Fixin' it? "Code of ethics"

Okay, full disclosure, I have not read this thread in it's entirety... :D I just want to chime in that I have known Ed for a decade and know him to steadfastly stick to his principles, profit be damned. While Ed my have made the same mistake in the past does not make him a hypocrite. I've heard the stories of his regrets and feel it's what's helped shape his character. I don't know that I agree with him entirely, but he makes a good point. While it may not be an "absolute" atrocity, the original maker might feel it is, so the refinisher should take that into consideration.
 
Jose Reyes said:
Okay, full disclosure, I have not read this thread in it's entirety... :D I just want to chime in that I have known Ed for a decade and know him to steadfastly stick to his principles, profit be damned. While Ed my have made the same mistake in the past does not make him a hypocrite. I've heard the stories of his regrets and feel it's what's helped shape his character. I don't know that I agree with him entirely, but he makes a good point. While it may not be an "absolute" atrocity, the original maker might feel it is, so the refinisher should take that into consideration.
Click to expand...

Jose - fair enough - it's a long thread. Had you read it, though, you would know that NOBODY CALLED ED A HYPOCRITE. This was a completely made-up accusation by David, which he then sought to refute. I asked him to point to the source of this phantom charge of hypocrisy (which he attributed to me). Unsurprisingly, I am still waiting.

It had been suggested - by me and others - that Ed's positions on refinishing and "Loveless" were difficult to reconcile. They are. But this had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Ed's acknowledgment of a past "mistake".

Roger
 
Roger- I also read the charge of me being a hypocrite - it has strangely disappeared, maybe in an eidt.
 
Ed Fowler said:
Roger- I also read the charge of me being a hypocrite - it has strangely disappeared, maybe in an eidt.
Click to expand...

That's possible - it could have been edited out before I ever saw it. But you did not read it in one of my posts.

Roger
 
Ed,

Just to be sure, I went and scrolled through this entire thread again. Of my many posts, the only that has been edited is post #101 - where I asked you a series of questions - to which you gave a partial response, and in respect of which I thanked you for your candor.

It would be odd indeed if I have prefaced my post with "Hey you hypocrite, mind answering a few questions?" Can't imagine that something so inflammatory would have passed without comment by anyone.

In this respect - accusing me of having cast that stone - David is completely full of it. Up to his eyeballs.

Roger
 
2knife said:
Roger,
It seems you've been on a tirade since the beginning of this thread.
If I may have concluded or interpreted your remarks myself, or led to conclusions you or others were making.. it was the impression you were making. "Who does He think he is coming on this forum saying that" - sort of attitude. ( not your exact words either)

............
I'd say, take what you can, and leave the arguing to lawyers.


Lets be respectful to all.
Click to expand...

Was the insult intentional? Roger is the analogue of a District Attorney in Canada.....and a righteous, upstanding, winning one.
 
2knife said:
Steven,
Where have you been on this issue, thought you'd have mountains of thoughts about it?
.. let's here em!
?
David
Click to expand...

Will only post in your threads when I deem it unavoidable, David.

My grinder can speak for me on the subject...:)

Was your insult to Roger intentional, or just ignorant of his chosen career?

STeven Garsson
 
2knife said:
Roger,
In post #101 you made certain inflammatory remarks, which you have retracted. In re-reading i have noticed these are gone. Thank you for editing these out. Sorry for insulting you, personally.
David
Click to expand...

Now you apologize by calling me a liar? What a class act.

I have retracted nothing. I stand by my posts.

I edited nothing OUT of post 101. I edited IN my questions to Ed.

I have been on no tirade - I have merely expressed a contrary view to that presented by Ed through you. It seems that, lacking any cogent response to the points I have raised, you have chosen instead to launch a diversionary personal attack.

Clearly, you are such an ardent "true believer" that you take any presentation of an opposing view as a personal insult. My suggestion is that you make an effort to grab some perspective. Your posting history here suggests that such a suggestion is futile, but it's the best I have to offer. Your compelling need to have others see the world the way you do suggests a staggering lack of maturity for a (presumptively) grown man.

I do note that several of Ed's posts in this thread have been edited. Wouldn't it be all too easy for me to suggest he had made inappropriate comments in them, then edited those comments out? Not that I would engage in such pathetic behavior - I'll leave that to the likes of you.

Be well - and try to lighten up, will you? Your childish petulance is indeed quite tiresome.

Roger
 
Ethical - Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.
or
in accordance with principles of conduct that are considered correct, esp those of a given profession or group.

How many would consider the following a true statement ?

Some, perhaps most , but certainly not all ) collectors have no issue with Merritt doing some ( or most ) of the work on a Loveless Knife and it still being marked a Loveless , but few if any other makers who did the same thing would be met with the same acceptance.
 
2knife said:
In this post you criticised Ed, about having a forum, you described this as a place where everyone just agrees with him, for his own pleasure. Not like here, you said.. making a tirade.

Or am i the liar?

Roger, i have no personal beef with you. I do appreciate your views on many things and your contributions, you've always had here. But, you can be as childish as anyone, too. I am not going to respond to your accusations anymore, out if respect for the rest. Please do likewise.
David
Click to expand...

David, I tire of tracking an ever-shifting target. I said I stand by my posts and I do. If you think them childish - fine - you are more than entitled to your opinion. If you don't like my characterisation of the responses to this issue on Ed's forum as compared with the responses here - that's fine, too. Anyone can go read the responses on the threads there versus here and form their own opinion.

Roger
 
John T Wylie Jr said:
How many would consider the following a true statement ?

Some, perhaps most , but certainly not all ) collectors have no issue with Merritt doing some ( or most ) of the work on a Loveless Knife and it still being marked a Loveless , but few if any other makers who did the same thing would be met with the same acceptance.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's pretty accurate.

Roger
 
John T Wylie Jr said:
Ethical - Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.
or
in accordance with principles of conduct that are considered correct, esp those of a given profession or group.

How many would consider the following a true statement ?

Some, perhaps most , but certainly not all ) collectors have no issue with Merritt doing some ( or most ) of the work on a Loveless Knife and it still being marked a Loveless , but few if any other makers who did the same thing would be met with the same acceptance.
Click to expand...

As the infamous Schultz in Hogan's Heroes used to say...."berwy interwesting":D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top