treat those people's Usenet deities
> with what those people see as due deference.
> What a hoot!

Looks like I won't get an answer....

You have fun.

 

[_]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:07:55 -0800, Mecha397 wrote:

> On 23 Apr 2007 12:47:07 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
>> On Apr 23, 1:16 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mecha397 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 23 Apr 2007 05:31:12 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>
>>>> > On Apr 22, 10:26 pm, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >> I sent this email to [email protected] back in December,
>>>> >> never got a reply, but maybe that's not a good address?
>>>
>>>> >> Sorry to have to resort to a posting, but I'm really puzzled...
>>>
>>>> > Dear Sheldon,
>>>
>>>> > On May 19, 2006, Carl Fogel forwarded to me an unsolicited copy of an
>>>> > email dialog between you and he. You and he were "discussing" (I'm
>>>> > being kind here) another RBT regular who also was your customer. In
>>>> > that email, you said of this person, among several less kind remarks
>>>> > (exact quote):"I have taken to ignoring his emails".
>>>
>>>> > Seeing that was your attitude toward others, I decided to apply it to
>>>> > you.
>>>
>>>> > I would have preferred not to go public like this, but you seem to
>>>> > have wanted it this way.
>>>
>>>> > Cheers!
>>>
>>>> I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that bike dealers would communicate amoungst
>>>> themselves about certain customers!
>>>
>>> I'm shocked, SHOCKED that bike dealers have poor opinions of some of
>>> their customers!
>>
>> Bike dealers, plural? Only one "bike dealer" was involved in the email
>> dialog between Sheldon Brown and Carl Fogel.
>>
>
> So it looks like Carl was trying to do you a favor, I don't see ill intent
> on his part
>
> Also, Sheldons entitled to his opinion on this 3rd person
>
> So what's the issue? If your feelings were hurt by receiving carls email of
> a discussion between him and sheldon, you could have emailed him back
> indicating that you don't appreciate the advice, or the way it was
> presented
>
> Instead you bring it to the newsgroup...*sniff* *sniff* ...do I smell drama
> queen?

A gentleman, on being read someone else's mail, would do his best to forget
that such had occurred.

 

[Mecha397]

On 23 Apr 2007 15:25:56 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> On Apr 23, 6:07 pm, Mecha397 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2007 12:47:07 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 23, 1:16 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>
>>>> Mecha397 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On 23 Apr 2007 05:31:12 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>>>>> > On Apr 22, 10:26 pm, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >> I sent this email to [email protected] back in December,
>>>>> >> never got a reply, but maybe that's not a good address?
>>
>>>>> >> Sorry to have to resort to a posting, but I'm really puzzled...
>>
>>>>> > Dear Sheldon,
>>
>>>>> > On May 19, 2006, Carl Fogel forwarded to me an unsolicited copy of an
>>>>> > email dialog between you and he. You and he were "discussing" (I'm
>>>>> > being kind here) another RBT regular who also was your customer. In
>>>>> > that email, you said of this person, among several less kind remarks
>>>>> > (exact quote):"I have taken to ignoring his emails".
>>
>>>>> > Seeing that was your attitude toward others, I decided to apply it to
>>>>> > you.
>>
>>>>> > I would have preferred not to go public like this, but you seem to
>>>>> > have wanted it this way.
>>
>>>>> > Cheers!
>>
>>>>> I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that bike dealers would communicate amoungst
>>>>> themselves about certain customers!
>>
>>>> I'm shocked, SHOCKED that bike dealers have poor opinions of some of
>>>> their customers!
>>
>>> Bike dealers, plural? Only one "bike dealer" was involved in the email
>>> dialog between Sheldon Brown and Carl Fogel.
>>
>> So it looks like Carl was trying to do you a favor, I don't see ill intent
>> on his part
>>
>> Also, Sheldons entitled to his opinion on this 3rd person
>>
>> So what's the issue? If your feelings were hurt by receiving carls email of
>> a discussion between him and sheldon, you could have emailed him back
>> indicating that you don't appreciate the advice, or the way it was
>> presented
>>
>> Instead you bring it to the newsgroup...*sniff* *sniff* ...do I smell drama
>> queen?
>
>
> Read my OP in this thread, hosebag. I merely told S Brown why I didn't
> reply to his December email (IOW, he was ignoring emails and I was
> returning the favor). No drama, just the facts.

Lamest *** for tat (sheldon is ignoring person x's email...although I'm not
person x, my feelings are so hurt, I'm going ignore sheldons email to
me...but I will reply to his newsgroup posts...uh yeah) I've heard in a
while, but whatever

Fact remains you're the one to bring this issue up to the newsgroup
initially, and you're just keeping it going...

