53 replies to this topic

[Rob Astyk]

Hi, All,

As many of you know, I get exercised about ethics amongst dealers, repairers and restorers in this hobby. My main theme is that there are no standards so we are at the mercy of the sensitivity, or lack therof, of the people into whose hands pens fall.

In the thread elsewhere in Pens Past on Warren N. Lancaster, David Nishimura tells a story of an early Lancaster nib that fell into the absolute wrong hands. I thoughtlessly hijacked the thread with my reaction to that story. To somewhat atone for the hijacking, I am moving my reaction over here in the hopes of opening a wider discussion of ethics in our hobby.

The post read as follows:

Hi, David, et al.,

QUOTE
I also was on the trail of a large ventless nib marked something like "LANCASTER/F.P. Co." a few years back. Unfortunately, it ended up getting sold to Nathan Tardif, who as I recall recrafted it as a user (made into a music nib, I seem to recall) to stick into a customer's 58.

O.k. That's it! I have officially placed Nathan in my "Philistines not worth the space they occupy" list! For years I have listened to his fruity rants (anyone remember the Rosanne Rosanna-Danna bit with the Waterman Swastika pen and the resultant self-promotion with clumsy, clunky attempts at overlay on Waterman 52s?) that make my wierdest excursions read like Marcus Aurelius and the Dali Lama, or looked at his lunatic, half-assed projects like inks that won't freeze at absolute zero or the "harpoon" nib (so, not everything one can do ought to be done, expecially when it makes even good handwriting look like shit). But to take an unquestionably rare nib from a very hard to find maker and slice it up on the whim of some know-nothing whose only claim to interest in pens is a fat wallet! That's just too much!

I'm sorry, folks, but I can't have any respect for a person who can't respect the history of the fountain pen that collecting attempts to preserve. Nathan ham-handed futzing around with Waterman 52s and Parker 51s is one thing. Willfully destroying a large Warren Lancaster nib is just vile ignorance unchecked. That's unforgiveable.

I'm sure that I will hear from the worshippers of St. Nathan of Tardiff on this one, but that's just too much! mad.gif

Take care,

Rob Astyk

P.S. Elaine, feel free to join in at any time. laugh.gif

A week ago oin Pentrace Richard Binder posted a photo of his conversion of a 1920s Parker Duofold into a Chilton style pneumatic filler. It was by all appearances, excellent work which just happened to be a dead ringer for William E. Moore's patent #1,801,635 from April 21, 1931. I pointed that out to Richard but got silence in return.

Now, I'm sure that Richard would defraud no one and I'm equally certain that anyone who buys that pen from him will know that it's a contemporary conversion of older pen parts. But what about the second or third buyer? Unless the pen is clearly marked as a product of the 21st Century there is every reason to believe that it will show up at some auction of the future as a "rare prototype" of Moore's patent as if it were the product of the early 20th Century. That will happen unless the pen is marked as a Binder conversion, something that a craftsman like Richard should surely want to do as a matter of course.

We need some standards in this hobby. Standards that would sanction someone for destroying a very significant bit of pen history in the mindless pursuit of a buck or for thoughtlessly creating fake "rarities" to confuse future collectors. Caveat Emptor just won't do when we have "mad scientists" and thoughtless blunderers in the hobby screwing with the historical record.

O.k. This part of the rant is over.   What are your thoughts?

Take care,

Rob Astyk

[chilton clown]

I would think that destroying a nib of such rarity to create of all things, a music nib, is unbelievable.... Some resposibility lays in the hand of the creator, I think, to not do stuff like this. Kind of the same thing happens in the "old car hobby" where people destroy rare and valuable cars to make something "better'

I like street rods and the likes, but on the same path, you don't take a duesenberg and chop it up to "improve" on it. you just got to use your head....

There are plenty of not so rare and more easily obtainable nibs to customize, and create the same effect...

why would someone do this to something that there may be perhaps a handful or so out there of?

Some people shouldn't even be allowed around pens...


As far as Binder goes, (and from my coorespondence with him, he seems like a pretty good guy) and his Pneuofold, perhaps it should be marked somehow, but I don't think he made any attempts to cover up the pens previous state (IE, doufold imprints, etc....) so, if someone ends up bidding big money on this frankenpen in years ahead, I guess it all comes down to "caveat emptor" if you don't know what you are buying, or enough about it, perhaps you should not be buying it in the first place....

