dnovo
12-24-2003, 01:05 PM
One issue that nobody seems willing to address is the 'why' of Gary's proposal that we close this existing forum and move to his new forums, other than it will be good for the new forums.
Yep, and it puts us at risk of closing permanently.
In the past, we had a distinct persona linked through the Serotta site, and there is simply no reason why a link cannot be had to the BFC. But that doesn't seem good enough for some reason that we still have not heard.
But now, when the initial salvo appears to have fallen flat, we are asked, 'just vote, don't discuss it.'
Why? Because any real scrutiny shows that it has a lot of risks for us and a clear benefit only for Gary? I suggest that is exactly what is going on.
I'm sorry, and if this is the first note of discord here, then shot me or report me, but this pushing to close this group and turn it over to Gary is getting offensive.
And, make no mistake about it, it does not appear to be something done with the support of many of the members or by Serotta. To the contrary, it is outright insulting.
If Ben and Serotta were in favor of Gary's proposal, then no 'poll' or 'vote' would be necessary. It would simply have been announced. If they wanted us to tell them what we wanted to do, the request for a decsion or a poll would have come from Serotta, not Gary.
And, the way this is being pushed ISi nsulting to Ben and his company, make no mistake about that.
I was one of many of us who asked Ben to bring back a forum for us, which he did at his own expense. Several others who asked him to do so are now suggesting we close and join Gary. Why, my friends, why?
That group now has 350 members, has had no censorship imposed upon it, and the 'mo' is starting to finally flow. By contrast, looking at the BFC, there are very few listings or postings there, except from the Calfee group and even then, far less than here.
So Gary creates a new forum with very broad based goals, all laudable, but when it does not appear to be growing at all, he comes on here says, "forget everything, I need you to join my competing group [and as long as Serotta maintains this group that is exactly what it is] because it is 'good' for you?"
Why? No good explanation at all, particularly when closing or changing an existing group would be risking its demise or fragmenting what is already here if some members would prefer not to join Gary's groups.
And, what do we say to Ben, "thanks for everything, but adios?" Seems a bit rude to me, but not apparently to some of you or to Gary. And where is the good for us? Nowhere that has been shown other than the claim that it would be convenient (but so would a simple link) or because without us, Gary's other groups may fold.
That is all that has been shown so far: closing this group and moving it to Gary's would triple or quadruple Gary's existing group. That would be good for Gary's groups, and it may be good for Gary, but closing this forum has not been shown to be good for us at all.
To be blunt, I suggest that folding this tent to prop up a ship that is just getting under way, and to jump into that small craft while our comparatively stable and larger boat is just fine makes no sense to me. It puts us at risk to carry the other groups
Gary's supporters, who are well intended, say we need to join to keep these other groups afloat. I say, if they have no support or interest, then perhaps we should not put ourselves in a position where their sinking takes us down with them.
Also, we WILL suddenly find our distinct persona buried in Trek, Merckx, Pegoretti, Colnago, et al. Gary has created a wide ranging group of distinct bike fan clubs, several of which are of interest to many of us including us, but do we really benefit from going from a strong, singular group to simply one of many others, most of which have not a single member to date? I respectfully submit not.
Also, what the heck is wrong with simply linking our site to theirs? Nobody can seem to answer that, except to say that will not benefit the other sites.
Should we really all jump in and try to prop up forums by giving up what is now a healthy and growing group to merge into a new and poorly-attended congolmerate? I would prefer to remain 'the Serotta group' with a distinct identity and not simply be a part of a group that has ten or twenty other identities.
Now the issue everyone is ignoring: If Gary's group dies, where do we go? Ask Ben to do it all over again?
How many times are you going to spit in this man's face and why are you continuing to insult him now by this continuing demand that we close and turn everything over to Gary? If the BFC folds, or if the trolls show up there again, or if the sky falls, or whatever or for any reason there are any more problems, don't ask Ben to be our savior again if we now say, "Goodbye, thanks for propping us up, it's been nice, but we are out of here."
And that my friends is what this is REALLY about. Gary's groups need members. Those of us who have joined, including me, are posting and posting pictures. He wants us to carry the other groups, but all we hear as to why is the claim that 'the way to make sure Gary's groups prosper is for us to close and prop up his groups. That will be good for us."
Okay, but that does have the risk of removing our distinct personality and just exposes us to a lot of risks including going into the can once again.
That is the real reaon you now hear 'don't alk about it, just vote to do it.":
I apologize again for this blunt statement, but this push to have us close again after we nearly died, and now a 'don't even discuss it, let's just vote without even knowing why or what we are getting into' offends me.
If you can't persuade by a reasoned discussion, then cut off debate and call for a 'vote'. Okay, but what is simply stopping those who want to joining Gary's group? Why this 'demand' that we close this growing enterprise? What is the ONLY issue of discord that has arisen?
You figure it out, and I ask that this demand that we close again not be swept under the rug by trying to cut off debate. Hell, I don't know why we are even discussing it since the demand that we close is, IMHO, offensive on its face.
HERE IS THE DEAL: Anyone who wanted to join Gary's group could and can do so. If you want to be here, and 350 of us do, then why not allow liberty and democracy to continue.
No, we MUST close because why? Gary's groups need us. Okay, but why force us to close if they existing voluntary method hasn't worked? Do we need to 'vote' on it as has now been suggested, without debate, when anyone who wants to participate in Gary's forums but not participate here has every right to do that now without closing this group?
Apparently, that is not good enough for someone, and that is what we are now being asked to close up.
Thank you, but I would prefer to join voluntarily, which I did, and not force everyone on this group to move over there. The very proposal seems a bit offensive to me, and I am no stranger to being offensive, as many of you have observed in the past.
