International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Chit Chat => Topic started by: Dan_Lehman on July 27, 2009, 10:50:53 PM

Title: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 27, 2009, 10:50:53 PM
In a roundabout way, from the researches of sometime participants in
this forum, Jimbo & Nautile, come this gem of knots-nonsense, spread
now with the reach & speed of the WWWeb:  The Bull Hitch, according
to the unexposed wisdom of eHow @www.ehow.com/how_2246978_tie-bull-hitch.html (http://www.ehow.com/how_2246978_tie-bull-hitch.html)
Quote
A bull hitch is so-named for its use in tying a rope to a bull's nose ring
(!)

This is an insight I cannot confirm; I know that it surfaced in km47:13-5 (1995-01)
from Robert Pont of France, and was mused to come from a native Canadian
boy, Piwich; to which Heinz Prohaska reported its use to tie on small Overhand
stoppered pull tabs of nylon tap on clothing (IIRC); perhaps there were further
sightings trickling into KM which I've forgotten.  In one of his numerous books,
Geoffrey Budworth took a bit of whimsy in naming this more secure variant
of the Cow Hitch "Bull Hitch" .  I'm unaware of other bullish involvement.
But now on the Net I can learn that it was so-named for tying to a ring in a
bull's nose!  Imagine!

It all gets the more enjoyable when reading tying step #3, which advises:
Quote
... Make a half-twist with the loop, bring it over the ring and push the ring completely through it.
... and the bull will be sure to follow!  remarks the sage Nautile/Jimbo !!  :o

RE-MARK-A-BULLLL...feathers!!!   ;)     :D       ;D

And a bull-feathered fantasy takes flight?!  ::)

So much for the rigor of knots research, eh.
It's not unprecendented, unfortunately -- rather, it's more the rule.
Here's one of my favorite nuggets of flying bull from the make-believe world
of "Hansel&Gretel" (viz., EncycKnots&FancyRopework) :
Quote
[p.64#65,]
The Turkish Archer Knot is said to have been used over one thousand years ago by Turkish
archers, who were capapble of shooting an arrow eight hundred yards with the attachment
illustrated in Fig.65.  ...  Incidentally, the remarkable distance the ancient Turks were capable
of shooting an arrow has never been equaled, probably because the unusual method of using
this knot apparently has been forgotten.

    [!!  How lucky for us H&G bring it to us, then, eh?!  8)  ]

I'm drawn back to EKFR now upon seeing that it enjoys a similarly
remarkable high (4.5 stars) rating after a good number of reviews on Amazon.com,
including a 5-star one from the IGKT-PAB's Joe Schmidbauer, and even 3 stars
(and expressed concurrence w/Joe's review) by ... ME !  Egads, this cannot stand!
Really, the more I look at the oddball stuff in this tome, the more disgusted I am
with myself for having ever swallowed the thought that this work was worthwhile;
really, it is at times most appallingly bad, and never -- at least re practical knots --
much good.  I have found some cases of copying (from Hasluck & Biddle) and
can thus know the source before them and see the nonsense that emerged (they
managed to change both copied nonsense, Wot?knots (my/Geoffrey's name),
and yet have no better variant resulting, and nothing --as usual-- to say about them.
And this book is one of few knots books that has (1) been published and (2) been
reprinted, for a half century!!  Are knot tyers commerce's biggest dupes?
Makes ya wonder!

Time to redress the Amazon reviews.
 :(

--dl*
====


Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: roo on July 27, 2009, 11:21:37 PM
Are knot tyers commerce's biggest dupes?
Makes ya wonder!

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think I've yet come across a textbook that doesn't have some blunders in it.  Think of it as a means of testing your proofreading and critical-thinking skills.
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: squarerigger on July 28, 2009, 12:20:08 AM
To all the willing critics and others who have denigrated various as-yet unnamed "knot-book authors",

Maybe you could do us all a favor by pointing out the chapter and verse wherein lie these blunders and mistakes that you so reference but without ever saying what they are and where they are? ???