[Roger W.]

Rob;

Even if we could take small steps to push this forward it would, at least, be moving forward.  Part of the problem is that a larger proportion of the hobby are people that you can only call users.  The historian side of the hobby is smaller and can only convince a small portion of the users that "pens were meant to be written with" is a bunch of crap as these become historical artifacts, if you will.  Fortunately, the good vintage pieces come at a premium and keep some users off.  I'm not against using vintage pens but that should no longer be their primary reason for existance.

Let's get together a set of what acceptable restoration is first.  Don't worry about sanctions and making people do something that clearly some of them don't want to do.  If we have a framework and it gains generally acceptance (GARM - Generally Accepted Restoration Methods, much like Generally Accepted Accounting Principles - GAAP) then self discipline will keep most restoration to these standards.  Without these standards "restorers" are free to do whatever the hell they want.  We've already seen reblacking of pens cut into the confidence of the BCHR market, prices remain low even though the actual number of treated pens are small.  Once restorers accept GARM, then we can put pressure on the holdouts.

Rob, let's keep moving this agenda forward.

Roger W.

[Rob Astyk]

Hi, Rick and Roger,

First, Rick, I never meant to imply that Richard Binder was in the business of faking pens. I don't believe that in the least. What I do believe is that someone creating a pen such as that "Pneuofold" (I LIKE that coinage!) needs to put his own name and perhaps a date into a permanent imprint on the pen somewhere that is readily visible. Such imprinting means that the pen is properly identified for all future owners. It doesn't get mistaken for something it's not. It also gives current and future collectors the option of collecting the work of high-quality craftsmen.

I haven't a problem of any kind with someone wanting to collect Richard Binder's creations. I have a great deal of difficulty with someone getting soaked for thousands of dollars for a Duofold rarity that is really a Binder creation, something sure to happen if the pen is not marked in such a way that removing the marking would be destructive.

Personally, I think that Chris Thompson sets the standard for behavior in this area. His Duofold, Parker Giant and Waterman 58 replicas are clearly marked and unlikely ever to be mistaken for the product of the original manufacturer. Even potentially interchangeable parts are marked as Chris's products.

You raise a good point about the reblackening compounds, Roger, and their effect on the BHR market. As you know, that's one of my chief bugaboos but there are more subtle fakeries going on that are less easily traced. For example, several years ago, after posting a message about Waterman Ripple 7s, I got an e-mail from a well-known southeastern repairer telling me that he would be happy to complete my Ripple 7 collection for me. He claimed to have an assortment of nibs and would happily take garden variety RED 7s and turn them into BLUE or YELLOW or whatever I wished, band and all. He would even leave off the white spacers to create the "rarer" no-spacer model.

I was horrified. The man allegedly does wonderful repair work, but, if his attitude toward the pens is correctly reflected in that offer, he has no more right to be in the same room with an old pen than Michael Jackson has to be in the same room with children.

We know that the material Waterman used for the color bands on Ripple 7s was not terribly stable. It has aged to a nondescript brown in many cases. Usually it is cracked and porous. But not always. Yet, thanks to this questionable repairer, I cannot see a Ripple 7 with an identifiably colored band without wondering whether that pen had his special "touch" applied to it. And worse still, the fact that he would, in his very first message to me, offer up that "service" means to me that there are too many "collectors" who are willing to pay a premium for pens that they know are fakes.

PLease feel free to educate us on your system of standards, Roger. In our exchanges I've developed a great respect for your knowledge of Sheaffers and your respect for old pens generally. I really would like to see what you have developed.

I also agree that any standards that achieve general acceptance must come from within the ranks of pen repairers and restorers themselves. Where I differ from you is that I believe that there must be enforcement with some teeth, not just moral suasion. If there's going to be a set of standards you're going to need consensus on the standards first but a good, solid billy club thereafter.

Personally, I think that the PCA and a dealer's association as yet to be formed should be able to grant and rescind official sanction to individual repairers, dealers and restorers. I also believe that pen show promoters should adopt standards for participants in their shows with anyone who refuses to sign on to those standards being refused a table. There's nothing like losing the opportunity to sell anything to bring about a conversion of the wayward dealer.

Take care,

Rob Astyk

[Roger W.]

