Newbie question: Vintage pen for everyday use

In an earlier posting, "seg" (seg at technologist dot com) scrib-
bled in message ...
- ... are vintage Conway-Stewarts ... good for everyday use?

I would've liked to say that the bottom line is that if a pen
works, use it -- end of story. But it turns out that the original
poster of this question was also anonymous! So I can't say it. Too
bad.

P.S. Advice for newbies: signed postings get more respect than
anonymous ones.
--
----------------------------------------------
david moeser -- erasmus39 on yahoo
Censornati, Ohio - USA
----------------------------------------------
* I'm sure it's clearly explained in the Zmodem DOCs *

(Headers munged to foil spammers; real info in taglines)

Most people on these boards know that "licensed to quill" is a by-line (you
can look it up in an encyclopaedia, -that sorta like an expanded
dictionary, - often with photos!!): I wrote the book on fountain pens
which sold about two or three times as many copies as all others on fountain
pens put together. And sold (in half a dozen languages) to about ten times
as many people out there as actually collect pens. Plus a few other books
which are newer but which have nevertheless been reasonably well received,
(though not necessarily by me). I have been collecting and dealing in
fountain pens for about a quarter of a century. And attended over 100 shows
all over the world as well as being an organiser of pen shows in New York,
Milan and Bologna.

As to nomenclature, precisely who are you to make these extraordinary
comments which do nothing whatsoever to assist the newbie who asked the
original question? Isn't that the point of putting out an answer to a
posting? Do you have anything serious to contribute to a discussion on
vintage fountain pens or are you just someone who likes flaming and if you
cant find something to flame about in a posting, flames because you CLAIM
you don't know who posted a message?

Have you ever actually written with a vintage pen? (this isn't exactly clear
from your 'response')

My question arises out of being exceptionally impressed (read: underwhelmed)
with your summation: "if a pen works, use it -- end of story", which being
the essence of your posting was presumably indicative of your sum total
knowledge on the subject. Well DUHHH!!! Does that make you what was
called in Monty Python a student of the bleeding obvious? Was it supposed
to contribute anything to this thread? If so, what? Would a 2 cent bic or
a child's coloured crayon (quaere pen?) fall into your category in advising
someone who had asked a serious question about how vintage pens write, -
on a newsgroup populated by users who actually know what they are talking
about?

Permit me to let you into a not particularly well-kept secret about
newsgroups: Agree with what they say or not, people with something to
contribute get respect. People who make comments which cause the instant
reaction 'DUHHH' cause a bit of hilarity for a moment and do therefore have
a purpose although I wouldn't quite categorise it with the term 'respect'.

And if they make those comments AND sign their comments with their own
name.............

Hugo Ripanykhazov


"Edward Bonaventure" wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.56.0310032309370.22276@shell1...
In an earlier posting, "seg" (seg at technologist dot com) scrib-
bled in message ...
- ... are vintage Conway-Stewarts ... good for everyday use?

I would've liked to say that the bottom line is that if a pen
works, use it -- end of story. But it turns out that the original
poster of this question was also anonymous! So I can't say it. Too
bad.

P.S. Advice for newbies: signed postings get more respect than
anonymous ones.
--
----------------------------------------------
david moeser -- erasmus39 on yahoo
Censornati, Ohio - USA
----------------------------------------------
* I'm sure it's clearly explained in the Zmodem DOCs *

(Headers munged to foil spammers; real info in taglines)

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 23:19:46 -0400, Edward Bonaventure
wrote:

aw shoot - unfortunately, your tag line vanishes when I click "reply
to"

so I didn't catch your excuse for using a munged addy.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:24:01 -0400, "Licensed to Quill"
wrote:

snipped response much more eloquent than mine

albeit a bit verbose. :-)

That's a joke, LtQ!

there's a lot I'd like to say Anonymity on Usenet in contrast to
what DM professes to believe. But I'd be repetive and redundant if I
did so. :-)

Kcat the Verboser. who was a bit hypocritical in snapping at DM but
will blame it on the late hour - or early depending on your POV.

g'nite all.

Licensed to Quill wrote:

I wrote the book on fountain pens
which sold about two or three times as many copies as all others on fountain
pens put together. And sold (in half a dozen languages) to about ten times
as many people out there as actually collect pens.

being an organiser of pen shows in New York, Milan and Bologna.


You wrote *the* book on fountain pens? Which one?
It sold 3 times as many as all others, is that including Frank's book?
It sold to 10 times as many people as actually collect pens? Does that
statement actually make any sense?