Roo said:
Quote
I don't think I've yet come across a textbook that doesn't have some blunders in it.
:-\

I would be very interested in the interests of fairness to the errant authors of those blundering books to learn what the specific mistake(s) is/are so that we can all learn, instead of having these thinly veiled ruminations as to all knot-books are trash nonsense?  Dan, thank you for pointing out chapter and verse of EKFR - very helpful in some respects, but how do we do something about it (apart from bewailing its inaccuracies?).  Should we advise the publishers and offer to correct the book?  You suggest you might change your review - will that right the wrong or simply intrigue people to buy it so that they can try to meet with your erudition?  Maybe this posting topic in Chit Chat is the right place, maybe there should be another.  But let us have specifics please so that we do not all have to wonder "What are the mistakes and where are they?"  How can we learn from these erudite gentlemen of distinction what errors have befallen those wayward miscreants who have so dared to abuse the public in this fashion?  Awaiting your specifics gentlefolk....

SR
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 28, 2009, 05:56:15 AM
To all the willing critics and others who have denigrated various as-yet unnamed "knot-book authors",
Maybe you could do us all a favor by pointing out the chapter and verse wherein lie these blunders and mistakes that you so reference but without ever saying what they are and where they are? ???
This goes a bit off this topic but right to some remark I made elsewhere.
Yes, it might do to produce Errata for some growing list of books,
as was pretty well done for ABOK -- a book also long-published,
and an accepted standard reference.  (BTW, I am tardy, but yet clinging to
furthering the indexing there.)

More to the point here was pointing out both the hilarity of the stated
purpose of a knot enjoined with a tying method, and the seeming birth
of a knot myth (use w/bull nose rings (punk bulls)) -- like CLDay cited
re Stevedore's knot :  named for a company, not profession.

Quote
I don't think I've yet come across a textbook that doesn't have some blunders in it.
:-\

But it's not a mere blunder but some ya-gotta-know-they-didn't-know
hocus-pocus.  (Unless someone can turn up an actual bull-ring practice ... .)
And re EKFR, I'll --yes-- enumerate, for it's that sooooo MUCH of that
book just begs the question Why is <this knot> here?!.  -- along with
obvious, traceable mistakes in some cases of known knots.

Quote
Maybe this posting topic in Chit Chat is the right place,
I thought it a more general topic than Practical, and good here.
(Btw, I posted a note about how nicely our limited segregation of forums
is working  -- go there for a healthy richness of decorative ideas, or over
there and immerse in practicalities, or generally talk about events in this
old forum.  It's a nice time to step back an appraise that organization.)

Really, Roo & SquareRigger, I should assign to you each a starting page
in EKFR and challenge you to progress from the first numbered
knot with some understanding of What it is and Why it's presented and
What value do you give to it .  Say, p.84#198 & p.600#1, respectively.
Care to take on this exercise?

I'll start here at p.60, and later try to set out more of my long collection of
scribbled notes on EKFR -- but the more I thumb back'n'forth in this tome,
the more notes I see to make (cross-references for the same or like knots,
e.g.; other oddities).

0)  A general failing is the text's near complete lack of any useful information
regarding a knot.  Often there is some simple assertion that the knot can be
easily tied by looking at the photograph; this is in fact not always true.  But
the big thing is that for the bulk of the *things* in the book, the text really
does little than give a comical, nonsense name, and often match that in the
*explanation* of the knot.  E.g.,
Quote
pp.102-3pl.48#348  "The Overhand Sheet
Bend
has an Overhand Knot formed in one part, with the other part passed
through the body of the Overhand Knot, as indicated by the illustration."
a) Huh?!
b) There is no hint of which of the 4 ends is to be loaded, although being called
a "Sheet Bend" we might presume that one end on each of upper/lower sides is so.
c) In fact, there are some workable knots that can result from this tangle, no help
to Hansel&Gretel though.  Loading the top two ends works (and brings to mind
a Rob Chisnall-cited (or "invented") "Technical Hitch" (perhaps it was that he cited
another's work as inspiring his discovery?).  Again, no help from this book to What? !