Where I differ from you is that I believe that there must be enforcement with some teeth, not just moral suasion. If there's going to be a set of standards you're going to need consensus on the standards first but a good, solid billy club thereafter.

Rob;

The problem with your enforcement is that there is bugger all to do it.  We can start working on standards TODAY!  Repairers could be searching their consciences in the very, very near future.  The situation can start improving.  You insist on some governing board (and the PCA is not that keen on it now) you'll be putting off reform for years.  

I don't have a ready framework beyond "do no harm".  There will be some sticky points like reblacking.  Reputable people do it so do you put it to a vote?  Throw together the GARM Board of the self appointed (GARM - Generally Accepted Retoration Methods - you can feel free to name it anything you like)?  You need general acceptance so a broad agreement of restorers needs to be achieved.  

It may seem silly to the casual observer but we need to hammer out points like buffing, should a general buffing be allowed and one that raises a high sheen be banned?  Nibs, retipping OK and cutting an Oblique wrong?  You can see how some of this is going to start touching the pocketbooks of restorers if the framework is too rigid.  Too rigid and general acceptance will not be achieved.  Some guidence needs to be out there, though, as anyone can become a restorer at their own whim.  Also, too many people who play at retoration firmly think experimentation is fine.  Quite frankly, we often already know what doesn't work and this information could be put forth in the Methods so that new restorers don't take it upon themselves to reinvent the wheel.

Another big area is what is vintage and/or what pens are to be covered by the Methods.  I would think mordern pens could be manupulated any which way but is a Targa (no longer in production) off limits?  Or do we go back to the snorkel or 51?

I really think for broad general acceptance you need the professional restorers to form an association.  Though I don't think this will happen soon.  So, lacking that maybe we can start a framework that can be picked up on by such a professional group later.  Perhaps a list of Methods could start to be compiled.  The formating and codification to be figured out later.

Roger W.

[Mark Z.]

I would think mordern pens could be manupulated any which way but is a Targa (no longer in production) off limits?

I understand what you're saying, but couldn't these become the rare "prototypes" of the future?

Developing standards and then methods for enforcement is a worthwhile goal. I fear it may be a Pandora's box, though.

Mark Z.

[rhr]

I don't have a ready framework beyond "do no harm". . . . Throw together the GARM Board of the self appointed (GARM - Generally Accepted Restoration Methods - you can feel free to name it anything you like)?  You need general acceptance so a broad agreement of restorers needs to be achieved. . . .
I really think for broad general acceptance you need the professional restorers to form an association.  Though I don't think this will happen soon.  So, lacking that maybe we can start a framework that can be picked up on by such a professional group later.  Perhaps a list of Methods could start to be compiled.  The formating and codification to be figured out later.

Roger, I think your name GARM is just fine.  But anything like this set of regulations has to come from within the group.  It has to be a self-defining and self-limiting and self-regulating and self-disciplining set of rules.  You really have to get everyone involved from the beginning, and that means also including the guy who is faking the color bands on the #7s.  It means getting people like Fred Krinke, Lynn Sorgatz, Jack Price, Michael Fultz, Victor Chen, Roger Cromwell, Osman Sumer, Arthur Twydle, Bert Heiserman, Brad Torelli, Paul Rossi, Chris Thompson, Henry Simpole, Jim Marshall, Susan Wirth, Cullen Rankin, Rick Horne, John Mottishaw, Sam Fiorella, Michael McNeil, Geoff Berliner, Bernie Isaacowitz, Gary Lehrer, Deb Kinney, Ron Zorn, Daniel Kirchheimer, Richard Binder, Bill Enderlin, Michael Quitt, and every other self-styled professional and amateur repair person out there, and I know I'm probably leaving out a lot of people.  It can still be an informal kind of thing, a loosely based association of like-minded people who all subscribe to the same principles and standards.  No enforcement would be required.  Anyone not holding to these standards would simply end up being ostracized, as is usually the case.

But please go ahead with starting to compile a preliminary list of standards.  I'm curious to see what they'd look like.

George Kovalenko.

[Roger W.]

George, Rob and Mark;

I don't think you can get 100% participation and you don't need the guys doing fraud involved as they don't want rules anyway.  Ideally, the trades people would get together, heck maybe they've had informal talks that we haven't heard about yet.  But, I think, out of concern, and if enough others jump onto the idea, maybe the framework can come together - save the hard working restoration people some time .  So to move this forward we just need some like minded individuals that believe Methods should be adopted.  As you say, get the list going and see what it says.  

