| Author | Message | ||
     Mikej |
 If he breaks out the scissors I'm breaking out the duct tape:  | ||
| Curtyd |
BLAKE....PLEEZZZZ, a little photo editing/deletion above, PLEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Blake |
Jiffy, I appreciate your thoughtfully shared opinion. Thanks. | ||
| Curtyd |
THANK YOU! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Oops. There WAS a nipple showing, wasn't there.  Rule number one in diplomacy: Introduce an element everyone can hate to build a sense of commonality between disparate parties. My work here is done. | ||
| Jimidan |
Reg...nailed it! | ||
| Gregtonn |
Blake, Have you and Reg ever been introduced? If not, perhaps you should politely introduce yourself. His background and direct knowledge of things Buell might interest you. If you have met Reg I find your lecture to be inappropriate and extremely disappointing. Generally I ignore pious lectures. Especially those of such length. I suffered through that one because I consider Reg a friend. I am only stating my opinion. Lecture me if you must. Greg | ||
| Firemanjim |
I have to agree with Reg on this one. I have taken Annoy's to task before because of the tone they have taken and lack of a professional demeanor here. Refute bad information with facts and figures all you want, but refrain from the inane and childish insults. We all assume that any and all annony's are Buell employees(this may be wrong, but that is the reality of it) and to resort to any sort of name calling/baiting/insults is a poor reflection on the Buell Company. That would be like me hanging out of the fire engine and flipping off a citizen--very unprofessional and a direct reflection on my employer. | ||
| Blake |
" Fixed it for you.  | ||
| Court |
That's an accurate statement. I watched an entire thread, in which folks thought they were bantering with Erik Buell, occur during a 2 hour and 30 minute closed door meeting that Erik, Dave Gess and I were in. Assumptions are not good. On the other hand, ANYONE, exercising the privilege of posting anonymously I'd certainly think would subscribe to a "bite your lip" doctrine. There are plenty of us to take the small of mind to task. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
"...so that Erik Buell and his associates might have the opportunity to answer." Sorry Court/Blake; I'm not buying it. That tag leads off this board. "Associates" is the operative word. I'm defining that as people that work with him. Does it include his non-Buell friends? Fine, either way these people are speaking for BMC. If they weren't they will be shut down. There is no getting around this: Anons. Are speaking for the company. Want more proof? Those of you that know Erik also know that no one is going to say anything (that might be inferred as coming from him) that he doesn't like. This pussyfooting around is silly. "...so that Erik Buell and his associates might have the opportunity to answer, sez it all. (On edit, I had to remove the hyphen from the second word in the above paragraph as the sweet little term for a small cat is disallowed here. Now THAT is sillY!) | ||
| Jimidan |
"We all Some of us assume that any and all annony's are Buell employees (this may be is absolutely wrong, ..." Fixed it for you. Fixed what and how? It seems that you may have been the one who fostered that notion when the anony's first showed up. What was all that stuff about these people needed protection because of their sensitive positions within the company (paraphrased)? But I guess the greater politically incorrect question would be, "Why are you protecting non-Buell employees to hide behind the cloak of "Anonymous" and berate posters, if they are not Buell employees? And, is the Anony who Reg was referring to a Buell employee or an impostor, because he certainly was talking like he was an official representative of Buell Motorcycle Co., with all of the insider info thereof. In fact, all of them do. And finally, if you have non-Buell employees also posting under the cloak of Anonymous, what kind of credibility problem does that present to anything any of the Anonys say? Actually, this is exactly what Reg was saying in his post...that there is no credibility to anything they say because they are just trying to sell us a product. Blake, you got some 'splainin' to do... | ||
| Jimidan |
Reg...nailed it. | ||
| Gregtonn |
You now what? I'm not to old to learn. Remember when I said this: "I absolutely understand the need for the anonymous function." And this: "I feel the need to qualify that statement. "I absolutely understand the need for the anonymous function. When it relates to proprietary, technical or design information." It was poorly considered and I was wrong. Erik Buell has never worn a Honda hat and Groucho Marx mustache glasses when I've talked to him. Why should he, or anyone else, wear them here? Is there some compelling reason for people not to be completely honest and forthright in this forum? Greg | ||
| Davegess |
Anon's should be polite BUT they are human and a passionate bunch. Sometimes, especially when someone repeatably says they are wrong, they might slap you upside the head. If I recall correctly Jimi has been on a few threads calling out things he thinks are wrong about how Buell does business, the metric fastener thing and the "All HD dealer should be Buell dealers" are two I remember. He is just flat out wrong, and Buell has worked hard to go in the other direction, on the second and on the first he won't accept a reasonable reason from an ANON for why it is what it is. You keep poking the bear sooner or later the bear will poke back. You can argue all you want that the bear is acting unprofessonally and shouldn't poke back but dam; it is a bear and an excitable one at that. If someone really gets out of line they will be told about it by there boss. Unfortunately the ANON post is the only way that these post can continue. Corporate will not allow anything else. I have a more a more elaborate post here http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/290 431/293556.html?1185289413#POST937998 Blake is also correct, the ANON posters are not always Erik or employees. I have posted that way, I am pretty sure some journalists have also. | ||