Quote
p.61/3pl.24#33 The Topsail Sheet Bend is similar to the Midshipman's Hitch.  It is
used as another method of securing a sheet to the clew cringle of a sail, and will not come unfastened,
no matter how hard the sail may flap.
Well, bullfeathers!  The photo appears to show the end seized to the S.Part,
so I hope that that damn well stays flappingly tied; but any knot works if seized.
Otherwise, I say bunk:  the finishing round turn is hardly an assurance of security.
Quote
p.60pl24#36 The Single Bowline on Bight.  Another Method, can be tied quickly,
and forms a secure loop capable of being untied easily after having been drawn tight.
Hmmm, looks quite dubious, and begs the ol' question, Which end ... ?
Quote
p.60pl.24#47 The Dutchman's Knot is a relic of bygone sailing ship days,
and is now a curiosity.
Ha!  This one could be the prize winner.  "A curiosity" indeed -- now and ever.
Well, we have Dutch posters, maybe they can reach into salty imaginations ... .

Quote
p.62-3pl.24#38 The Clevis Knot is another rare (!) form of knot, which can be easily duplicated
by closely studying the illustration.
Okay, what is this?  Which end is to be loaded (either or, both, neither)?
It looks as though it would be handy for a mid-line eyeknot, except that
it's not TIBight -- a rather important aspect for such knots.

Quote
p.62-3pl.24#39 The Interlocking Overhand Knots is a simple method of uniting two Overhand Knots.
Except that is is not -- not so simple, and definitely not two Overhand Knots
(lost count after "one").  Beyond this, ... what???!!  Is uniting Overhands some
common desire (even if one had a whole two such knots)?

And then the rest of the plate covers a bona fide, Farmer's Knot, then
indulges some old sailor nonsense of the Jury Mast knot -- a most unseemly
supposed solution to rigging, but much razzle-dazzle of shifting bights.
Well, Charles Hamel tried chasing this myth to some firm ground, but he
was left still on shifting waters of just aggregated beliefs that it probaby
was used, but ... .  I remain skeptical, as CLDay came to admit.  These
knots don't so well grip and hold the supposed mast.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: J.Knoop on July 28, 2009, 09:46:29 AM
Gentlemen Knotters,

What is the problem in creating a new category on this forum (KNOTTING LITERATURE), itemize per source-title, and let everybody publicly name & shame the knotbook author sucker(s)?

If the poor knotbook writing souls decide to sue the guild, no problem, we can back up with rock-solid evidence. Verifiable propagated nonsense. Ofcourse somebody else can start a website (IGKT-KNOTTING-GAFFS for example) and nail us experts to a tree for verifiably propagating knotting nonsense.

Joop Knoop.
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: roo on July 28, 2009, 04:27:56 PM
and let everybody publicly name & shame the knotbook author sucker(s)?

Perhaps the aim should be a charitable pursuit of truth rather than a personal attack.  How would you prefer to be corrected when you make a mistake?
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: squarerigger on July 28, 2009, 05:16:39 PM
My dear Mr Knoop,

Quote
publicly name & shame the knotbook author

My aim is not shame but education and erudition.  Ultimately the aim of the IGKT is to educate
Quote
so that we can all learn
and the audience includes knot-book authors.  There seems little point in berating dead authors, so initially it would be helpful to point out, chapter and verse in their books, which errors, in our never-less-than-humble opinions, have crept in by printing error, publisher error or popular understanding at the time based on an inexact science?  Perhaps, therefore, a more positive approach would be in order (thank you for your suggestion Roo) rather than the pillory?

Dan, you have selected some excellent places to start - do you have a pattern that may be followed thereafter?

SR
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: J.Knoop on July 28, 2009, 05:37:56 PM
Dear Mr. SR and Roo,

Quote
How would you prefer to be corrected when you make a mistake?

I think the issue is more complicated than that and that you gentlemen are missing the gist of my remarks. Either deliberately misinterpreting or not, shall be of no concern right now.

Roo, it is not a matter of me coming under fire for what I  write about knots, as I have long since passed that stage. My point is more ironic, rather than a personal attack on people who write about knots, my alinea's last sentence will tell you that you should brace for impact from the rest of the world. After all, on what do you base your collective expertise? 

The subject of knots is hard for many reasons. The trend on this forum is getting facts right in a field where there is (1) no tradition of "facts" nor (2) finding them and (3) eventually "getting them right" an even more elusive exercise.

Mr. SR claims the aim is education and erudition, and that

Quote
ultimately the aim of the IGKT is educate

All in all aggregating to a contradiction in terms, as over 25 years into its existance the IGKT has nothing to present as a basis for its educational aim nor for its "authority". Yes, they are a registered charity for the sake of collecting UK taxpayer's money, but where is the erudition SR speaks so praisingly of? How come the world does not automatically make the link KNOTS-IGKT? Let me guess, the world does not respond in Pavlovian terms.