So, Rob, you got some things in mind?  Mark made a valid point on modifying new pens, but I see that as outside the scope of the methods.  It's like kids with those honda's, they aren't going to be classic cars so what the heck.  Maybe we want the Methods to be addressing vintage pens prior to 1965 (20 or so years of true competition with ballpoints, then it's practically all jewelry anyway ).  I'm not sure that there is a lot that could be modified with modern pens that would be picked up on as a prototype later, maybe, just don't know.

Even if only a few of us put something together, the framework could start to circulate and, just maybe, pick up adherents.

Roger W.

[rhr]

I don't think we would get 100% participation either, Roger, and we would only let the frauds in so that we could ostracize them.  :~)

Ideally, the trades people would get together, heck maybe they've had informal talks that we haven't heard about yet.

Funny you should say that.  Back in 1992, a meeting of pen repair people was held at the LA pen show, and the possibility of an organization of pen restorers was discussed.  Other meetings were held at the 1992 New Jersey and  1993 Wash DC pen shows, and out of that third meeting a core group of people emerged, and the "Pen Restorer's Guild" was born.  Jack Price was elected the director and editor of the newsletter.  I attended some of those meetings, although I wasn't a member, but I was on their mailing list and received copies of the first two numbers of the newsletter that they published.  As far as I know, only two issues were published, and by the second issue they listed 37 members.  But the whole thing fell apart because of lack of interest.  You have to understand, these were hands-on, serious professional pen restorers, and I guess they couldn't be bothered with administering an organization and publishing a newsletter.  But there was a group effort that preceded the current one.

Even if only a few of us put something together, the framework could start to circulate and, just maybe, pick up adherents.

That's the spirit, Roger.

George Kovalenko.

[Rob Astyk]

Hi, Guys,

I'm very pleased to see that this topic has gotten some response!

I don't think that you can get or even need 100% participation of repairers and restorers. What you need is something on the order of 60% to 65% participation. The remaining third will either go out of business or come scrambling to the gates begging for admittance once collectors know that top flight work is done and guaranteed under the seal of the pen repairers' associatiation, whatever that might be.

Also forgive me for talking of enforcement in the active voice. Not that such a thing is wrong, but rather that the vast majority of standards enforcement will certainly be passive in that repairers outside the association won't get work, notice or respect.

I think that "do no harm" is the minimum standard. You also raise excellent questions, particularly about alterations to contemporary pens. But 25 years from now, those current pens will be as old as most Parker 75's are now. I would think that standards for appropriate repairs must account for the passage of time by making our new pens as well protected as our old pens should be now.

I keep bringing up the PCA because it is an organization that currently exists, includes most of the affected parties, has many of the names in the field on its board, is dominated by dealers already an desperately needs to be seen as doing and being good for something. And electing an activist majority to the Board should not be terribly difficult.

Victor Chen has spoken of a still active group of pen repairers who discuss best practices and ethics. Being z PCA Board member, I think that Victor adheres to some very high standards.

Anyway, you're right that the standards must come from within the community but they are going to be imposed as confidence dips because of some of the bad practices of the few.

Take care,

Rob Astyk

[ElaineB]

P.S. Elaine, feel free to join in at any time.

Ah, Rob, how could I possibly top your eloquent ode of appallment. (Is that a word?) I'm not surprised that this happened. From an aesthetic standpoint, I have a problem with just what Mr. Tardiff does to poor, unfortunate P51s and Sheaffer Triumphs, for goodness' sake. Those poor forlorn things, turned into Frankennibs through no fault of their own. To go further and take an item of great rarity, only to turn it into a cheap novelty nib... well, I'll just add my voice to the chorus here. YUCK! How could he!

ElaineB

[Roger W.]

Rob;

Wow, we are going to hold people that buy new pens today to a higher standard than those that bought vintage pens.  Now that's a bit much.  How about all those silly buggers turning new pens into eyedroppers - I don't get it, but they're having a lot of fun it seems.

Standards must come from within the community is a bit interesting.  Why bring it up here at all then!?!  I really thought we were looking to get something started.  I felt a call to action and then the rug pulled out from under.  Mr. Astyk, you're a bad, bad man .

