I’ve found that it’s generally a superb idea to judge and stereotype people as a group on the basis of such factors as race, nationality, religion, sexuality, etc, rather than as individuals on the basis of their actions… :roll:
Chris
"Some whistles just suck!’ - M. Gandhi
[ This Message was edited by: ChrisLaughlin on 2002-11-08 16:13 ]
A couple of thoughts:
Brand confusion doesn’t really seem to be an issue here. It doesn’t take much research to see that the Chieftain whistle and “The Chieftains” are not related. It never entered my mind that the two were related, even when I started out on whistle.
The odd thing is that there doesn’t seem to be such animosity in other musical arenas in regard to “brand confusion”.
There are two companies named Selmer. Both companies make saxophones. They were related, in a business sense, decades ago. The reputations of the two companies differ, in many people’s minds. I have never in 30 years of playing saxophone, heard another sax player say that they have confused Selmer(USA), and Selmer(Paris). Neither company is making any attempt to deceive anyone.
Conn saxophones have a similar situation. Everyone knows that the Conn saxophones made in the few years after 1972 were made in a factory in Mexico. The quality was said to be somewhat different. If you are in the market for a Conn saxophone, you do the homework. No one ever suggested they not call the Conn saxophones. Buffet and Buffet-Crampton have never had a problem with people thinking they were getting a “different” horn.
The point is, this whole “Chieftain” thing seems to be an excuse to throw rocks. Clearly the other players involved (and I am referring to the makers of the cosmic drainpipes), the makers of Chieftain, and those who enjoy playing Chieftain whistles (and I count myself among that group), don’t confuse the name. They don’t seem to give it much energy in any way. They clearly have gotten past it.
I am saddened that people like Mike K. and Phil H. have left this board, mostly because they were met with such hostility. They make good products, however they are made.
Phil Hardy emailed someone privately. There is no excuse for putting the email in a public forum, no matter what it said. If Phil wanted to make a public statement, he would have and could have. He chose not to. Posting a private response was inappropriate.
Though there may be some rocks thrown in my direction, I would hope that after they have landed, and there is some stillness, we can all step up to support the whistle community, and all those who play, make and enjoy listening to whistles.
All the best,
Mark Sackett
On 2002-11-08 12:42, Michael Sullivan wrote:
A quick ethical question: is it wrong to be amused by all this? If not, is it wrong to tell others of one’s amusement?I can’t help finding a lot of the interactions between people horribly sad and hilarious at the same time. Everybody’s so upset!
I’m not going to have a go at your ethical question, Michael. I haven’t done a statistical survey of posts on this thread but I doubt very much whether more than a couple of people got upset. This wasn’t a bad discussion to have but it might have been better to have asked the question in a way that didn’t drag up Chieftain. That said, though, most people here weren’t bagging Phil and the discussion rambled rather than surged. Phil’s response, whether or not it should have been posted, showed that he simply doesn’t notice the good news. Well, am I wrong about that?
Concerning the issue raised by Mark, I think, whether it’s fair or not, that if this is to be a whistle board at all, we are going to make comparative judgments about whistles and whistlers. Of course, in all other respects, people ought not to dish out what they can’t take themselves. But people who play or make whistles are under scrutiny here in a way that others aren’t and they have to realise this. This is a place where people discuss whistles and whistlers. That’s good for business. If someone likes a whistle; that’s better for business. The stakes are higher but so are the gains, if all goes well. The vast majority of the makers on this board accept that and take the bad with the good. Lets put this in perspective—James Conway just gave us an early glimpse of his great talent. We could have bagged his CD if we hadn’t liked it. Do you think he regards us as a bunch of negative plonkers right now? I doubt it.
For a very reasonable royalty, methinks that the Chieftain whistle line could be renamed the Waldentone®.
You know, this has been one of the most amusing and informative threads I’ve seen in a long time.
I’ve never had any reason to dislike Phil before and I’ve always considered the “Chieftan controversy” a lot of hooplah about nothing. But, now, I think that as I sit here blinkered in my bubble suffering from lack of “inteligence” and wit I can at least find comfort in that my spelling is considerably better than that of the person accusing me of those shortcomings.
Isn’t it fascinating to watch someone shoot themselves in the foot?! Pin an expert marksmanship ribbon on Phil’s chest and let’s move on to give someone else a chance to self-destruct! 
John
On 2002-11-05 12:31, Wombat wrote:
Right John, I was forgetting that. I think Joannie would be a bit more understanding somehow. I suppose what I really meant was a moral right since that was what was in question. I think we’d both agree that a McDonald ought to be able to use the name, wouldn’t we?
Yes! Of course, law has little to do with either morality or justice.
John