| Paintballtommy |
show me the times baby | ||
| Regkittrelle |
So, in other words, Dave, anyone that posts under Anon is an "associate" of Erik, employee or not. Yet, at the same time you say, "Unfortunately the ANON post is the only way that these post can continue. Corporate will not allow anything else." So, if I understand this correctly, "Corporate" has control over non-employee Anon. posts. The logic behind, and the defense of this position is becoming ludicrous. I have no objection to how the "bear" acts. But to act that way behind Anon.is something less than adult. Here's the part that mystifies me: Given that we do not know who authors a given post, but that we are certain of several names, I would think that some of these Anons would get a little ticked about being included in the lambasting offered up. I can't imagine letting someone speak for me, but that is exactly what is happening with Anon posts; One speaks for all. Dave: Answer me this, please. What benefit does BMC derive from posting here anonymously? Greg sez all of this much more succinctly: "Erik Buell has never worn a Honda hat and Groucho Marx mustache glasses when I've talked to him. Why should he, or anyone else, wear them here?" | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Here is a scenario for consideration. Court has information pertinent to the discussion. He can provide enough information to answer the question but can't go into any more detail than the limited scope of the answer. Because of Court's affiliation with Erik and events surrounding Buell, the simple act of HIM answering the question adds more data than he can divulge. If Court posts under the Anonymous tag, he can add ONLY the data to enhance the current discussion but not add more than that. Is Court an employee of BMC? No. Does he have "inside" information? Absolutely. Could his credibility be questioned? Not on this planet. But he is just a construction worker. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
And WHY can data be added anonymously? Because, if necessary, it can be denied at a later date. That is the pure, unvarnished reason that "anons, "sources," etc. exist. Again, "plausible deniability." If Anon. uses their name, and offers up information that is later proved wrong, they are subject to suit. Sounds silly? Yep, that's our legal system. For example, if Anon states that the 1125 has 147 rwh, and then a buyer dyno's a bike and finds only 135, he might bring suit. He'd probably lose, but as soon as the news of this hit the pubs, BMC loses. Check out last year's flap over the Yamaha's rpm claims for an example. "Anon" supposedly protects them. But, it really doesn't in this case as Blake's records could be subject to subpoena. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
...and here's what I expect to happen: Anons will be clamped down upon severely or stopped completely. Given my position re this odious ploy, I will become the anti-christ. | ||
| Davegess |
Dave: Answer me this, please. What benefit does BMC derive from posting here anonymously? I THINKit is all part of the push/pull between the guy with his name on the building and the suits at Juneau. The CORPORATION doesn't like it, is only partially convinced it gains anything from it, is deathly afraid it has some liability form it, and it doesn't really understand the web. The guy with his name on the building gains a forum to speak outside of the constraints of the marketing bozos thus presenting ideas directly not through marketing speak, gets to interact with customers and other bikers, and it is fun. The reason why corporate doesn't want names is they need to be able to DENY that a factory person told you that your new Buell would come with carbon fiber jet packs and that your lawsuit is frivolous. The trouble with post on the internet, from a lawsuit standpoint, is that they are FOREVER. Things I said that I wish I hadn't will live forever. Can you imagine the legal liability if you could dredge up a post from 1998 where an actual person employed at Buell said in writing that you could safely operate your bike with xxx done to it and then in 2008 you crash after doing this and are a vegetable, leaving your wife and 10 kids with no support? I do think that Blake should NOT archive the ANON post, there should be a program in place where after a period of time any post by any anon is deleted from the database. Someday, someone will sue him wanting the names of anon posters and he will be SOL and have to give them up. | ||
| Alchemy |
Reg, As long as it is stated that Anon postings are not exclusively BMC employees then it gets hard to make a case and reasonable doubt comes into play. It is reasonable the way it is now even if a little open to confusion and you can take or not take what anon says as I see it. As long a BMC has a policy and makes reasonable effort to make it known and enforced then anyone seeking to make a case for damages would be swimming up stream as I see it. Not an attorney however. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Sometimes "data" isn't compartmentalized. Details of one answer bleed into details of another. Some data is free for release. Other data is not. Unfortunately classified and unclassified data are intertwined. The Anonymous posts allow for only limited release of information. Given the choice of limited information or no information, I'll take limited information. Ever notice how most anony posts are very terse in nature. We BadWebbers are fantastic about parsing posts in an attempt to reveal "hidden" meanings. I agree with the plausable deniability but not because the information is incorrect. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
Agree, Alchemy. The case would be a weak one at best. However, the damage would not result from the case merits but, rather, the publicity surrounding it. '..bstrd.I agree here too. Unfortunately, corporate lawyers feel obligated to think "worst case." | ||
