1966 160 Monza Jr re-style

[DesmoDog]

Ya know... I've been pretty busy lately so was in a rush when I replied to Bob's post... that combined with the lack of the special "I'm done editing this" sig, I admit I didn't read it fully or carefully. Now I have... and I have a few comments to make.

____ If there are any other old-DUKErs like myself who were around when the wide-case models came-out, and have already read that stuff,, they probably just don't care to risk riling-up DesmoDogs's temper to bother correcting him, but I myself feel the need to counter-state his incorrect-conclusion, so that other new boys don't buy into that as well.

Riling up my temper by correcting information I've posted? Show me one example where I have been angry when someone corrected me. The only time I got on your case was because of your attitude with a new member (who I don't think he's been back since?). That was what, a year ago? And now I get this?

"other new boys". So I'm a "new boy"? How cute.

My name is Craig, is says so at the bottom of each and every one of my posts. Feel free to respectfully address me from this point forward as your passive aggressive tendencies ARE the type of thing that can draw someone's ire. But I'm wondering now... is that what you're after? alrighty then... sorry, I haven't got the time to feed the trolls tonight.

__ Now while it's certainly true that most everyone uses the width of the rear motor-mounts to most quickly tell the difference between wide-case & narrow-case motors, THAT difference actually has nothing to do with why the newer-type motors earned their name 'WideCase' ! ...
__ Ya must understand that there was never any such name as 'NarrowCase' before the wide-case motors came-out, and at first, w-c motored models were called "wide-deck" models (due to the wide deck behind the cylinder).

Yes Bob, I think most people could figure out there was no narrow case before there was a widecase. And there was no World War 1 before there was World War 2. And there was no BC before there was AD. It's a common concept. Did you REALLY think that's what I was saying, or are you simply finding things to go on about?

That was due to the newer crankshafts being wider, and so thus the motor-case -(left-case) had to understandably be widened as well! _ (The w-c & n-c cranks are not interchangeable due to that difference!)

My bad, thanks for the info.

And so ya should now understand that the 'narrow-case' name should actually only be applied to just non-widecase 250 & 350 models, since they are the only two sizes that were made in both n-c & w-c versions.

I'll stop including 160s ands smaller in the narrowcase family when everyone else stops including 860s and larger in the squarecase family. I realize that's a twin reference with is strictly forbidden here, but it's the first example of the concept I could come up with.

It's disconcerting to have the new boys refer to a 125/160 or a 175/200 bevel-DUKE, as a "narrowcase" ! _ As those models were never called by that name (before), and still shouldn't need to be referred to as 'narrow-case' !!

There's the new boy again. You know Bob, I might even see the point on this one, but because of the way you delivered the message, I really don't care. Perhaps someday you will learn, it's not enough to be right, if no one will listen because of your delivery.

__ So please understand that the NarrowCase-name was never earned by any model because of it's "narrow" rear motor-mounts or narrower left-side motor-case, or any other such reason, (any time before the WideCase-name came into being) !
Dukaddy-DUKEs,
-Bob

Again. No one said they were called narrowcases before the widecases came out, Bob.

Anyway, here's the deal. I haven't been around much lately for various reasons. I came back, put up a few posts, and got this response from the moderator? I certainly don't feel I've done anything that warrants being called out for my temper, or referred to as a "new boy" multiple times. I can understand the "DesmoDog" reference obviously, but even there you should know that "Desmo" literally IS my dog. Long story on how the user name came to be, but around here Desmo is a golden retriever. Again, my name is Craig.

These bikes are supposed to be fun for me. Unfortunately I got caught up in the fun of it and have this build thread going in three different places. That means when there's a mistake on my part, like the narrowcase/widecase thing, I have to go three places to fix it. Which is a drag. I'm sure I'll make more mistakes as I go, and hopefully someone with better knowledge can help me out. But I no longer care to maintain three different threads for each bike, plus my website, so something has to go.

Bob is the moderator. He's the top poster (I'm guessing). He seems to decide proper protocol and terminology. He runs the forum. As Bob obviously has issues with me, as seen from his response to my admittedly flawed posting, I've decided this is one forum I don't need to follow anymore. Maybe there are others who think I have a quick temper too, I dunno. I can tell you that people who actually KNOW me don't think that, so maybe I need to pay attention to how I word things in posts. The only person here I've ever meant to call out was Bob, in one post, when I thought he was incredibly rude. but as I already said that was quite some time ago and I would have thought he'd be over it by now. I guess not. To anyone else I've offended/upset, I truly do apologize. Bob - I still think you deserved every word.

