Alrighty then. Let's do play this out.
I was in hearings all day yesterday. Now that I've got a few minutes, I thought it best to set the record straight on a few items that have come up in the course of this thread.
First: I am the editor of the Pennant, and I was hired to put out the magazine. Period. I'm not a member of the board, and I'm not authorized to speak on behalf of the PCA. When I speak on the subject of the PCA library, I speak as a long-time fan of the project and as a concerned member of the PCA for what is going on.
It is good to clarify that you are not a member of the Board, though i don't recall anyone suggesting you were a member of the board, so perhaps you set a record straight that exists in your own mind. That is fine. What has been noted in this discussion is an assertion that the Editor of the PENnant for many is the most Public Face of the PCA and thus the PCA Board. There is food for thought no doubt in the notion that the expression found on that Face has significance for the course of the PCA.
Second: what is going on is NOT, in my opinion, an altruistic venture to make information in the public domain available to all. If I sounded sharp in my tone, it's because I believe I know exactly what is going on here. Shortly after Paul Erano was relieved of his duties editing the Pennant, he began making plans to start his own magazine, tentatively called "Fountain Pen Journal." There has even been a website page put up -- www.fountainpenjournal.com. Take a look now before it's changed. The links aren't active yet, and the "Staff Contributors" are Star Trek characters, but there's apparently plans to post articles on FPGeeks as well as here at FPB.
But there's another link on this new web page that may well explain the sudden "altruistic" uploading of documents from the PCA's library: "Archive.
In my role of very excellent medical clinician, I note merely in the most oblique and general case that paranoid ideation is an unfortunate thing to see in any patient or acquaintance.
The first definition from a Google Search for "Paranoid Ideation":
Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat
From the easy-to-use Medscape website
Paranoid symptoms can present as persecutory delusions, paranoid ideation, or even increased suspiciousness and are nonspecific signs that can be present in a number of conditions of late life. Delusions of being stolen from are among the most common examples of paranoid symptom the clinician is likely to encounter.
Those who are investing time and money into the new magazine know fully well that they won't sell magazines if people can just wait for an issue or two and read it online, so this "Archive" will obviously not be an archive of issues of Fountain Pen Journal.
I note in the general case that when paranoid ideation is compounded by a profound presumptuousness (there's that word again) about how... other people... plan to structure a new project in which said person has no role, that we see assumptions of badness, or at least of hypthesized badness, whether or not the action-- even if it were to occur as suggested-- even were bad. In Psychology/Psychiatry, this is called... Projection
From the Wiki:
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.
So what will be included in this "Archive"? Was the sudden uploading of PCA Library documents at this time a mere coincidence?
We return to general notions Paranoia
Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat
Paranoid symptoms can present as persecutory delusions, paranoid ideation, or even increased suspiciousness and are nonspecific signs that can be present in a number of conditions of late life. Delusions of being stolen from are among the most common examples of paranoid symptom the clinician is likely to encounter.
Moving beyond general notions of Paranoia, I broaden to notions of limited syntactical capacity, the notion that a word-- let's randomly explore the word "Achive" merely as a general example-- has to mean what a Paranoid person thinks it means. Indeed, it often means something else. I also find charm in the the jump in logic that a rudimentary page-holder for a web-site in any meaningful way reflects final product.
At some point we can explore the notion of self-fulfilling prophecy, the notion that presumptuous paranoid people-- speaking only in the general case of course-- can encourage the development of a real thing that initially was only his imagination. For example, a person paranoid with irrational fear of having his wallet stolen by "The Mob" goes and punches a mobster at random resulting in the mobster punishing him by stealing his wallet. Weird world.
But, all this of course is merely general psychological analysis. I enjoy philosophizing about psychology. If we are move but briefly back to real world situation, I would invite counsel to offer evidence that what he hypothesizes is not coincidence is not coincidence. Ahhh... thought not.
