You notes about CS-FPN do return to the speculative. The CS relationship might or might not be incestuous, but it is what it is. That's why we have FPnuts.com (Fountain Pen Board).
-d
What is not speculative is that (avoiding any discussions of 'duty of care') there is a clear conflict of interest, in that the vast majority of posts critical of the modern CS company have routinely been removed and the members responsible have been chastised to various degrees, all this in a forum moderated solely by a current director of CS. When I put this point to moderators (many years ago, now), the angry official reply from the BDC was (I paraphrase slightly, not having the e-mail to hand) 'I thought you understood that Mary does not actually sell pens, therefore there is no conflict of interest' which is ridiculous in the extreme!
As you say, their board, their rules but I feel those who do not realise FPN is run in this way have the right to know that they may be being misinformed about lots of things. Like Hugh, I am angry at the way the modern company rides roughshod over their heritage, happy to claim a vintage connection when it suits but not actually caring enough to respect 100 years + of the history behind the name and (the good Dr I. permitting), I shall continue to make all this plain on this board at least, for those who care to visit.
Andy
My last note more addressed Hugh's comments. Conflict of Interest indeed is suggested when one has a financially connected (even a good and moral) person moderating with a claim to objectivity. I remain however highly uncertain that a private board must (or in this case does) make claim to... objectivity. It is only if a claim of objectivity is put forth that one even really can object, and only then on a principled basis. And, those who watch and who play in that sandbox have the right to analyze (at least in a place where the moderator won't remove the analysis... heh) or to play altogether in a different sandbox. It all sort of works out.
I agree claims of lack of financial connection d/t lack of retailing items ("merely" distributing to retails) would strike me as specious.
I also agree that lowest-common-denominator (of late, termed "sheeple" in certain political circles) environments do not promote critical thought. But, some people want to feel part of the Biggest Place, and for them I guess that choice is valid.
To degree I 'permit" (vs my real view of "encourage", "enjoy", "appreciate") commentary here, certainly varied perspectives and emphatic opinions are welcome. There has been very little moderated here in nearly three years. Context-related adult language meets no filters. The very rare "pure advert in non-advert section" has been redirected. The more rare personal x-rated attack on individuals (strangely enough, when they occur, usually from Dennis/Rochelle, who seem to keep forgetting that guys don't have female plumbing), have been... softened.
Certainly it is understandable that those who relate to old pens made by established makes might wish to object to what they see as lack of respect for company heritage. Indeed today many companies that (arguably) have continuous line lack that respect. So it goes. Such chat in my view is highly valid. My "logic poke" on the subject mainly points to nuance in these things. A company might be continuous in chain, but have moved from the USA to China for production, with no guidance from original management family. Another company might have bought the title to a defunct company from trademark holder. A third company might have had title languishing in external ownership (as Parker once owned Eversharp) only to reappear with a motivated new owner, and with an actual trackable continous chain of prior ownership, the pens done with more respect for old than are done pens with arguable continuous production. Besides analyzing the pens for what *we* (nice of us, right) see as their merit, we can opine that names of old should be left to the (sorry, Mr Trotsky et al) dustbin of history.
All this has merit (nice of me again, right?).
But, I do wonder if fuming that a place insists on doing what it wants in its own place, does much good. Still, there is fun in blowing off steam. And, there are (again) other places to play if one doesn't like that "objective" moderators work for a company that is being discussed by message board members. Indeed, I suspect one of the analyses of CS done here at FPB has our largest view-count.
So... have at it. Clearly this is a subject of interest.
regards
d