Bob, have fun with your forum. Spread the gospel. Chastise those "new boys" you are so fond of and cast off all who run afoul of your beliefs. Sorry it didn't work out, you've got a lot of great info in that noggin of yours but the tone of your reply (actually many of your replies, not just to me) was uncalled for and life is too short. This is supposed to be fun, I don't find defending myself against you to be at all enjoyable and it's a great big world out there - there is nothing available here I can't find somewhere else. Bottom line, I don't like how you treat people, you don't like my supposed temper or my age. I can't do anything about my age and I'm not about to temper my enthusiasm to placate you so, see ya.

Have fun everyone, that's what this is supposed to be about.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ Sorry you've taken-personally another of my response-posts (NOT reply-posts) once again, Craig ! _ YOU should understand that if I had intended for you to think that my post was intended to be directed at your own personal-self, that I then would have used your own personal-name - Craig (and not an anonymous poster-name).
__ This is not at all my-own w.site, (it's Jim's!) ! _ Since I was found to be the most active here, Jim gave me the ability to delete postings (and the w.site's SW automatically then listed me as a moderator), and yet I've never deleted your old original posting in which you exposed your personality for getting over-exited & preferring to take things personally rather than realize that they may not be intended to be taken that way, (and even carried-on about how I MIGHT pronounce the 'Ducati' name). _ And I will not delete your latest post either, so that my point (that you're one to be handled with kid-gloves) is confirmed.
Frankly, I had begun to think I may have had you pegged-wrong after I noted your previous (normal-like)- response, but now I see that it seems you're back to your old self (as I've come to know you to be), once again.
I actually think that you're one of the better contributors and would never intentionally wish do anything to cause you, (or even the worst contributor), to stop posting here !! _ I gather you've been offended with my use of the term "new-boy", (having not used any wording which excludes you as being one of such)... Well I've never heard that term used in any NEGATIVE-light at all, and for me, it's merely meant to refer to any of us who were not old enough to ride any DUKE OHC-singles back during the years when they were still new. _ So I'm stumped as to how you could take any offense from that !? _ In fact, as I see it,, the new-boys are to be somewhat admired for their keen-sense of having taken-note of the great-uniqueness of our old DUKEs to the extent that they've jumped-in along with us old-guys who had the additional/main benefit of being involved with DUCATIs back when they were still being newly-sold - (which is a main driving-force for being 'into' our DUKEs!) ! _ So at least in that way, the new-boys have a strength which us old guys may not have ! - (I for one, likely wouldn't be a Duker today, if DUCATIs weren't being sold in the U.S. back when I became old enough to own a cycle.)
If you were into DUKEs any at all back in those good-old days, (which I'm sure you weren't since you prefer the term "bike" for YOUR Ducati[s]), then I'm sorry that my wording was written in such a way that you could possibly allow yourself to be considered as a "new-boy". _ (As only someone like myself could possibly take any kind of offense from the use of that term!)


" I think most people could figure out there was no narrow case before there was a widecase. And there was no World War 1 before there was World War 2. "

____ You need to realize that these-days, many new-boys & especially general-public readers have no way to be sure that the NarrowCase-name didn't already have some reason for existing before the WideCase-name came to be, and also from their respectives, as far as they'd know, it all could've been just the opposite-way-around !
And with that thoughtfulness not overlooked, your wording: "The rear mounts are what give the "narrowcase" it's name.", was akin to stating that the shorter-length & smaller-size (of WW-I compared to WW-II) are what give the World War 1 it's name.


" Did you REALLY think that's what I was saying, or are you simply finding things to go on about? "

____ Of course I couldn't know what you had actually meant to say but, what your wording was seeming to state, needed to be straightened-out !
Whether one actually means what they wrote or not, I indeed do keep an eye out for finding things to go on about. _ As I may be the last one here to keep such things from becoming accepted as true (when in fact they're misinformation).


" I'll stop including 160s ands smaller in the narrowcase family when everyone else stops including 860s and larger in the squarecase family. I realize that's a twin reference with is strictly forbidden here, but it's the first example of the concept I could come up with. "

____ First, I'm sure we all know that it's not really "strictly forbidden" to mention any nonDUKE-single here, (it's just discouraged so as to prevent it from getting out-of-hand!).
__ As for referring to 125/160 & 175/200 models as being 'narrow-case' models... it's not really wrong to do so, it's just something that need not be said except amongst our new-boys.