If one were to move beyond general psych observations and beyond simple questions about a scenario offered here by a lawyer, interestingly a notion that thanks to the badgering of poor David Armstrong by a lawyer and by others has now been shown to be wholly legal, one might move to more detailed questions like why would anyone pursuing the scenario laid out by a no doubt non-paranoid and non-projecting perfectly reasonable lawyer upload to an external site a mere handful of obscure-ish items. Seems like a pretty poor effort in this regard iiiiiif the evil mustache-twirling plan were offer a nice range of public-domain items to which we've seen no legal protection exists for the current hosts. How could such Machiavellian manipulaters be so... hack amateur? ;0
And, of course, since the non-paranoid, non-projecting, very reasonable Lawyer positing this scenrio, doing wonders--- as the Public Face of the PCA to encourage (cough cough) the core group of contributors to his magazine the last few years--- to keep his coterie of authors coming back to offer more, I guess we can ask him to provide evidence regarding downloads of the involved hypothesized evil-players in this or of anyone else, so we can explore who-- perhaps years ago-- uploaded 1% or less of the PCA public-domain archive to another Archive that of course has nothing to do with any nascent fountain pen magazine. Or... would that be too much to ask? Insinuation of course has its charms, but data serves cases far better, I'd imagine.
The reasonable conclusion I draw is that this "new" archive will be made up of documents that until recently were only available to members of the PCA through its library, and this discussion of whether these documents are "public domain" is nothing more than an effort to give credibility to a perfectly legal but nevertheless despicable act.
Tactic 14 from the Losing Debater's Maniual: "When you have no actual points of substance to make regarding a hypothesis that some might see (wrongly no doubt, as Jon I believe is a very reasonable, grounded, and stable fellow) as Paranoid and Projecting, assert blindly in your conclusory (eep!) statement that your conclusion is... get this... reasonable"
This is the evidence that led me to ask David (close friend of Paul, frequent contributor to the Pennant and proud provider of cover photos on most if not all of the issues under Paul's editorship): were you the person that did this? Rereading this thread, I still see no answer to this question.
I observe in the general case, that one can ask whatever he wants, however much paranoia, projection, hubris, chutzpa and presumptuousness is present, seems present in said questions.
I note also Tactic 29 and Tactic 29a from the Losing Debater's Manual: "When you truly have nothing of substance to offer in debate, act as though you have an right to an answer to whatever diverting question you toss, in attempt to distract the audience from realizing you have nothing of substance to offer." and...
"When you have nothing of substance to offer in debate and are on the ropes and have asked a diverting question to try to cover yourself, when your opponent does not engage, you then can try to claim the lack of answer means whatever you want it to mean".
This can work, unless someone has read the Winning Debater's Manual and knows to call out people using tactics from the Losing Debater's Manual. Just sayin'...
Third: the first catalog I pulled off of archive.org had the typewritten legend at the top of the page indicating that it had been donated to the library by Fred Krinke. Others bear similar notations which resolve any question: the copies recently uploaded to archive.org are without question the same copies that have been in the PCA library for years.
I note that this is irrelevant to the issues raised by Jon Jenkins and Jon Danza and David Nishimura, three who raised legal and moral issues of uploading public-domain materials hosted by the PCA. Why? That these copies might be in the PCA library (putting aside the valid question raised by Jon's "Third:" as to whether Fred ever/never shared his library with anyone else ever. Just sayin'...) has been acknowledged by parties in this conversation long ago. Raising this as if it is new insight is... distracting. Better not to mix issues.
So, this has nothing with the insinuations made by the quoted Lawyer regarding a new magazine, and in any case we can point back to earlier posts in this thread in which it was acknowledged that there in no legal barrier to cross-posting public-domain documents, a question I actually was provoked to consider seriously for the first time merely because of the challenges put to Mr. Armstrong based on his innocent post.
Fourth: I've never said that the documents in the reference library section at the PCA website was protected by copyright, although I'm not authorized to admit on behalf of the PCA that they are not. I was never addressing the question "may we," but rather "should we" when it comes to the question of whether PCA members should feel at liberty to take information from the PCA's site and disseminate them to the general public. I believe that no, we should not, for two reasons: (1) those who have worked and are working tirelessly on behalf of the PCA to build this library did so to promote a non-profit organization and help attract new members by providing this library as a benefit, and (2) those who have donated materials frequently do so for the benefit of the PCA, not so that their belongings could be scattered across the Internet. See Roger Wooten's comments above.
Whether this was said or not is irrelevant to the conversation in hand.
If the most Public Face of the PCA wishes to make assertions, what some might see as insinuations or condemnations , then starting with the core basis of the challenging situation is an appropriate review, since that is what this thread was about. I notice that the Lawyer quoted has not offered any evidence for his hypothesis many might see-- wrongly no doubt-- as Paranoid and Projective.