You organized shows in New York? I thought that was limited to the
Zuckers, and previously Berliner, and before that Max Davis?

Please feel free to clarify.

anon.

In article Pine.GSO.4.56.0310032309370.22276@shell1,
Edward Bonaventure wrote:

In an earlier posting, "seg" (seg at technologist dot com) scrib-
bled in message ...
- ... are vintage Conway-Stewarts ... good for everyday use?

I would've liked to say that the bottom line is that if a pen
works, use it -- end of story. But it turns out that the original
poster of this question was also anonymous! So I can't say it. Too
bad.

P.S. Advice for newbies: signed postings get more respect than
anonymous ones.

Oh, give it up already. Life is too short to be ****ed away on
inconsequential crap like this.

Edward Bonaventure wrote:
But it turns out that the original poster of this question was also anonymous!
P.S. Advice for newbies: signed postings get more respect than
anonymous ones.


Lke Edward I feel that if I put myself out there, I like to deal with
others who are willing to do the same.

A name, even a first name, will do. It's all about trust. This type
of legitimate hobby group isn't someplace where we should be trying to
hide behind some pseudonym. It seems creepy to hide behind BIGFACE205.
It's different in an internet relay chat, but this is a place where
we're discussing ideas and it lends a lot of credibility to someones
comments if they are willing to have real names like Bobby and Sally.

Nancy Handy

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 15:14:14 GMT, (Nancy Handy)
wrote:

Edward Bonaventure wrote:
But it turns out that the original poster of this question was also anonymous!
P.S. Advice for newbies: signed postings get more respect than
anonymous ones.


Lke Edward I feel that if I put myself out there, I like to deal with
others who are willing to do the same.

A name, even a first name, will do. It's all about trust. This type
of legitimate hobby group isn't someplace where we should be trying to
hide behind some pseudonym. It seems creepy to hide behind BIGFACE205.
It's different in an internet relay chat, but this is a place where
we're discussing ideas and it lends a lot of credibility to someones
comments if they are willing to have real names like Bobby and Sally.

Nancy Handy

I have a very strong "support group" mindset about anonymity - which
is why I object to the assumption that because a person posts
anonymously they are inherently untrustworthy. It's just my opinion
but Edward (or David as the case may be) seems to take the assumption
to an extreme that I find offensive. Jimmy Tom and I had this
*discussion* briefly some time ago. :-) My introduction to him was
basically "What the **** are you talking about Jimmy!" whap whap
whap he's forgiven me - I think.

Trust from a support group POV is quite different than trust as you
infer belongs here. If anything, trust and respect are developed in
the melieu of complete anonymity then when the person needing support
feels comfortable they can choose to reveal their real names either to
individuals or to the group. Finally, I know the real names of many
people that I do not respect at all. While my strongest friendships
were forged in a "safe" environment with only screen names to start
out with.

I suppose my thing is - if you don't feel comfortable with someone
posting anonymously, that's your business and I take no issue with
that. But to spitefully slam someone solely for that purpose is
trollish behavior that does nothing to endear me to Mr. David Moeser/
Edward Bonaventure. Quite the opposite.

jmo of course.

In article ,
(Nancy Handy) wrote:

Edward Bonaventure wrote:
But it turns out that the original poster of this question was
also anonymous! P.S. Advice for newbies: signed postings get more
respect than anonymous ones.

Lke Edward I feel that if I put myself out there, I like to deal
with others who are willing to do the same.

But Edward may or may not be Edward. He might be David. Or he might
be neither. He might be Jane calling herself Edward and David. Or
perhaps this is someone with multiple personalities... ;-D

For the purposes of discussion I prefer to have the participants have
a real name. Do I call "Licensed to Quill" by the name "Licensed" or
"Quill?" Perhaps "LtQ?" It's awkward trying to converse with someone
using a bizarre made-up name. But when it gets right down to it, it
really doesn't matter that much. As I said in an earlier post, life
is too short to **** away on inconsequentials.

Now, when it comes to doing business, I will not do business with
someone like "Licensed to Quill" who keeps their identity hidden. He
or she might be an honorable person, but I have nothing to go on.
That's not my loss.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:50:28 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

Now, when it comes to doing business, I will not do business with
someone like "Licensed to Quill" who keeps their identity hidden. He
or she might be an honorable person, but I have nothing to go on.
That's not my loss.

Absolutely.

There's trust among those you talk to and hope to be "getting real"
with... then there's trust with business which is a whole 'nother
ballgame.

this is why I steer clear of e-b*y for the most part.