" There's the new boy again. You know Bob, I might even see the point on this one, but because of the way you delivered the message, I really don't care. Perhaps someday you will learn, it's not enough to be right, if no one will listen because of your delivery. "

____ I don't really see your issue here ! _ What exactly has bothered you this time Craig? _ Some other new internet-rule I've missed?
Surely it isn't that I didn't use the term Newbie instead, as I certainly have given you more credit than to think of you as anything the like of that !
Have you never heard of any Great-Grandfather referring to his grandsons as "boys"? _ If so, does that bother you as well? _ Cuz it's not supposed to !
__ I really don't think I should have to 'kid-glove' anyone with hugs-&-kisses within my posted wording, just to be sure that someone won't take something negatively ! _ I've stated a few times before that all my postings are written to be read in a neutral-light ! _ I really can't help it when somebody insists on reading my wording in their own negative-lighting ! _ I guess some people just can't get their-self to walk the fence (between pos. & neg.).


" I certainly don't feel I've done anything that warrants being called out for my temper, or referred to as a "new boy" multiple times. "

____ Indeed Craig! _ As you were not !
Cuz it must be that your mind alone made those conclusions. _ Since I had purposely worded my statements so that it was up to the reader to consider whether-or not they are a new-boy or not ! _ And since I really don't know if you're one or not, I never once directly referred to you as such ! _ But I did leave the door open for you to let yourself in there if you wished so.
And it seems that not only did you accept the classification (all on your own) but at the same time, you also seemed to dislike it. _ So what's up with that?
__ And stating that others don't care to risk riling another's temper, is quite considerably very far removed from claiming that "Craig" has a short/"quick" temper ! - (Sure never meant to insinuate such as that!)
__ Maybe if you would always try to look at everything in a positive-light, then my postings would strike you as neutral (as so meant to be!).


" Bob is the moderator. He's the top poster (I'm guessing). He seems to decide proper protocol and terminology. He runs the forum. "

____ First-off, I don't run this forum ! _ (If I did, it would be much different!) _ This forum was Jim's great-idea of his own !
And Jim knows that I did not wish for it to be mentioned that I was a moderator (so as to prevent just this kind of trouble from possible occurrence!). _ But he told me that the w.site SoftWare automatically does it.
__ Yes I do try to see to it that proper-terminology is promoted ! _ As it seems that if I don't do it, no one else cares to. _ And someone's got to do it ! _ I hold the torch here in that regard, I guess.
I rarely make up any of such, as it most all was passed on to me by the original generation of pops who started it all.
Believe it or not, I didn't much care for the term "DUKE" when I was first exposed to it (by DUKErs who were in their 20s thru 50s back in the '60s), but I've carried it onward out of respect for the elders who started it & used it so soulfully back in the day !
__ And I'm not 'THE Moderator' (as you've allowed it to be thought), I'm just a moderator !


" As Bob obviously has issues with me, "

____ I really don't see how you can think that there's anything of the sort to be obvious, especially since I try to word my posts to read neutrally.
In any case, I actually don't have any issues with you at all Graig ! _ (The ONLY thing WAS the beer-talk that you put-up [in 2009] and then took-down right-away after you had had time to reread (& digest) my post that you originally had [improperly] taken offense to.)


" the tone of your reply (actually many of your replies, not just to me) was uncalled for
I don't like how you treat people "

____ Certainly any "tone" within the written-word is concocted within the mind of the reader, and I'm sorry that I don't care to add Hearts & Kissy-lips to my wording to make everyone feel nicely warmed & loved -(as they actually are!).
__ I admit that perhaps some of my 'response-postings' may be taken as rather rash if they had been intended as 'reply-postings' or sent as PMs. but, you need to understand that a 'response-post' is not the same thing as a 'reply-post' ! _ A "reply-post" is directed to the author of the words which I've quoted within my postings, and I rarely do that. _ While most of my postings are "response-posts" which are meant to be just general-reading for the general-reader, and the quoted-wording is always merely used only for orientating the reader so he'll realize what I'm carrying-on about.
(I'd think that everyone would be able to realize that, before they would go-on & conclude that a writer is a rude-sucker !)

