rock solid

[Jim Cunningham]

For those of you who use MS Outlook you may or may not know that you can set up fairly elaborate filters that can greatly reduce spam. For instance you can have messages with $,free,special etc... in the subject line or the message text automatically deleted. I am not sure if Outlook Express has the capability. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Anderson [mailto:standerson@...] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 17:14 PM To: DSN_klr650@egroups.com Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: spam is litter nklr, was $250 Line Of Credit Brian, I for one, do NOT want my email to become as USELESS as my front mailbox. I do NOT want any UNSOLICITED email, faxes, telephone calls, or snail mail for that matter. It is NOT a first amendment issue. Restricting content of a web site or newspaper may be, but me restricting access to MY ears or eyes (not YOURS) is my RIGHT. If I have to weed through more junk than content, it becomes a waste of my time and money. I too have been in this business forever, and I get extremely frustrated by unsolicited anything whether it is advertising, a survey, or simply the weather. ------------------ If spammers have their way, most of the messages will be spam. ------------------ I had to explain to my local newspaper company some of this. They kept delivering a "Wednesday special" that I had in the past let them know over and over I didn't want. It's like this: I don't read it, but I am still responsible for throwing it away, I will get a nasty-gram from the city if I let them pile up. From my perspective then, they are littering in my yard, hardly a first amendment protection issue. Spam is no different from my perspective. Spammers are littering my email server and clients, and I have to spend MY time deleting them, and MY money to have adequate resources in my systems to get the items I want in addition to their junk. I will fight it every step. I finally got the newspaper to stop, by letting them know that if I got one more piece of their trash in my yard, I was going to take some nasty, smelly garbage that I produced, and drop it in their lobby. I should be able to this under first amendment if they can leave their trash in my yard. I wish I could do this to spammers, even if figuratively, but their email return addresses are seldom ever real, a good indication of their intent. Typical spammers steal an AOL logon, get a hotmail address, and spam away. If the first amendment is supposed to protect people in allowing them to abuse MY resources that I pay for, than it is high time to rewrite or repeal that amendment. Maybe we need to set up email for people like yourself that encourage spam. I don t want it, and I can t see what possible benefit to me OR society there is by having to deal with it. Steve (anti spam) Anderson

--- In DSN_klr650@egroups.com, "Shepard,Brian" wrote: > Please don't take this the wrong way. I have been a Systems > Programmer/Administrator for almost 20 years and spam is nothing new. Its > been going on way before the Internet as we know it now. I used to deal with > it a lot way back in the Eighties (remember BitNet anyone?). What puzzles me > is how enraged people get about spam now. Sometimes I wonder if people get > angry because it's fashionable. Somebody sees what they think is a computer > pro getting angry about spam so they get angry when they're really not > angry. They want people to think they're cool because they get angry about > spam. There is this little known secret in the IT community. Its called > DELETE. Its really cool. You just delete a piece of mail you don't want to > read. > > I'm more concerned about people "protecting me" from spam than people > spamming me. Think about it. This is a First Amendment issue. I'd rather > choose for myself weather or not I want to read a piece of mail. Now I know > that the intentions of the list management is sincere and I'm not asking you > to NOT block spam. I just think people need to think more about the issues. > Its very simple to delete. You can't delete something that's not there. > FREEDOM! > > -Brian Shepard > A13 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Hink [mailto:moabmc@l...] > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 2:43 PM > To: DSN_klr650@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] $250 Line Of Credit > > > Sick 'em ARNE!! > > Maybe it might be a good time to change your subscription options to have > you approve new subscribers before they can post to our list. > > Fred (I like Spam for lunch) > Visit the KLR650 archives at http://www.listquest.com/lq/search.html?ln=klr650 Support Dual Sport News... dsneditor@... Let's keep this list SPAM free! Visit our site at http://www.egroups.com/group/DSN_klr650 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[Steve Anderson]

I really like my brace, expensive, but the most significant handling difference I have made to the bike. Go ahead and spring for the springs=] They aren't anywhere near as expensive as the brace!

--- In DSN_klr650@egroups.com, Denzfeat@a... wrote: > Hey, KilLeR's; > > Thought I'd report on Happy Trails' fork brace. > Installed them to stop over-80 mph oscillation on windy days caused > (IMHO) by big front fender flexing in turbulence, causing front end to flex. > Called Tim Bernard, picked his brain, ordered fork brace. > Drained oil from front forks, put bike up on center stand, jacked up > front end, removed fork springs and installed brace as per instructions. > As bike is lowered, front forks are dropped 1.5 inches; running > springless forks through full range of motion had brace bottoming on fender. > This is not real-world, as fork springs would have bound before bottoming, > but I shimmed up stock fork springs 1/2 inch as I felt they were too soft > anyhow. 390 cc of 10-wt fork oil got the level to 7.5 inches from tube tops. > Put back springs, torqued down pinch bolts, etc., put on road. > Have been riding with brace for last three weeks. > First thing noticed is more solid feel at even low speeds. Front fork > compliance is better than before, nose-dive reduced during braking, big bumps > better than before, which wasn't bad. > Out on I-70 in heavy winds last week was the real test. Speeds of up to > 90 mph felt rock-solid, could have ridden with one hand on bar if so inclined > (but wasn't). Easily as stable as other bike, 700-LB. Polaris Victory. > Highly recommend fork brace. Also recommend shimming stock fork springs > with fender washers between spring collars and tube spacers before springing > (hah!) for Progressives. > Bike rides and handles better than it has a right to, better than > anything I've owned. Now, if I could only make the Vic ride like this and > also get same mileage, I'd have something ... > > Pete the Streak