 

[[email protected]]

> A gentleman, on being read someone else's mail, would do his best to forget
> that such had occurred.- Hide

this BS is all make believe meant in good humor but not going over as
good humor. At the heart of it is genuine wannabe butt licking through
whining about he did this and he did that and they said he said when
in reality nothing ever happened in the first place.
BIOL THE LANCE!
You have fun.
i will, thanks.

 

[G.T.]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Apr 23, 3:35 am, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What is it that I "envy", Greggy?

Pretty obvious that you envy people who get respect, something that you get
very little of because there's not much there to respect.

> Perhaps you have a desire to "be Sheldon", but I don't share that need.

No, actually I don't, his focus on cycling is much different than mine, but
I do respect him very much.

> OTOH, the good news for you:

> *You can get your own domain; I'm sure GregThomas.com or some
> variant can be secured for a nominal fee.

No, I checked long ago.

> *Then, you can post as "Capt.Bike/at/gregthomas.com". Or "LtCmdrBike",
> if you still feel the need to be deferential to your private Usenet
> deities.
>
> *You can buy a dictionary and thesaurus cheaply online; then you, too,
> can make clever wordplay at the end of your posts.

> *Here's the best part: if you do all that, I'll send you your own
> tacky little plastic eagle from a cheap flag set. You can ziptie it to
> your helmet, or just stick it on your head, whatever is easiest.

Wow, Tomlinson is right, you really do have a problem.

Greg

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 23, 3:35 am, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > What is it that I "envy", Greggy?
>
> Pretty obvious that you envy people who get respect, something that
> you get very little of because there's not much there to respect.
>
> > Perhaps you have a desire to "be Sheldon", but I don't share that
> > need.
>
> No, actually I don't, his focus on cycling is much different than
> mine, but I do respect him very much.
>
> > OTOH, the good news for you:
>
> > *You can get your own domain; I'm sure GregThomas.com or some
> > variant can be secured for a nominal fee.
>
> No, I checked long ago.
>
> > *Then, you can post as "Capt.Bike/at/gregthomas.com". Or
> > "LtCmdrBike", if you still feel the need to be deferential to your
> > private Usenet deities.
> >
> > *You can buy a dictionary and thesaurus cheaply online; then you,
> > too, can make clever wordplay at the end of your posts.
>
> > *Here's the best part: if you do all that, I'll send you your own
> > tacky little plastic eagle from a cheap flag set. You can ziptie it
> > to your helmet, or just stick it on your head, whatever is easiest.
>
> Wow, Tomlinson is right, you really do have a problem.

Really, this is not news. I'm a little surprised that Sheldon wasn't up
on it, but then he's had way more important things on his mind than
rec.bicycles.tech. The short answer is "Sheldon Ozark's a troll and
it's best to ignore him."

 

[Dennis P. Harris]

On 23 Apr 2007 05:31:12 -0700 in rec.bicycles.tech, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear Sheldon,
>
PLONK. and I hope everyone else killfiles you, too.

 

[Mecha397]

On 23 Apr 2007 16:57:57 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>> A gentleman, on being read someone else's mail, would do his best to forget
>> that such had occurred.- Hide
>
> this BS is all make believe meant in good humor but not going over as
> good humor. At the heart of it is genuine wannabe butt licking through
> whining about he did this and he did that and they said he said when
> in reality nothing ever happened in the first place.
> BIOL THE LANCE!
> You have fun.
> i will, thanks.

Absolutely

I dearly hope Ozark did take you as a customer!

Cheers

 

[[email protected]]

THE oZARKS?

 

[Bill Sornson]

Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 05:31:12 -0700 in rec.bicycles.tech, Ozark Bicycle
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Sheldon,
>>
> PLONK. and I hope everyone else killfiles you, too.

I am SO ahead of the curve on this.

Bill "puffed up" S.

 

[Kenny]

This thread is proof that riding too much past the benifical physical
threshold is detrimental to ones balanced emotional outlook. I suggest
that the combatants go swim a few easy laps in the pool, hop in the
sauna, get a massage and go hug your loved ones.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Mecha397 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 23 Apr 2007 05:31:12 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Apr 22, 10:26 pm, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> I sent this email to [email protected] back in December,
> >>>> never got a reply, but maybe that's not a good address?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry to have to resort to a posting, but I'm really puzzled...
> >>>
> >>> Dear Sheldon,
> >>>
> >>> On May 19, 2006, Carl Fogel forwarded to me an unsolicited copy of an
> >>> email dialog between you and he. You and he were "discussing" (I'm
> >>> being kind here) another RBT regular who also was your customer. In
> >>> that email, you said of this person, among several less kind remarks
> >>> (exact quote):"I have taken to ignoring his emails".
> >>>
> >>> Seeing that was your attitude toward others, I decided to apply it to
> >>> you.
> >>>
> >>> I would have preferred not to go public like this, but you seem to
> >>> have wanted it this way.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers!
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that bike dealers would communicate amoungst
> >> themselves about certain customers!
> >
> > I'm shocked, SHOCKED that bike dealers have poor opinions of some of
> > their customers!
>
> Especially one who clearly is way out there.
>
> Greg

This probably isn't the right place to admit that one local shop clerk
once told me that their joking name for me was "the shoplifter" for my
habit of dropping by for a purchaseless browse on a more-or-less weekly
basis. I thought that was funny.