____ This is a rare 'reply-post' from me, and while it doesn't hold-back from pointing-fingers,, it is, in whole, meant to be taken neither as an overall-positive or an overall-negative reply, in full-total.
It's just my view-point which should be safe to give without purposely stirring the pot.
__ I don't wish at all for Craig to split, and I'm sure many would agree that it's somewhat selfish for someone to leave just because of their own inclination having lead themself to feel a need to become defensive.
But if you prefer for me to never comment concerning any of YOUR posts ever again Craig, then I'm willing to do so if that's what you require.


As always,
Good-Cheers,
-Bob

[bettyann]

Craig;
Your story on the re-style 160 is fabulous. If you quit Motoscrubs , will finish your article on Ducati MS?'
I read your posts on Ducati ms you are a capable contributor, and like the rest of us,Ducati's are in your blood!
Capt. Paul

[Pete]

Craig;
Your story on the re-style 160 is fabulous.

Craig,

I agree with Capt. Paul 100% and I hope you will stick around to finish the story!

Pete

[JimF]

Hi Craig,

I hope you don't quit the forum. To loose you would be a HUGE loss to all the forum members.

I made Bob a moderator only because the forum was getting spammed with porn and Viagra posts left and right for quite awhile, and Bob spends so much time on the list I figured he could delete the spam posts quicker than I could. In the meantime the spam has died down considerably, and I seem to be deleting the remaining few spam posts before Bob does anyway. As far as I know Bob has never once used the limited privileges that a Moderator has.

There can be more than one moderator - this multiple-opening job is currently open to all that want it.

I appreciate that Bob knows a lot of useful stuff and is willing to share it with others. I also appreciate that other people including you are also willing to share your knowledge with others. That's the only purpose of this forum. There are currently about a hundred of us asking questions and maybe less than a dozen of you giving us answers. To loose a contributor of your caliber would be regrettable.

Maybe Bob will take a step back and try to see how his responses can sometimes come across as a bit heavy-handed as there are no voice inflections or facial expressions to give a reader context.

There is no king of the list and no one's postings should serve to preempt anyone from posting or to regret having posted something. Ducati singles are a hobby that brings us pleasure and as such unites us together. It should be a pleasure to post here, and a pleasure to read the other postings.

Craig, I think you did a good job of telling Bob that you took issue with some of his comments, and I think Bob was trying to apologize for having offending you.

This seemingly was a post that could not possibly have taken a wrong turn; no one was disputing squish band or end-play, this was just a post about how one guy was cosmetically putting his bike together.

I am sure I speak for everyone on the list when I say that I hope Craig will continue to update this post along the topic line and without reservation.

Jim

[miken5678]

impressed with the results.. keep the posts coming as this is giving me some good inspiration to keep me going

just curious did you do the hubs yourself? I have been spending hours on mine trying to get level surfaces. Each time i polish it down i still run into a wavy appearance.. pita if you ask me.

[MotoMike]

Hi
I am really enjoying the story. be a shame if I don't get to see the rest of it. Craig (or anyone who knows) what is your website?

[Teckhardt]

Craig:

I watch your posts on this forum as well as the others that you mention. I like what you have put up on the boards and also like to have all my "single stuff" in one handy locale. Please keep posting here.

[Pete]

Hi
I am really enjoying the story. be a shame if I don't get to see the rest of it. Craig (or anyone who knows) what is your website?

http://www.teamyikes.com/

[DesmoDog]

Well this is a fine mess I've gotten myself into...

The vintage Ducati world is a relatively small place so I know a few of you from other venues. I received a couple emails on this and in thinking about it, it became painfully obvious to me I made a huge mistake when I posted this to the list. Any issues I had with Bob should have been discussed with him in a PM, not here, and I apologize to everyone for turning this into a drama fest. I'm a moderator on a different Ducati forum and if someone else had done there, what I did here, I'd roll my eyes and think he was a tool (or worse) and tell him and the other person to "get a room" as it were.

So, that said, I need to apologize to Jim and Bob for posting that in a public forum, it should have been a PM and any further discussion of it from me WILL be off line.

In other news - I'm still struggling to find the time to do all the things I want to get done, so as I told Jim I'll likely stop in from time to time but documenting builds like I used to try to do probably isn't going to happen. This really isn't a big change from how it's been for the past six months anyway, other than I hope to get more done in the end of this year than I did in the beginning.