Maybe you can campaign for a PCA board that will fully embrace this as one of their functions.  It is the only body at this time that could begin to take it on, unless restorers were to reconstitute what George spoke to in the early 90's.  Maybe Chen's, group can get something started.

Roger W.

[Vintagepens]

I don't think that you can get or even need 100% participation of repairers and restorers. What you need is something on the order of 60% to 65% participation. The remaining third will either go out of business or come scrambling to the gates begging for admittance once collectors know that top flight work is done and guaranteed under the seal of the pen repairers' associatiation, whatever that might be.

Forgive the skepticism, but keep in mind that real collectors are only a small minority among vintage pen buyers.  Most are fundamentally consumers, despite calling themselves collectors.  And many, if not most, aren't very savvy consumers at all when it comes to pen repair.  Give 'em a low price and halfway decent results and they'll praise their repairman to the skies.  And watch out if you dare to say anything otherwise!  In fact, talk privately to any of the top restorers (or the top dealers and collectors who work with them) and you'll get a much less rosy picture of the overall skill level of the repairmen best known to the public.

Note too that the best repairmen have no incentive whatsoever to sink their already-short time into any of these initiatives.  They already have all the work they can handle, to the point that they seldom if ever advertise their services.

[ElaineB]

I have been mulling over this thread since I read through it last evening. There is something very familiar about the issues being discussed here, there are direct parallels to another area of my life, but I couldn't quite put my finger on where I'd discussed them before.

Then this morning it hit me: it sounds a lot like the discussions I heard among rare book librarians and curators when I was heavily involved in preservation activities ten years ago.

Books and pens aren't that dissimilar. They are both utilitarian objects that were occasionally made luxuriously elaborate for wealthy patrons, sometimes approaching the point of becoming art objects. Both are valued now more often as collectibles than to be put to their original use. They were once often found in dusty old corners of flea markets and second-hand shops, and scavenged by dealers to be resold to enthusiast collectors. Their value has skyrocketed in the past few decades, as demand started to exceed supply. They are collected by people of roughly the same socio-economic class (i.e. rich older white guys who like watches, cigars, and fine wine... Forgive the generalization, I know there are many who don't fit that stereotype. But I'm just trying to illustrate that pen and book collectors have more in common than collectors of, say, old beer bottles or salt-n-pepper shakers.)

In the rare book industry, there are ethically-minded restorers who repair old, valuable volumes using the same standards that are applied to fine arts/museum pieces. I don't ever recall seeing a codified list of standards, to be honest -- it was more like an outlook than a series of do's or don'ts. But the Golden Rule of Conservators is "Do no harm", followed by, "Never do anything that cannot be reversed if better treatments come along later." Good bookbinders always sign their work, and conservation personel never tried to fix a document so invisibly that it would look unused. The idea was to stabilize, make usable, allow the historical significance to be examined. It all has so many parallels to the world of vintage fountain pens.

But in the rare book industry, there are also plenty of unscrupulous dealers who don't give a flying fig about the historical significance of particular books. If they could make more money by slicing up a rare folio of botanical prints and selling them individually to interior decorators, then that's what they'd do. Provenance? Well, I heard of some who weren't above stamping flyleaves with phoney marks to imply a book was once held by an important collection. Sound familiar?

As much as it made curators, librarians, and legitimate collectors sick to hear about these practices, I never heard of any movement to police that side of the industry. I think it was seen as an impossibility. Slicing up rare volumes wasn't illegal, after all. Sleezoids will be sleezoids. And the ignorant usually don't realize how much they don't know.

It's just an ugly side to the industry and one beyond the reach of professional organizations. And this is how I tend to view vintage pen dealers, too. I think it's naïve to be shocked about pen repairers who are willing to counterfeit old, valuable pens from piles of found parts. Where there's a way to make quick money, there will be people willing to stoop to do so. And there will be people willing to bend the rules to save that extra buck, no matter what. That's human nature. You're never going to change it.

The only pressure that works is financial. Informed collectors drive this bus, folks. Where they spend their dollars will determine which business succeeds and which fail. The more reputable dealers and conservators can ask for more money for their items, due to their implied warranty of legitimacy.  After a collector is burned once or twice looking for bargains from less legitimate dealers, he may be more likely to keep his purchases confined to items from industry leaders.