Apparantly, gentlemen, a turn has been missed during your self-proclaimed knotting expertise. Setting it right for the world to accept will turn out a daunting task.

Have a nice day.

Joop Knoop.





Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: roo on July 28, 2009, 05:49:44 PM
Dear Mr. SR and Roo,

Quote
How would you prefer to be corrected when you make a mistake?

I think the issue is more complicated than that ...
Would you like to answer the question anyway?

Quote
Apparantly, gentlemen, a turn has been missed during your self-proclaimed knotting expertise.
Where was my proclamation of knot expertise made? ???
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: J.Knoop on July 28, 2009, 06:00:17 PM
Dear Roo,

Reading and comprehending are two different things, I know.
Perhaps you might be able to understand that too?

Quote
Would you like to answer the question anyway?

Try and spell out the following words - i-t i-s o-f n-o (and now a big word) c-o-n-c-e-r-n :).


Joop.
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: roo on July 28, 2009, 06:02:45 PM
...
Quote
Would you like to answer the question anyway?

Try and spell out the following words - i-t i-s o-f n-o (and now a big word) c-o-n-c-e-r-n :).

And that's the problem.  :(
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: J.Knoop on July 28, 2009, 06:13:31 PM
Roo, yes, that is your problem indeed. Responding w/o reading. I am ever so happy you cottoned onto that.  :D

And will you be able, after your bout of sarcasm, to come with some constructive response? Mr.SR tried, what about yourself?

Joop.
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: WebAdmin on July 28, 2009, 07:52:56 PM
Good evening gentlemen,

It seems we have all sorts of feathers in the air here.

To take up two points of interest:

1 - the Guild has historically been uncoordinated over its charitable aim of Education.  However, a sub-committee of the Council has been formed, and is now at work determining how the Guild can best fulfill this function.

2 - There have in times past been references to errors in books, and I must admit I have been hesitant to purchase a book without having some knowledge that the author is held in good standing by other knot tyers.  Publishers' or typesetters' errors can easily crop up, and adequate proofreading really is the only way of overcoming it.  But following the directions for every single knot in order to proofread them would probably add a few weeks to the deadline for a detailed book like an encyclopedia.  I expect it depends on the workload and proficiency of the proofreader themselves.  I personally find it hard to proofread my own work without a couple of days break.  I know what I meant to say, and that's what I read.

How about an experiment?  Initially starting as a thread, and perhaps moving to its own board if it becomes workable, a set of posts detailing in full (not with abbreviations) the publication, the page or other reference, the error and its correction.  Make the word ERRATA the first line of the subject, so as to distinguish the post.  I would suggest putting these under Knot Theory and Computing, for the reasons that:

1 - I can rename the board if need be to reflect its enlarged role,
2 - That board doesn't hold so many messages, and so it will be easier to find the thread quickly
3 - The board's description of getting your teeth into a knot figuratively or literally seems to me to go a long way towards describing this as well.

However, I suggest that these pro bono errata - that is, corrections for the public good - should be just that: statements of error and correction.

Regards

Glenys

Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: squarerigger on July 28, 2009, 08:34:02 PM
Thanks Glenys for your erudition and for showing us what we might do, rather than attempting to merely nay-say another.

BTW, for those who were perhaps unaware, the word Alinea [used in Mr Knoop's post earlier] is the Latin term for the paragraph sign.  This may or may not have been his intent, but, in Latin it means ?off the line? - just thought you might like to know.

You, Mr. Knoop, also reference that the IGKT has nothing to produce - au contraire, mon frere.  When you become a member of the IGKT you will see what 25 years of work has produced with continuing demonstrations of knot-tying, freely given to those who arrive at our various displays throughout the world.  Try it - you may like it and could perhaps be of some use to others, instead.  :P

When posting, I would ask you to show some better accuracy.  While interesting to note your stance of apparent disagreement with every posting, barring only a few minor allowances that someone else may have an equal and similar opinion to your own, your continuing accuracy and a reduction in sarcasm, reportedly the lowest form of wit, would be better appreciated.