| Reepicheep |
It's a clear grey area, with some pro's and con's. At the end of the day, Blake made a judgement call that being able to get inside information is a pro that far outweighs the cons. Agree or disagree, it's a judgement call in a grey area. Deal with it. I have some pretty fundamental disagreements with judgement calls Blake has made in sponsorship rules, but its another judgement call in a grey area. I deal with it. People are human, and if they feel you are trying to criticize a persons life work, some people will take it personally. The ones that don't probably did crappy lifes work. And there is a karmic element also... there are many people that seem to have nothing better to do with their lives then to try and attack Buell. After a decade or two of that, you may respond a little quicker and a little meaner then looks reasonable. Like a dog that's been kicked a lot... don't complain when you get bit "just teasing them a little for some fun". Personally, if somebody criticized the work I have done over the past 5 years, I would take it personally as well. I would respond with a cold politeness and disengage... but not because I didn't take it personally, just because I am perhaps a better liar with a more refined veneer. In the whole scope of things, thats probably less good then just giving back an honest F-U. I work in information security for a big company. If one of our employees were were doing this, our legal department would probably have had somebody like me hunt them down like a dog and fired them by now. They will be loathe to go external and touch Badweb though... it would create no end of risk and problems for them... Hopefully annoys post from home from personal PC's without any corporate software (especially VPN) running. That'll hold up to the point up until they subpoena badweb. The valid reasons for the anon posting are *far* from abstract. The current anon system isn't perfect, but I can't think of anything that would be that much better, and the information I get here (especially lately) is astounding. If I (as an owner of my second Buell) am indeed their target demographic, then they could not pick a better medium to advertise to me and win my goodwill then finding a way to give me the kind of frank and straightforward engineering access we have been getting of late. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
Good points, Reep. My philosophical issues with Anon postings aside, what fired my up here was the cloaked name-calling. Dave, You made my point much better than did I. Know about that forever thing. I occasionally do a Google on my name and come up with all kinds of embarrassing stuff. | ||
| Court |
>>>>> I will become the anti-christ If you do, it'd be with a small handful of folks. You're protected by the most effective shield a person can have, your credibility. This discussion has gone on for a long time. When I did the project at M.I.T. for Buell in 1998 the results were fabulous. Woz was witness to them when I spoke about it at the Cow Palace. Buell would have done things that were so far advanced folks would still be catching up. The "suits" hit the ceiling. The world is changing. Today I've spoken to Buell owners in 4 countries and am watching Tommy's new store be built in Cape Town, South Africa. In 1988 we thought it was a big deal to meet a Buell owner from Indiana. I've had, in the last 3 weeks, a conversation about this topic and suspect there is a curiosity to embrace change, tempered with a "we've never done" that . . . of course, reinforced by the Dearborn Marauders. I'd never post anonymously. For one thing my writing style, like Reg's, is pretty tough to conceal. We thirst for information. That which we should have and need and that which is not yet "ready for prime time". From time to time we, as owners, want that glimpse behind the curtain. There's risk in that. There has, for instance, been at least one fairly significant change in the 1125R in the past month. What, Lord forbid, would have happened if someone, speaking as a Buell employee, would have shared with us . . . do you release a "not quite right" bike so you don't have to go back on your word. Plausible deniability, perhaps, is the currency we exchange to know more than we need or should sometimes. My position is simple. I enjoy seeing the enthusiasm. Any party that brings Reg, Dave Gess, Blake and presumably some Buell "insiders" to the same spirited discussion gets a red flag on my calendar any day. But. . . I object to saying anything not topical to the subject from behind the veil of an "Anonymous" post. I care not how spirited anyone is (you folks missed the luxury of the good old days of the RIDE Forum where Erik and I used to both post under our real names. I'm pleased I went to the trouble to print those out in 1995!) there is an elevated duty of decorum that accompanies posting anonymously. Facts only please. Is that esoteric? Reg, do you know what esoteric is? How come everyone knows but me? This is a conspiracy, I tell ya. I'm going back to construction. Court | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Once you are Googleable, you are screwed. Even anonys are susceptible to personal feelings and the lure of the dog pile. Now, rereading the posts from anony, the name calling is pretty minor. Were it me, or Blake, or Jimidan, or Ryker in a political thread, it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. Coming from someone who MIGHT be a BMC member, that's different. Now, if it was Abe and you knew it was Abe, it might raise an eyebrow coming from a Buell employee, but you would also read into it Abe's personality. Based upon his reply regarding the ZTL system in Motorcyclist, he's a pretty fiery guy and more than willing to go to the mat to defend his work. The problem is getting a barb from someone to whom you are unable to attribute a personality. You can't tell if they are REALLY serious or if they are just halfway serious. | ||
| Buellshyter |
Isn't Steve_A thee Steve Anderson from Buell?? He doesn't seem to have a problem using his real name. | ||
| Spike |
 |