Dave N. (and the button to report this offensive post is located at the bottom of your screen.)
Yep, and it puts us at risk of closing permanently.
In the past, we had a distinct persona linked through the Serotta site, and there is simply no reason why a link cannot be had to the BFC. But that doesn't seem good enough for some reason that we still have not heard.
But now, when the initial salvo appears to have fallen flat, we are asked, 'just vote, don't discuss it.'
Why? Because any real scrutiny shows that it has a lot of risks for us and a clear benefit only for Gary? I suggest that is exactly what is going on.
I'm sorry, and if this is the first note of discord here, then shot me or report me, but this pushing to close this group and turn it over to Gary is getting offensive.
And, make no mistake about it, it does not appear to be something done with the support of many of the members or by Serotta. To the contrary, it is outright insulting.
If Ben and Serotta were in favor of Gary's proposal, then no 'poll' or 'vote' would be necessary. It would simply have been announced. If they wanted us to tell them what we wanted to do, the request for a decsion or a poll would have come from Serotta, not Gary.
And, the way this is being pushed ISi nsulting to Ben and his company, make no mistake about that.
I was one of many of us who asked Ben to bring back a forum for us, which he did at his own expense. Several others who asked him to do so are now suggesting we close and join Gary. Why, my friends, why?
That group now has 350 members, has had no censorship imposed upon it, and the 'mo' is starting to finally flow. By contrast, looking at the BFC, there are very few listings or postings there, except from the Calfee group and even then, far less than here.
So Gary creates a new forum with very broad based goals, all laudable, but when it does not appear to be growing at all, he comes on here says, "forget everything, I need you to join my competing group [and as long as Serotta maintains this group that is exactly what it is] because it is 'good' for you?"
Why? No good explanation at all, particularly when closing or changing an existing group would be risking its demise or fragmenting what is already here if some members would prefer not to join Gary's groups.
And, what do we say to Ben, "thanks for everything, but adios?" Seems a bit rude to me, but not apparently to some of you or to Gary. And where is the good for us? Nowhere that has been shown other than the claim that it would be convenient (but so would a simple link) or because without us, Gary's other groups may fold.
That is all that has been shown so far: closing this group and moving it to Gary's would triple or quadruple Gary's existing group. That would be good for Gary's groups, and it may be good for Gary, but closing this forum has not been shown to be good for us at all.
To be blunt, I suggest that folding this tent to prop up a ship that is just getting under way, and to jump into that small craft while our comparatively stable and larger boat is just fine makes no sense to me. It puts us at risk to carry the other groups
Gary's supporters, who are well intended, say we need to join to keep these other groups afloat. I say, if they have no support or interest, then perhaps we should not put ourselves in a position where their sinking takes us down with them.
Also, we WILL suddenly find our distinct persona buried in Trek, Merckx, Pegoretti, Colnago, et al. Gary has created a wide ranging group of distinct bike fan clubs, several of which are of interest to many of us including us, but do we really benefit from going from a strong, singular group to simply one of many others, most of which have not a single member to date? I respectfully submit not.
Also, what the heck is wrong with simply linking our site to theirs? Nobody can seem to answer that, except to say that will not benefit the other sites.
Should we really all jump in and try to prop up forums by giving up what is now a healthy and growing group to merge into a new and poorly-attended congolmerate? I would prefer to remain 'the Serotta group' with a distinct identity and not simply be a part of a group that has ten or twenty other identities.
Now the issue everyone is ignoring: If Gary's group dies, where do we go? Ask Ben to do it all over again?
How many times are you going to spit in this man's face and why are you continuing to insult him now by this continuing demand that we close and turn everything over to Gary? If the BFC folds, or if the trolls show up there again, or if the sky falls, or whatever or for any reason there are any more problems, don't ask Ben to be our savior again if we now say, "Goodbye, thanks for propping us up, it's been nice, but we are out of here."
And that my friends is what this is REALLY about. Gary's groups need members. Those of us who have joined, including me, are posting and posting pictures. He wants us to carry the other groups, but all we hear as to why is the claim that 'the way to make sure Gary's groups prosper is for us to close and prop up his groups. That will be good for us."
Okay, but that does have the risk of removing our distinct personality and just exposes us to a lot of risks including going into the can once again.
That is the real reaon you now hear 'don't alk about it, just vote to do it.":
I apologize again for this blunt statement, but this push to have us close again after we nearly died, and now a 'don't even discuss it, let's just vote without even knowing why or what we are getting into' offends me.
If you can't persuade by a reasoned discussion, then cut off debate and call for a 'vote'. Okay, but what is simply stopping those who want to joining Gary's group? Why this 'demand' that we close this growing enterprise? What is the ONLY issue of discord that has arisen?
You figure it out, and I ask that this demand that we close again not be swept under the rug by trying to cut off debate. Hell, I don't know why we are even discussing it since the demand that we close is, IMHO, offensive on its face.
HERE IS THE DEAL: Anyone who wanted to join Gary's group could and can do so. If you want to be here, and 350 of us do, then why not allow liberty and democracy to continue.
No, we MUST close because why? Gary's groups need us. Okay, but why force us to close if they existing voluntary method hasn't worked? Do we need to 'vote' on it as has now been suggested, without debate, when anyone who wants to participate in Gary's forums but not participate here has every right to do that now without closing this group?
Apparently, that is not good enough for someone, and that is what we are now being asked to close up.
Thank you, but I would prefer to join voluntarily, which I did, and not force everyone on this group to move over there. The very proposal seems a bit offensive to me, and I am no stranger to being offensive, as many of you have observed in the past.
Dave N. (and the button to report this offensive post is located at the bottom of your screen.)