SR
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: J.Knoop on July 28, 2009, 09:03:04 PM
Thank you Glenys for your wise words and proposing the experiment.

In the thread named "What if Clifford Ashley had been into Scouting instead of Whaling?" (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1405.0) the subject of knowledge management has passed the parade a few times. The suggestion was already uttered, by Dan Lehman, to start a new thread for the errata-topic. The central question inquires into what constitutes "knowledge", as this is the crucial ingredient of what constitutes "errata".

Aside from all issues on IGKT being a registered charity, self-appointed authority and a little thin on reputation, things can change for the better. Once a reputation of reliable knowledge-provider is established things certainly will be different, but this requires the taking of a hurdle. Two hurdles actually.

The first hurdle relates to the nature of knot-knowledge and how to ensure that you know that what you state in that respect is verifiably correct.

The second hurdle relates to objectivity, which I shall leave open for the time being.

As for mr.SR I shall ask you to try and incorporate any form of decency in your future posts. If the following samples of intellectual snobbery illustrate your interpretation of welcome to IGKT, then my advice to you is: think again:

Quote
BTW, for those who were perhaps unaware, the word Alinea [used in Mr Knoop's post earlier] is the Latin term for the paragraph sign.  This may or may not have been his intent, but, in Latin it means ?off the line? - just thought you might like to know.


Quote
While interesting to note your stance of apparent disagreement with every posting, barring only a few minor allowances that someone else may have an equal and similar opinion to your own, your continuing accuracy and a reduction in sarcasm, reportedly the lowest form of wit, would be better appreciated.

Obviously you believe to recognize sarcasm, because it is your hallmark. Grave pity you wish to destroy what seems to be an honoust attempt by webmistress to move forth.

Joop Knoop.



Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on July 28, 2009, 09:16:45 PM
As I am hopefully a soon to be victim of the ERRATA discussions, I have tossed it back and forth in my mind whether I should paricipate in discussions here or not, particularly as they wander off at any tangent... I am not sure of what the Guild is about, I am not a member, and I am not sure that I would like to become a member. I have done fancy stuff, bellropes, keyrings and knife lanyards, and one of my marlingspikes has a long turk's head for handle. But my main interest in knots is merely practical stuff, much centered on security and ease of use.

Not many knots are needed in the sailing world. Some of the sailors I know can tie two half hitches on the standing part and the cleat hitch, and that's about it. Those guys win races, and they succeed in tying up their boat after. Most of them don't have a whipping on the ends of their lines. Would it really be worth the while trying to teach them a few more knots? And what for? They managed many years without a bend or a magnus hitch or even the clove hitch. What's the point in expanding the knowledge that so far has served so well. They don't need to tie a snapshackle to a halyard, they buy a new one with the snapshackle spliced on. These people go aloft attached to the snapshackle of their spinnaker halyard. Tying a knot? what for? Anchor Bend? The anchor band has sister hooks that accomodate the shackle, they don't use rope for the anchor. They attach their moorings with a Merx snapshackle, so why bother?

But I guess I'm just fond of tying good knots. I didn't have the money to buy all those accessories, for some time I worked in a rigging loft, creating those halyards, sheets and mooring lines those experienced sailors use. I like the beauty of a knot that serves the purpose well, and even though I have spliced hundreds of halyards, I prefer to knot my own halyards, as my masthead is a bit too narrow to swallow a splice without resistance and chafe. I tie a bowline with an extra round turn into the eye of the buoy faster than they attach their Merx hook to the boathook, and I tie my boat up without those mooring springs that are mandatory in our marinas. When I take a line out of the locker, it is ready to be used immediately, and I can throw it out to its full length if needed. I had use for that skill twice, it isn't often, but it has come in handy. Anyway, I'm giving it a go, I'll write that book, to my own taste.
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 29, 2009, 05:24:30 AM
Good evening gentlemen,

It seems we have all sorts of feathers in the air here.
Goodness, yes -- and "alinea" (or plural), though in name only, this HTML
not able to produce the actual symbol thingey, except I don't think that that was intended.

