Open letter to Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

It is apparent from reading RBT today that you have breached certain
confidences contained in my private reply to your sole private email to
me.

So, here's the deal: the next time I see a smarmy insult from you,
directed toward *anyone*, I will post a link to the underhanded, back
stabbing, gossipy email you sent to me. This will not only embarrass
you, but also "RA" (as Kubrick might put it ;- ).

You decide.

Cheers,
Ozark

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Dear Carl,

It is apparent from reading RBT today that you have breached certain
confidences contained in my private reply to your sole private email to
me.

So, here's the deal: the next time I see a smarmy insult from you,
directed toward *anyone*, I will post a link to the underhanded, back
stabbing, gossipy email you sent to me. This will not only embarrass
you, but also "RA" (as Kubrick might put it ;- ).

You decide.

Cheers,
Ozark

While I'm not privy to exactly what Carl did to **** you off, it's just
as bad that you chose to berate him publicly without first bringing up
with him directly, first.

Your post above is just as egregious as anything he may have done to
you. Sounds like you two need to share apologies and get over
yourselves.

Fred

On 22 May 2006 16:10:17 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:

Dear Carl,

It is apparent from reading RBT today that you have breached certain
confidences contained in my private reply to your sole private email to
me.

So, here's the deal: the next time I see a smarmy insult from you,
directed toward *anyone*, I will post a link to the underhanded, back
stabbing, gossipy email you sent to me. This will not only embarrass
you, but also "RA" (as Kubrick might put it ;- ).

You decide.

Cheers,
Ozark

Dear Oz,

Can you provide your curious fans with a link to whatever you read on
RBT today that led to your mistaken conclusion?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On 22 May 2006 16:26:59 -0700, wrote:


Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Dear Carl,

It is apparent from reading RBT today that you have breached certain
confidences contained in my private reply to your sole private email to
me.

So, here's the deal: the next time I see a smarmy insult from you,
directed toward *anyone*, I will post a link to the underhanded, back
stabbing, gossipy email you sent to me. This will not only embarrass
you, but also "RA" (as Kubrick might put it ;- ).

You decide.

Cheers,
Ozark

While I'm not privy to exactly what Carl did to **** you off, it's just
as bad that you chose to berate him publicly without first bringing up
with him directly, first.

Your post above is just as egregious as anything he may have done to
you. Sounds like you two need to share apologies and get over
yourselves.

Fred

Dear Fred,

I'm baffled, since I haven't mentioned the email that I sent Oz, which
was about a completely unrelated thread.

He thanked me for warning him about a potential problem, but now he
apparently thinks that I've mentioned the matter on the newsgroup,
which I haven't.

It's odd to receive blackmail threats in public, but Oz may just be so
confused that he doesn't know what he's doing. If he wants to publish
my email and his reply, I can't complain.

But I hope that he either explains what's going on enough for me to
figure out why he's upset, or else figures out that he's grossly
mistaken.

In any case, I hope that he considers the two other people involved,
just as I did.

If nothing else, we're entertaining everyone.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In rec.bicycles.misc wrote:

If nothing else, we're entertaining everyone.

Meh. I was going to post something more long-winded. But I realized
that all I wasnted to say was that dragging dirty laundry out and
crossposting it to four groups is really being a ******.

rb.soc and rb.rides? Come on, FFS, grow-up guys.

--
Dane Buson -
"Eagles fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines."

wrote:


Dear Oz,

Can you provide your curious fans with a link to whatever you read on
RBT today that led to your mistaken conclusion?

Trying to fathom the ravings of the anonymous ones is beyond the scope
of human endeavor.

My observation:

I'll plonk both of you for a while if I must, in order to keep from
knowing what this is about. It started private, and I'm pretty sure
it needs to stay that way.

Guys, take it back to email if there's anything to argue about.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:11:47 -0700, Dane Buson
wrote:

In rec.bicycles.misc wrote:

If nothing else, we're entertaining everyone.

Meh. I was going to post something more long-winded. But I realized
that all I wasnted to say was that dragging dirty laundry out and
crossposting it to four groups is really being a ******.

rb.soc and rb.rides? Come on, FFS, grow-up guys.

Dear Dane,

Normally, I aggravate only RBT, but Oz's bizarre blackmail was posted
as an open letter to several normally Fogel-free groups.