This means legitimate pen dealers may now need to work harder to differentiate themselves from the shady side of their industry. The reputable guys need to keep talking about issues as they arise, such as reblackening, signing their mods, etc., and come to some sort of informal agreement about what the ethical solutions are. And I think this is already happening in many of these online forums, and at the pen shows around the country, etc.  It's good that these discussions are public, so collectors can learn both about the issues and where each of the major players have positioned themselves in the discussion. It's on public record now.

The reputable guys may also need to focus more attention on provenance, to demonstrate that their pens are not fabricated from parts, and provide their buyers more information about where and how the pen came into their posession. Perhaps not for every lowly Waterman 52 they sell, but definitely for the big-ticket items. I think back to Rob Morrison's eBay auctions a couple of months ago, for the breathtaking pens he snagged from a local estate (that turquoise Waterman Patrician and that mint Chilton pen/pencil set. I -think- it was Chilton...) I would be willing to bet that his auctions would not have had the response they did, even with such fabulous pieces, had he not also provided the background information about where the pens had been all these years. It was reassuring that these were the genuine thing, and a collector would not get burned on their investment.

ElaineB

[Vintagepens]

A minor comment:

Rob Morrison's pens would have done fine without the background story; mint is mint, and these were standard production pieces.

Where provenance comes into play is when something *isn't* a standard piece.  And whereas it is impossible to make a worn pen absolutely pristine again, one can make it look much better -- so it is more in the used-but-attractive range that the greatest care must be taken.

[ElaineB]

Where provenance comes into play is when something *isn't* a standard piece.

Well, I was thinking about Rob's concern regarding the fabricated Waterman ripples. Even though it is a standard production piece, provenance does seem like an issue for these pens.

ElaineB

[Vintagepens]

Rob's concern was with *enhanced* #7 Ripples, not with ones made from scratch.  

Don't expect too much from provenance (which usually can't be established with certainty).

[einv]

blame people equally. if nathan must be blamed for modifying rare nibs, richard should be equally blamed for grinding iridium off vintage nibs that had little to begin with in order to satisfy the whims of a customer. in terms of quantity at any rate, one of them has done far more lasting damage to the world of vintage pens than the other.

[Vintagepens]

Perhaps I should let Rob speak for himself, but I do believe his outrage was prompted by a rare and historically important nib being treated as raw material, crude utilitarianism trumping all (something like the bad old days when Japanese swords would be cut up to make hunting knives).

Would Richard Binder do such a thing?  I should think not.

Reshaping the tipping material on common nibs is quite another matter.  And to find greater fault there is like calling a renovator of tract-housing kitchens a greater criminal than one who guts out a Greene & Greene house to sell the fittings.

[Rob Astyk]

HI, Viv, David, Elaine, Roger,et al.,

Viv, I'm not a great fan of Richard Binder, but I don't think that he's out to defraud anyone with his cobbled up "Pneuofold". His skills or lack thereof with nibs are another story. Suffice it to say that I have a couple of nibs out for repair at this time and neither went to Richard nor will any other nib I own.

Nathan, however, is another story. When he makes one of his Parker 51 music nibs, the dirty secret is that he also has to alter the shell of that 51. Original 51 nibs are still plentiful, but they aren't getting any more so. The man is taking money to screw up a perfectly good nib and pen so that some putz can have a nib that will make his current ugly handwriting look like blobby ugly handwriting.

He creates overlays for a pair of Waterman 52s  that are artless and clunky, slaps a cross on one and a star of David on the other and then writes a hysterical rant about the non-existence of a pen that actually does exist just to drum up buyers for those childish art projects.

His work is incompetent, tasteless, unskilled, and yet he's a tireless, money-grubbing self-promoter. Such half-assed work needs to be exposed for what it is. I'm sure he's got good qualities, but artistic ability isn't one of them.

Yes, Viv, there's lots of blame to go around. Nathan is not the only egotistical putz in the hobby, but ridding ourselves of one willful destroyer of these things that we are trying to respect and preserve at a time isn't a bad strategy, is it? If only it were so!

Roger, I think of us as inside the community instead of being the pitiful band of outcasts and losers that we really are.   It's part of my delusion.  What can I say? In any case, I was under the impression that starting something here was, in some sense within the community. I didn't see a contradiction in change having to start here and come from within, deluded as I am.

Take care,

Rob Astyk