I'd hoped that a few pages of close reading of EKFR would suffice for the
nonsense in this thread, and we needn't add to that our own in bickering back'n'forth.
It stands as a powerful indictment of all of us who have gotten it and lumped it up
on the shelf, thinking it some wealth of information to mine, when we just have
some time.  But after confronting it point blank -- not mere "inaccuracies" but
outright ridiculous balderdash --, we must face up to the fact that we've let it
pass muster w/us for so long, so outrageously bad.  (Not to deny its inclusion
of interesting things, but how long would you keep in contract a grocery
shopper for you who brought home bags half-laden with rotten food?)

Quote
2 - There have in times past been references to errors in books, and I must admit I have been hesitant to purchase a book without having some knowledge that the author is held in good standing by other knot tyers.  Publishers' or typesetters' errors can easily crop up, and adequate proofreading really is the only way of overcoming it.  But following the directions for every single knot in order to proofread them would probably add a few weeks to the deadline for a detailed book like an encyclopedia.  I expect it depends on the workload and proficiency of the proofreader themselves.  I personally find it hard to proofread my own work without a couple of days break.  I know what I meant to say, and that's what I read.
There is that, yes, alas.  In a book I collaborated on, I didn't see the included images
(photos) until too late -- in pointing out that the supposed Square Fisherman's (which
is a Reef with ends tied off in Strangles (rockclimber naming)) had a Thief in it (which
in fact is arguably better, in more forcefully pulling the Strangles to jam against the
central (Thief) knot body).  And then it was too late.  This particular gem though is
something only a knotty EaglEyed scrutinizer like me would notice!  (The author's
denial had substance:  "I don't know how to tie a Thief ...", but also an answer
"You didn't, but you tied-off one wrong end (using a short rope for image preparation,
this was easy to do)".

But we have gross violations of information integrity here, again, not mere minor
confusions.  Although many things can trip up the person reading to learn.
We have books that promise "original artwork" but instead copy --without any
published recognition of use or permissions-- by scanner & computer images
from a great many other current books!!!  Which of course leads to great
disappointment if one is buying the book in part for that "original" work.

But, let's have some more of the EKFR nonsense, for it really needs
to be shown the heaping volume of this stuff -- it's quality AND quantity.
And then we need to stand back and ask ourselves and others "You'd
rate this at the 5 Stars top, Joe?!"  --"or even 3, Dan?"

Beyond that is an investigator's task of figuring out what in it is of any
worth -- is anything Hansel&Gretel assert to be believed?  What oddball
things, however contrived, are nonetheless interesting points of departure
for some knotty venture, into structures, or history?  The Wot?knot
is there, twice, in inaccurate copies of Biddle & Hasluck; for history and
knowledge propagation, I think they lead nowhere; they could lead to
a gem of a knot from this, as any of the Wot?knots could (if you
get lucky), and so, too, maybe other nonsense spurs inventive discovery.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: J.Knoop on July 29, 2009, 10:51:35 AM
Inkanyezi wrote:

Quote
Anyway, I'm giving it a go, I'll write that book, to my own taste.


Bravo! And, genuinely,  I shall be looking forth to reading it, to see what you further bring to the world of knots after your bash with G?ran Romare & Pille Repmakar'n [http://segling.ifokus.se/Forum/Read.aspx?ThreadId=3279283c-d135-4d64-8e11-6e5915321b14].

As for your motivating background with respect to this forum; interesting indeed. Last year I allotted myself 100 posts to gauge the quality of this knotting forum, but only now have found time to give that a go. Your observations coincide with mine: unstructured brawls, boxed thinking, ego-problems and at the end of the line little to show for. Why that should persuade any knotter into the guild baffles me. Marketing mechanisms work differently, group dynamics work differently and finally persuasion at the individual's level works differently. The product, which IGKT is trying to sell, should not be sustaining romantized sailor lore, but concern the actuals of knots. Inkanyezi worded it perfectly:

Quote
But I guess I'm just fond of tying good knots.


It is as simple as that!

The organization is "international", yet pathetically quibbles about usage and semantics of words unfamiliar to the incrowd, again rather than attempt to further knot knowledge by means of education. To gather, and keep gathered, all individuals who appreciate the art of tying good knots.