It seemed reasonable to hit the "all groups" option when I asked him
what he's talking about.

I just looked through my recent posts, wondering if I'd see something
that Oz might have misunderstood, but I'm still baffled.

Anyone curious about my vile machinations can find them he

http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...RXyMhuizDAk-CQ

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Last 24 hours:

Silliness to Diablo Scott about blind wine-tasting and Coca-Cola:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...e22ed66828ee90


Envious comment to Larry Coon, who had a bike shop full of test
subjects:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...c9a88577b08a98


Large post with spoke-squeezing data, whose 6 links appear equally
innocent (I wondered if I'd accidentally linked to an email):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...adea892f88084b

Pointing out a Freudian slip to Peter Cole in the spqke-squeezing
thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...71f85b4047401e


Two days ago:

Assuring Werehatrack that Datakoll isn't channeling me (or vice-versa)
about how to change a ti
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...65dc69f5d4c1e6


Tiresome exchange with Oz, asking what percentage of his posts in the
helmet threads he would say contain little beyond gratuitous ill-will:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...f126f73a70716f

wrote:
On 22 May 2006 16:10:17 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:

Dear Carl,

It is apparent from reading RBT today that you have breached certain
confidences contained in my private reply to your sole private email to
me.

So, here's the deal: the next time I see a smarmy insult from you,
directed toward *anyone*, I will post a link to the underhanded, back
stabbing, gossipy email you sent to me. This will not only embarrass
you, but also "RA" (as Kubrick might put it ;- ).

You decide.

Cheers,
Ozark

Dear Oz,

Can you provide your curious fans with a link to whatever you read on
RBT today that led to your mistaken conclusion?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

Don't be coy. You sent me an email wherein you made certain allegations
regarding an RBT regular. I replied in earnest, and soon found that you
had leaked some info to other RBT posters "offline" (via private email)

For the curious: Carl sent an email in which he said an RBT regular
might "just be replying to the voices in his head". he also included a
private email between himself (Carl Fogel) and another RBT regular
(we'll call him "RA" in a Kubrickesque slant), wherein "RA" said the
other RBT regualur in question was "seriously mentally ill".

The bottom line is that Carl fogel communicates behind the scenes in an
underhanded manner, violates privacy and engages in character
assassination.

Beware.

Cheers,
Ozark

wrote:
On 22 May 2006 16:26:59 -0700, wrote:


Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Dear Carl,

It is apparent from reading RBT today that you have breached certain
confidences contained in my private reply to your sole private email to
me.

So, here's the deal: the next time I see a smarmy insult from you,
directed toward *anyone*, I will post a link to the underhanded, back
stabbing, gossipy email you sent to me. This will not only embarrass
you, but also "RA" (as Kubrick might put it ;- ).

You decide.

Cheers,
Ozark

While I'm not privy to exactly what Carl did to **** you off, it's just
as bad that you chose to berate him publicly without first bringing up
with him directly, first.

Your post above is just as egregious as anything he may have done to
you. Sounds like you two need to share apologies and get over
yourselves.

Fred

Dear Fred,

I'm baffled, since I haven't mentioned the email that I sent Oz, which
was about a completely unrelated thread.

He thanked me for warning him about a potential problem, but now he
apparently thinks that I've mentioned the matter on the newsgroup,
which I haven't.


No, Carl, not "on the newsgroup", but behind the scenes, via private
email, in what I now understand may be your SOP.


It's odd to receive blackmail threats in public,

"Blackmail"? Hardly. Just a poblic warning shot across the bow of your
sleazy, backhanded methods. I prefer to operate out in the open, not in
the shadows.



but Oz may just be so
confused that he doesn't know what he's doing.

Trust me, I know exactly what I'm doing: exposing a behind-the-scenes
sleazebag.



If he wants to publish
my email and his reply, I can't complain.


I am not ashamed of my reply, Carl, it was made in earnest, thinking
your email was a genuine attempt to be helpful, not the behind the
scenes character assassination it really was. Are you issusing me an
invitation to post a link to the email?

But I hope that he either explains what's going on enough for me to
figure out why he's upset, or else figures out that he's grossly
mistaken.

In any case, I hope that he considers the two other people involved,
just as I did.


The "other two people involved" are the only factors that have stayed
my hand to this point.


If nothing else, we're entertaining everyone.


Are you "entertained", Carl?