Dang those pesky facts, always getting in the way of hateful speech... in the general case of internet debate, not here of course.
Weird how the "may we" vs "should we" offered in the above quote as if it is an epiphany, indeed reflects the very questions I offered in earlier threads. I am glad that the moral challenges I offered to the crowd had at least a subconscious effect on some.
We can (and indeed might) explore further some moral scenarios in this thread, since I and others here first learned in this very thread of the notions of copyfraud, public-domain copyright law, and false expectations raised in people by virtue of their having contributed, what the law calls, "Sweat of the Brow".
However, it is is odd for the quoted Lawyer to act as if this is a new notion here and to act as though this has anything to do with some new magazine. The quoted Lawyer is far too free of Paranoia and Projection, what with being a kind, gracious, thoughtful Public Face of the PCA, to... assume anything bad (if his assertions even do involve anything bad) about any individuals. Right?
As a tangent, an interesting series of posts, or fresh thread, could be generated looking at the conflict of pre-digital concepts bumping into the digital world and what it means if an organization develops a business model with at least one aspect that cannot survive digital realities, something new to me in this thread. In that tangent, as I mentioned in earlier posts, what indeed is the game theory of unlimited permissible digital distribution interacting with legitimate personal (if not legal) "sweat of the brow" expectations or misconceptions?
Of course, none of that has anything to do with some new magazine, though I certainly invite evidence to the contrary.
Fifth: I have not suggested that those who have not joined the PCA are cheap. I have said that those who seek out and rejoice in enjoying a benefit of a non-profit organization without having to pay for it are cheap.
Tactic 18 from the Losing Debater's Manual: "When you have been called out for a position of substance you cannot defend, deny deny deny".
I will not engage in debating what the Lawyer actually means by "suggest". Hell, some lawyers parse what "is"... is. It could be that some people infer different things from what the Lawyer meant to imply.
I will offer in debate to the "FIFTH" point above, said Lawyer's own earlier words,
Per Jon Veley: As far as I'm concerned, it's difficult to understand why someone in our hobby - in which we think nothing of paying hundreds for the objects of our affection - would be too cheap to pay $40 a year to support a non-profit, national organization dedicated to improving the hobby.
I have far more explicit words for members who turn on the non-profit organization that has worked for their benefit, as well as for those who would claim to have an "Archive" that was built by someone else over a period of years.
I wonder if the Lawer misspoke in the above quote, as I imagine him to be a non-paranoid, non-projecting, grounded and stable fellow, who would not offer Paranoid and Projecting claims that he knows of anyone who is claiming an Archive that was bulit by someone else?
I do invite names and evidence, otherwise we are left with insinuation, paranoia, projection... things I would find odd to be present in the most prominent Face of the Pen Collectors of America. 
I joined the PCA after a pen dealer sold me a binder full of copies of old Eversharp catalogs for $50. When I showed them to someone who said they were copies of documents at the PCA library, I felt (even though I had paid for the copies) that I had in fact paid the wrong person, and that it was wrong not to support the organization that made it possible for this dealer to assemble my binder. I felt I had wrongfully benefitted from the PCA's efforts and in fact rewarded the unscrupulous dealer whose PCA dues I had unwittingly paid. I've been a member of the PCA ever since, and I have long been a public supporter of the library.
The quirky anecdotes and experiences that contribute to an individual's psyche and perspective have tangential charm, though these are of course wholly irrelevant (mixed issues, distractions) from the case the Lawyer makes in earlier posts. In theory we could concede the Lawyer is the Lord's Gift to Humanity, which of course proves little in an issues-oriented discussion.
As far as "Fountain Pen Journal" goes, the more the merrier, and I'm glad there will be yet another source of information available.
No one would have imagined you thought anything other than "more than merrier", though your need to emphasize it now raises questions. Ah, that Macbeth. How did it go, "The Lawyer doth protest too much, me thinks"
My hope is that it will be an additional voice rather than merely an effort by a disgruntled former editor to even a score.
It is interesting that that single quoted statement likely terminated what a former editor had seen as a true friendship with someone he had wished well in his new role as Editor of the PENnant, a new Editor whose earlier work he had gone out of way to publicize when that pre-New-Editor published some written material. I can't speak for how that former editor sees things now, though I know the fondness he held for that new Editor just a couple days ago. It's good that I know the Lawyer now the Most Public Face for the PCA is not Paranoid or Projecting, though I note in the general case that Paranoia can sabotage old friendships.
