To pursue clarity when none is needed is a bad use of energy...foolish. Foolish pursuits are tiresome.
Again, each of us may find tiresome what he chooses. There is nothing to discuss or to assess. I find exciting what you find tiresome. That's fine. But, it is the minor point in all this.
Every bit of research, exploration, discussion and invention carries the risk of being foolish. You have not addressed my prior point as to what should be the outcome then of your deeming one of those things to be foolish? Should none then ever be pursued, since they risk failure in the general sense or risk your disapproval? Seriously... that you deem something foolish is a fine reason for you not to invest in it, but that's about it. Meanwhile, despite the "foolishness" of this venture (assessing best name for some Esties), you have engaged it as if it were not foolish, as you have ventured an opinion, just as I and David N did, as to the better name for this Esterbrook color pattern.
And, of course, that you see no lack of clarity in something does not mean that other people, for a variety of reasons that might have merit, might see lack of clarity that needs assessment. That's why they engage in the involved chat.
The bigger thing in your current post is that you seem to have already disproved the core thesis of your prior post, that the discussion of terms for this Estie plastic is puerile. You are interested enough in it to take a stand on which name you prefer, as per, "I came to Estes five or six years ago. At that time Cracked Ice was, and remains a reasonable descriptor for the $1.50 pens."
You presumably don't consider your involvement or your sharing opinion to be puerile, thus the discussion could not be puerile earlier when others were venturing opinions
Nice syllogism, except I didn't initiate the call for a campaign, and that is what is puerile.
That's actually not what you had called puerile
It is foolish enough to be an expert in, of all things, fountain pens, but to quibble about whether the term is cracked or crushed is puerile. Some days all this Talmudic pedantry becomes tiresome. This is one of them.
I remain willing to concede that whether a subject is tiresome is wholly subjective, so there is not much to say on that secondary point.
Finally, I really do disagree with any claim that it is foolishness to-- per se-- seek expertise in a collectables field. Expertise is fun to seek and serves both the expert and (hopefully) the hobby well.
To raise the issue of crushed versus cracked to the level of a campaign equates to the 5th century schism between the Greek and Roman churches as to whether the host should be levened or un-levened bread. Ultimately it was never resoled. Every one just shrugged, agreed to disagree and focused on more pressing issues.
To be blunt... this is an assertion that others might not share, and it is one that tends, again, to squelch exploration. All exploration, study and invention risk ultimate lack of success. So... never try?
You're reaching for higher ground, but only moving onto thinner ice. The key is meaningful exploration, not the re-invention of the wheel.
That really is just misdirection. Clearly, the partiicipants in the discussion did find it to have merit, or else they would not address it in a serious and caring fashion. There is no thin ice. That is just casting aspersion. There were people discussing an issue in pendom, to grow the knowledge, whatever the outcome. Indeed, you clearly find merti in the discussion, as you have ventured an opinion about it at least as strongly as David Nishimura and I did.
And, again, what many people in the hobby have considered wheel re-invention have, has-- when pursued by others-- resulted in new and sometimes dominant viewpoints. Other times not. So... if any research, invention, exploration or discussion in retrospect fails to yield positive results, should it never be pursued? Really?
Then why bother to change a term that thousands of EsteNuts use with complete understanding?
I don't know that there are thousands of Esterbrook collectors.
Too, I don't know that all of them use this term with complete understanding.
Also, I assert that most collectors absorb (or should absorb) global pen collecting notions along with info about their key collectable. Color patterns have a global pen collecting element. David Nishimura's claim involved putting colors in the context of appearance and of global pen collecting.
In a single week FPB had two pen threads about Esties, a few months back. One asked why collectors pay so much for such humble pens. The other asked why such a significant pen was not mentioned in Lambrou's first book. Two collectors. One week. One seeing Esties as "big", the other as "small". The answers had to do with global notions of pen collecting and of evolution of the hobby. Anyone who wishes to view any pen brand or series (Esties, Vacumatics, whatever) in a vacuum is doing himself a disservice.
But, again, once one engages in the pros and cons of the term at hand, he is of course recognizing that he deems the discussion to be one of merit and not puerile and certainly not trivial. And that is rather one of my key points
It becomes foolish when bona-fides are re-enforced with the intellectual equivalent of separating fly feces from ground pepper.
I'm not sure from where this comes. What did the thread have to do with re-enforcing any sort of bonafides? And, if the conversation was trivial and pointless, what's the worry if those who do care about the terms, play with 'em?
regards
d
I again note that I believe the thread had nothing to do with re-enforcing bonafides, though I am amenable to contrary information
regards
d
