A note about this forum, it's history, an apology and an announcement

[VLJ_imp]

Those people need to try riding a Street Triple R. They'll come off that bike with an appreciation for the CB's picture-perfect mirrors that will last to the end of their days.

Even my BMW R1200R's mirrors were fairly awful. They blurred up just as badly as the Street Triple's, while hardly offering any better rear view.

[LongRanger_imp]

Well, that R motor isn't the smoothest design. The mirrors (and engine) on my flying brick K1200RS are perfectly smooth up to triple digit speeds. The mirrors are smoother than those on my CB, which is saying a lot.

Not sure about your R1200R, but the R1100S I owned a decade ago was a paint shaker at anything above about 65-70 mph, but it sure handled well.

[VLJ_imp]

I've had an R1100R and an R1200R, and the mirrors were awful on both. I was genuinely surprised by how badly they blurred at freeway speeds. Conversely, I was absolutely blown away by how clear the mirrors stayed on Eric's '14 CB1100 Standard, even when I zipped up to 100 mph. At any steady cruising speed, it was like...well, like looking in a mirror.

The ST1100 and ST1300 are the only bikes I've owned with mirrors that were as clear as those on Eric's bike. The T120's mirrors are also that clear, at least up to 80 mph. I never took it any faster, though, so I don't know whether they remain that clear all the way to 100 mph.

[Frulk_imp]

In those situations where I’m doing 100+ mph on the CB I found I have no use for the rear mirrors so I really don’t know if they get blurry or not.

[Guth_imp]

ADVrider has 340,000 members. It is solely owned by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. He has recently stated that ADV is going to start selling advertisements.

Good on you mr Guth for holding the line,,,

That's something I just don't understand.

I started designing websites over 20 years ago, and had some very interesting clients in the motorsports industry, along with a lot of very interesting experiences.

The whole point of the Internet is to bring as many people together as possible. It's the Worldwide Web. Creating a forum on the Internet is a very explicit invitation for anyone and everyone to join the conversation, within reasonable rules and guidelines.

Rotor's recent comments, I believe, also address a very real conflict of interest here.

"To put in place rules and then moderate an Internet forum in order to steer well clear of anything approaching vulgarity is not a very difficult task. What is difficult, and what makes much more difference, is moderating with a view of striking the point of balance between presenting opposite sides of some argument with vigour and conviction, but without sinking to "ad hominem" attacks on the proponent of the opposite side. Rules there are much harder to put in place, and impartial, intelligent moderators even more difficult to find; this to the extent that Internet abounds with forums where the dictionary is pure pablum, but innumerable threads quickly deteriorate to endless ad-hominem ping-pong that is read by no-one but the two contributing fools."

A person can easily create a private, "members-only" forum on the Web, in which case it's not on the Web as a part of social media, it's simply using the network.

I've read a few comments pertaining to keeping the riff-raff out and so on.

The riff-raff, or anyone who doesn't fit the plan, could easily be kept out with a private forum.

This is something that has been bugging me for a long time: why create a forum where anyone on the Web can join, and then try to limit the membership?

The rules for this forum are pretty clear, and if someone joins up and follows the rules, they should not have to subscribe to the same world view as the moderators.

Guth brought up the prospect of selling this forum; the irony here, with respect to keeping the membership down on purpose and such, is that doing so decreases the value of the website, and thus, Guth's efforts to build a forum. And I believe he has the absolute right to increase the value of this forum as much as he can, and sell it if he pleases. It's a lot of work, and last time I checked, money wasn't growing on trees.

Why not just put something into the rules that says:

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, anytime, for any reason?"

That's basically what's contained in the registration agreement that people make when they initially join the forum. In the nearly five years that this forum has been in existence, I've only needed to permanently remove two members from participating here. Most who don't agree with the rules simply move along to other corners of the Internet and I suspect that most everyone involved is all the happier for it on both sides of the equation.

[Banned_imp]

In those situations where I’m doing 100+ mph on the CB I found I have no use for the rear mirrors so I really don’t know if they get blurry or not.

That's a good one

[Ulvetanna_imp]

ADVrider has 340,000 members. It is solely owned by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. He has recently stated that ADV is going to start selling advertisements.

Good on you mr Guth for holding the line,,,

That's something I just don't understand.

I started designing websites over 20 years ago, and had some very interesting clients in the motorsports industry, along with a lot of very interesting experiences.

The whole point of the Internet is to bring as many people together as possible. It's the Worldwide Web. Creating a forum on the Internet is a very explicit invitation for anyone and everyone to join the conversation, within reasonable rules and guidelines.

Rotor's recent comments, I believe, also address a very real conflict of interest here.

"To put in place rules and then moderate an Internet forum in order to steer well clear of anything approaching vulgarity is not a very difficult task. What is difficult, and what makes much more difference, is moderating with a view of striking the point of balance between presenting opposite sides of some argument with vigour and conviction, but without sinking to "ad hominem" attacks on the proponent of the opposite side. Rules there are much harder to put in place, and impartial, intelligent moderators even more difficult to find; this to the extent that Internet abounds with forums where the dictionary is pure pablum, but innumerable threads quickly deteriorate to endless ad-hominem ping-pong that is read by no-one but the two contributing fools."

A person can easily create a private, "members-only" forum on the Web, in which case it's not on the Web as a part of social media, it's simply using the network.

I've read a few comments pertaining to keeping the riff-raff out and so on.

The riff-raff, or anyone who doesn't fit the plan, could easily be kept out with a private forum.

This is something that has been bugging me for a long time: why create a forum where anyone on the Web can join, and then try to limit the membership?

The rules for this forum are pretty clear, and if someone joins up and follows the rules, they should not have to subscribe to the same world view as the moderators.

Guth brought up the prospect of selling this forum; the irony here, with respect to keeping the membership down on purpose and such, is that doing so decreases the value of the website, and thus, Guth's efforts to build a forum. And I believe he has the absolute right to increase the value of this forum as much as he can, and sell it if he pleases. It's a lot of work, and last time I checked, money wasn't growing on trees.

Why not just put something into the rules that says:

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, anytime, for any reason?"

That's basically what's contained in the registration agreement that people make when they initially join the forum. In the nearly five years that this forum has been in existence, I've only needed to permanently remove two members from participating here. Most who don't agree with the rules simply move along to other corners of the Internet and I suspect that most everyone involved is all the happier for it on both sides of the equation.

That's basically what's contained in the registration agreement that people make when they initially join the forum. In the nearly five years that this forum has been in existence, I've only needed to permanently remove two members from participating here. Most who don't agree with the rules simply move along to other corners of the Internet and I suspect that most everyone involved is all the happier for it on both sides of the equation. I bet those guys were ill-informed.

I love Men at Work. What a great band. MTV and all.

[Guth_imp]

Don't get me wrong about Men at Work. It's not that I dislike the band — I just don't like having any song stuck in my head for long periods of time against my will.

[the Ferret]

Ear worms are nasty

[Ulvetanna_imp]

Don't get me wrong about Men at Work. It's not that I dislike the band — I just don't like having any song stuck in my head for long periods of time against my will.

You call to mind the Ferret's thread about earworms.

"I come from the land down under..."

But he's actually Scottish!

I was very disappointed to hear they got sued for the introduction to that song because it sounded like "Kookaburra Song".