But this is also a shop that has treated me very well, with which I have
an excellent relationship, and with which I have done steady business
over the years (I am too cheap to be a fat customer for any bike shop,
but I drop somewhere in the low hundreds of dollars into this shop's
till each year. The random browsing is partly habit (the shop is two
blocks from my house*) and partly because I like checking out their
fast-turning stock, since they specialize in consignment bikes.

I don't think it should surprise anyone with retail experience that
there are some customers who are a joy to deal with, some customers who
are a pain to deal with, and some customers who it is more profitable to
not deal with at all. A wise business will, possibly subtly, possibly
aggressively, attempt to move this last category of client out the door,
never to return.

Having been a customer in all three categories at various times and
shops, I think it's right and reasonable customer service.

*definition of a good neighbourhood? This isn't the closest bike shop to
my house.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 1:55 am, Kenny <[email protected]> wrote:
> This thread is proof that riding too much past the benifical physical
> threshold is detrimental to ones balanced emotional outlook. I suggest
> that the combatants go swim a few easy laps in the pool, hop in the
> sauna, get a massage and go hug your loved ones.

OH SURE, try searching for "THE OZARKS" in RBT's search bar

 

[jim beam]

Mecha397 wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 21:23:31 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> THE oZARKS?
>
> You must feel mighty proud that your incoherent babbling has lead to long
> standing hatred amoungst rbt contributors. Good job.

long standing hatred? of datakoll? you're way off base there dude.
he's by far the most original and funny person on this group.

 

[Bill Sornson]

jim beam wrote:
> Mecha397 wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2007 21:23:31 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> THE oZARKS?
>>
>> You must feel mighty proud that your incoherent babbling has lead to
>> long standing hatred amoungst rbt contributors. Good job.
>
> long standing hatred? of datakoll? you're way off base there dude.
> he's by far the most original and funny person on this group.

Perhaps he was referring to Ozark? No one hates datakoll!

 

[Mecha397]

On 23 Apr 2007 21:23:31 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> THE oZARKS?

You must feel mighty proud that your incoherent babbling has lead to long
standing hatred amoungst rbt contributors. Good job.

 

[A Muzi]

>>> On 23 Apr 2007 21:23:31 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> THE oZARKS?

>> Mecha397 wrote:
>>> You must feel mighty proud that your incoherent babbling has lead to long
>>> standing hatred amoungst rbt contributors. Good job.

> jim beam wrote:
>> long standing hatred? of datakoll? you're way off base there dude.
>> he's by far the most original and funny person on this group.

Mecha397 wrote:
> Not of him, I think "we" all like him, private email correspondence of a
> couple rbt regulars brought to the groups attention courtesy of Oz
> notwithstanding, but the fact is, datakoll's vicious hateful spewing has
> cleverly maneuvered a triangle of hatred amoungst sheldon, oz, and fogel,
> as well as dividing most of the rest of rbt, whom've been left to find
> comprehenshion out of the incomprehensible and somehow pick sides, in
> something that's incredibly inane to begin with

Gene's persona is sui generis.
Of all the people to pick on! - I cannot agree and enjoy what posts I
can comprehend. Maybe his humor is an acquired taste?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[waxbytes]

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

 

[jim beam]

Mecha397 wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:15:43 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> Mecha397 wrote:
>>> On 23 Apr 2007 21:23:31 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> THE oZARKS?
>>> You must feel mighty proud that your incoherent babbling has lead to long
>>> standing hatred amoungst rbt contributors. Good job.
>> long standing hatred? of datakoll? you're way off base there dude.
>> he's by far the most original and funny person on this group.
>
>
> Not of him, I think "we" all like him, private email correspondence of a
> couple rbt regulars brought to the groups attention courtesy of Oz
> notwithstanding, but the fact is, datakoll's vicious hateful spewing has
> cleverly maneuvered a triangle of hatred amoungst sheldon, oz, and fogel,
> as well as dividing most of the rest of rbt, whom've been left to find
> comprehenshion out of the incomprehensible and somehow pick sides, in
> something that's incredibly inane to begin with

i don't read a lot of threads on this group since so many are not tech.
but i picked up on your post by accident and was surprised by what i
read. hence the comment. and now i'm even more surprised to learn
there's spew and childishness on r.b.t. i'm shocked. shocked i tell you.

maybe y'all should take this drivel off to rec.bicycles,
rec.bicycles.soc or rec.bicycles.misc? 'cos i sure can't see much
rec.bicycles.tech relevance. not much rec.bicycles relevance either
quite frankly.