Wanting to reply to Sam, because I not only don't want this to go out of control, but also to reiterate my support for Sam's efforts, and anyone similarly inclined.
Guys, I am chilled even if it didn't sound like it. I started out responding to JonSzanto's question/assumption directed at me several of his posts back, which I felt was chiding my sincere efforts trying to help people solve their issues, and somehow turning that into an admonition that I shouldn't be doing this because the Noodler QA issues should never have been allowed to happen?
As I stated, I used your post as something of a jumping off point, but it was the general principle of the production of the pens I was referring to. In NO WAY was I chiding your efforts, and if in any way it came off as such (though I think a clear reading would show it not to), you have my sincere apologies.
Look: I've only been at the pen stuff for a little bit more than a year, and in that time the greatest resource I've found was FPN. And what is FPN but it's individual correspondents, helping each other. You, Sam, are a big part of that, and the community is rich for your helpfulness.
Jon: Sam, would you be both this forgiving, and willing to go to those lengths, if the pen in question cost $100-200?
Listen, if you guys don't like this or any other pen, then state your own personal position without feeling the need to impugn other people's motives who are making posts trying to help others out--apparently because you are not happy with your own experience. Did I say I was forgiving? Did I say anyone should be willing to go to any lengths about any pen, regardless of its cost or reputation? What I do not understand is why you feel the need to keep berating the pen, the maker, the failed QA process, and now even people who are trying to help others get a problem solved after you already made your point. That says more about you than it does me....even if there are several of you ganging together.
This is definitely you reading more into it than I wrote. I certainly wasn't attacking you, but asking a very pertinent question: at what point to we, as consumers, go to *any* length at all to make up for a manufacturer's product's faults? It is more than reasonable to expect that a new car owner wouldn't be gladly going under the hood if the car wouldn't start, or ran rough, etc. I brought up a talking point - initiated with an Ahab, but could have been other Noodler's pens, or Visconti Homo Sapiens, or TWSBI... any number of new items: what should the reasonable expectation be for a new product that you have purchased.
I didn't "impugn" your motives in the least; as to whether you said you were forgiving or suggesting how much work people should do on their own, no: you didn't state such things, which was why I asked!
I'm sorry if I chose this moment and by chance, others chimed in. It was not my intent to "gang up" on anything, but to ask honest questions about the product and the efforts to make it go. As I stated: I have not used an Ahab.
For clarification, my own characterization of "vitriolic grief" is a reflection of what I have seen play out repeatedly over the years, and uniquely towards Noodlers and/or Nathan Tardif. It is not drawn from this thread alone.
Well, look, that is neither my fault nor my problem. Please don't dump years of boorish behavior on me, because frankly, I've not said anything but good things about Nathan previously. And I *still* support his efforts, which is the ENTIRE reason I would spend any amount of energy trying to figure out how to make this a better product. I like having discussions, but I don't like having a multi-year set of baggage paint my comments in a light with which they were never intended.
Do you have any idea how many Ahabs Nathan has sold? You can reference the end of my first post (point #5) in this thread to see that back in December, 2011, it was over 20,000. 200 FPN problems divided by 20,000 is a 1% rate. As far as I'm concerned for a new product that gives all these features for $20, I would expect a 20-25% problem rate. It has already been well established that Nathan has radically altered the QA procedure and guidelines, some of which were initially violated by the manufacturer without his knowledge. TWSBI has had to do the same....like all companies developing a new product that don't have multimillion dollar R&D departments.
Sam, with all due respect, nothing in the above paragraph actually sheds light on the size of any percentage of problem pens. You compare a global number of sales vs. the number of problems reports on the site. Apples and oranges. However, your bolded statement suggests what I had wondered all along - you actually are OK with about 1/4 of an inexpensive product being defective in some way. I would see it differently, but that is just something that we differ on, nothing more, nothing less.
Sam, again: I value all of your efforts, and it is obvious to any clear-headed reader that you are motivated by a helping nature, and a desire and passion for these tools and creative outlets. Over and above everything else, you have my respect for that, in spades; please don't let any discussion points cause you to think otherwise.