I was brought aboard as editor of the Pennant because of my willingness to accept all voices and ideas. I want expand involvement in our community and make it more inclusive. I am seeking out new voices for our publication and I want to continue the contributions of those who have provided valuable information in the past. I have invited David both publicly and privately to continue his participation, even offering to allow him to continue his "streak" of providing the cover photography -- a request to which I have heard no response. David did indicate his third installment of the Gold Bond series will be available in about five weeks now, and I still hope he will choose to have it published in the Pennant. If he doesn't, that's his choice. My job is to make sure he and everyone else remains welcome to submit material of interest to our members.
Interesting thing about the Former Editor of the PENnant. He never engaged in online disparagement or of negative insinuation regarding... well... anybody. It would be unfortunate if the New Editor of the PCA, the biggest Face of that organization to the average membership, in a single online discussion managed to alienate nearly everyone who had contributed to PENnant the last few years and who had-- prior to this thread--- planned in varying degrees to keep contributing. Just sayin'...
In short, I want to build our pen community through the PCA.
I will observe only that the Editor of the PENnant's approach to this conversation represents a... fascinating... interpretation of the notion of community building.
I do not believe this incident was an innocent attempt to make information freely available. I believe this is actually part of an attempt to divide our community, and that bothers me.
It is a good thing that the Lawyer offering opinions here does not suffer from the psychological condition of Paranoia, because if I read the above quotation from someone I did not know, I would see achingly deep degrees of paranoia in it.
Note that nothing in this message accuses anyone of anything. It's possible that Mr. Armstrong just happened upon these documents at archive.org without being tipped off by someone else (for grins, try to "just happen" upon anything at archive.org). It's possible that someone other than Paul or David uploaded these files just after Paul was relieved of his duties as editor of the PCA.
Yes, I quite agree. I note merely in the general case that seemingly hateful, imagined insinuations backed by nothing, not even having pertinent context to offer... tends to do more harm to the asserter than to the assertee. One wonders the impact of this post by the Biggest Public Face of the PCA on the many people who are members of the PCA, who might become members of the PCA, who in either case rather adore the Former Editor of the PCA, when it comes to their future involvement in the PCA.
I certainly insist on nothing. I do cheerfully speculate though. That's always fun. I will refer pretty much the entire facebook pen community and the 3000 names on my Vacumania mailing list to this page so the masses can form their own opinions, during the next month or so. I am grateful that the Main Public Face of the PCA has brought all this to our attention. Indeed, analysis by the masses might supercharge some new magazine's subscriber base.
Along the lines of recognizing possibilities, something that seems important to the Face of the PCA, I note it is very possible that some Lawyers are not sociopathic wife-beaters who like to insinuate maliciousness absent really anything at all to back their malice. There, that's a relief
But if in the near future a "free archive" appears which bears uncanny resemblance to the PCA's library and which is used to sell someone else's magazines, I encourage you in addition to reading it, learning from it and enjoying it ... that you see it for exactly what it is.
It's good that Jon isn't Paranoid or Projecting, because otherwise we might wonder what he sees on a page that "resembles" the PCA's library. I invite specific evidence of the "uncanny resemblance" on another website to the PCA library.
I note too, that there would be irony in the notion of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Note Tactic 53 from the Losing Debater's Manaul (common among lawyers) : "When you have nothing of substance to offer, and when you want to keep an opponent from doing something or going to an argument, try to make claim he already has done it and that it is bad, even though you know he hasn't done it".
This is a slippery technique, but it fails when it is used against someone who has read the Winning Debater's Manual.
This technique also is used to try to poison relationships between people who have strong negative feelings about something (let's say John Danza and John Jenkins regarding the re-use of public domain materials) and friends of theirs who one tries to suggest has done something that those people might not like. That's one's a bit naughty, though still charming, right?
It also is used outside the context of debate to try to try to block a path of action that it finds objectionable. It would be quite ironic if instead it proved to be what sowed the seed...
Ahhh, the PCA, like the "Palestinians" as liberal Israeli Abba Eban noted about the "Palestinians" nearly 50 years ago... "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity"
Your turn,
-d
.....better be worth the $60 btw...