And now? On the verge of showing the world that knotbooks are all wrong? Gentlemen, what you need is a session to unravel the IGKT policy wrt the quality of knowledge. Screaming at the world that Raoul Graumont and John Hensel made a pigsty out of their collection activity and presentation, that Derek Lewis book is a fraud, that Maria Constantino is just limelighting and that soAndSo got xyz wrong. Who are you to make such statements? Is there any objective standard, that you are aware of, that allows you claim these authors are wrong in their statements? In our field there are no standards, there is not even an inkling of organised science, there is disrespect and distrust among knotting domains and disciplines. You will have to remove those walls before you can start building anything remotely near to objective verifiable knowledge.

As I still have some posts left before leaving you lot, I welcome your comments.....


Joop Knoop.



 
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: WebAdmin on July 29, 2009, 12:54:51 PM
I am just dashing through before the final shopping trip before we go on a 1700 mile tour of Britain: Dundee-Exeter-SouthEastEngland over the next 3 weeks.  And in that order.

I will be trying to keep in touch with the forum, but will be using a 2x3inch screen for most of it.

Since we have several authors in our midst, as well as someone who would like advice on how to go about writing a book on knots for amateurs by an amateur :) who would like to put up the first few errata posts?  If the subject contains the format:

ERRATA: [book name/publication date] [knot name]

then that should get make it easier to find things.

Just as a point of view here, I am finding that this forum is in fact the Guild's biggest and most continuous knotting meeting.  Don't let's get distracted by the fact that we don't have face to face contact - or voice to ear contact - with the people on the other side of the server.  Everyone likes to be treated respectfully, and the best way to be treated respectfully is to treat others with respect.  If everyone decides that they will be big enough to take the first step on that, I think you'll find the brawling diminishes quite noticeably.

So - who's going to come and produce results?  First post ought to be a quote or several out of this one.
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 29, 2009, 06:24:26 PM
And now? On the verge of showing the world that knotbooks are all wrong? Gentlemen, what you need is a session to unravel the IGKT policy wrt the quality of knowledge. Screaming at the world that Raoul Graumont and John Hensel made a pigsty out of their collection activity and presentation, that Derek Lewis book is a fraud, that Maria Constantino is just limelighting and that soAndSo got xyz wrong. Who are you to make such statements? Is there any objective standard, that you are aware of, that allows you claim these authors are wrong in their statements? In our field there are no standards, there is not even an inkling of organised science, there is disrespect and distrust among knotting domains and disciplines. You will have to remove those walls before you can start building anything remotely near to objective verifiable knowledge.
A good assessment, but we'll not further stall by letting perfection be the
enemy of good.  Part of setting a foundation can entail clearing out the
rubbish in the way.  There is a common misunderstanding that somehow
Ashley and Hansel&Gretel et al. have charted good courses into the knotting
universe; that misunderstanding needs to be made clear.  Ashley made a
decent first effort which hasn't gotten such a good followling; what Hansel
& Gretel did is rather mind-boggling, as --barring some further information
in support of their book-- they seem to have in many cases just dreamed up
entanglements, photographed them, given them comical names, and filled
up a great many pages thus!!  (I think it was American computer scientist
(US Navy) Grace Hopper who once lectured that one should simply write
up a good executive summary and attach it to ... ANYthing -- "just
so long as it makes a good thump when hitting the desk", in order
to have some influence on a manager of whatever!  EKFR certainly
makes a good thump, but has otherwise been less useful.)

As for judgements on correctness, those of course can be done in the usual
way.  Who's to say whether the rockclimbing Brits' "Larks foot" is wrong and
"Larks head" right?  Well, we can simply trace the former to one book, note
that prior to that the latter was used, and there is a natural deduction waiting.
Coherence vs. correspondence theory of Trvth [sic :-] here.  What's in a name?

"No standards":  no, and that too is something to work on.  There is a (CE?, UIAA?)
standard regarding the drop-testing of rockclimbing ropes that specifies that a
Fig.8 eyeknot be used; but there is no standard for the knot itself -- which is
typically shown in ambiguity as to which end is loaded, and with not great
testing to determine whether that much matters (I think not so much, but ...).
So there could be a use for some knots standard, for precise specification.
ISO has some textiles group under which such a standard might develop or
be adopted.  Standard names ... ?  -- better, some newly wrought scheme
for specific knot-IDs; names will have all sorts of locality aspects & variety.

We exist in an age where most? cell phones now can not only capture an
image --of some knot in the wild , say-- but transmit it across most
boundaries.  There is much data collection in need of doing, if you come
to see the extant literature as impoverished re reality.  It was this yearning
that moved me to urge (and it's that time o' year, again) that those of PAB
in arranging for presence at the annual, large Seattle Fishermen's Festival
make an effort to establish connection with the fishermen and to learn of
their practices -- capture some state of the practice knotting.  Instead of
merely sharing close geography only, and reiterating the stale text-book
knotting as though this is an important thing to preserve, as though there
is no life to it?  The decorative aspect is fine, even an art form.  But the
practical aspect has vitality and we should be immersed in that, not standing
separate beside it, without it influencing us.  Again, digital cameras allow
for broad sharing of such things.  (On Nautile's site, one can see some
workings of fishermen around Brittany -- their knots, their cordage.  All
for cheap, in e-travel!  How about some Seattle sightings?  More East
Coast ones should be available in New Bedford -- and NOT from some
museum:  that is the point!)

As for the envisioned Errata posts,
I'll leave further contributions of the Hansel&Gretel comedy to this under this
non-Errata heading; I think it's more of a grand-picture sort of message to make
than item-wise particular:  that a great joke has been played on us, at length.
I don't see it as intended for Ashley as a list to which one refers in continued
use of the book, but as a liberating insight to using the book at all.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: J.Knoop on July 29, 2009, 08:12:14 PM
Glenys wanted a quote. The first which spings to mind is by Geoffrey Budworth in Knots & Crime (p175, 1985):

Quote
[Many knot-tyers dislike formal taxology.] They prefer an accumulation of knotlore in their heads and fear
anything which threatens to blur their understanding of the time-honoured body of knowledge
.

After receiving a rather condescending and intimidating personal mail from moderator "squarerigger", I think I shall leave you now to further enjoy your knots on this forum. Mr. Philpott does not give permission to publish his email's content, but reference to its existence confirms its receipt. Forcing webmistress into placing an IP-address ban because some sensitive souls feel their emotions are upset is not worth it. The message is clear. However, do let me say that I do not give a hoot about his ideas and furthermore say that freedom of speech is a great good. Alas, IGKT holds a different view on that account. Proven herewith. 

Joop Knoop.

Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 30, 2009, 06:44:11 AM
As I am hopefully a soon to be victim of the ERRATA discussions,
I have tossed it back and forth in my mind whether I should paricipate in discussions here ...
No need for that hope.  But if you open your draft to some helpful other eyes,
simple errors --we must hope-- can be found, at no (editing) charge.  As WebAdmin
gives one more acknowledgement of, it is understandably hard to do your own editing
-- for you come knowing what you meant to say or draw.  (But, no, I'll be zero help
in finding errors in Swedish!)  Having mis-drawn a knot or two myself, I know it can
happen.

Quote
Some of the sailors I know can tie two half hitches on the standing part and the cleat hitch, and that's about it.
 Those guys win races, and they succeed in tying up their boat after.
Really?  Not that the two skills necessarily overlap, but I'd think that in this particular
case --belaying to a cleat-- a sailor (sails, w/sheets) must know the usual quick cleat-belaying
structure, and definitely not putting in a Clove Noose (how I'm coming to view such knots
-- noose being a compound structure, its knot here the Clove Hitch on the S.Part)!?
Indeed, I recall reading some yachting forum where there was a long debate about
whether to finish such belyaing with a locking Half-hitch, with one side opining that
the need for quick release ruled against it (the other reminding that the OP question
was actually for mooring, not belaying a sheet).

But in general, sure, some can get by with little -- same thing is noted in rockclimbing.
But one can also get by, and arguably better --in that specific task-- with a few more
good tools, too.  And there is life beyond the boat, where knotting can be helpful,
if not absolutely necessary.

For a beginner, there can be some sense of overwhelming when confronted by many
knots -- the number of them.  But you can show similarities, how some mechanics
are alike, and how some of the structure of one is seen in another.  The more one
learns, the easier it is to further learn (up 'til past things start being pushed out of
the leaky mind when new ones are added).

Best of luck!

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on July 30, 2009, 07:35:44 AM
Some of the sailors I know can tie two half hitches on the standing part and the cleat hitch, and that's about it.
 Those guys win races, and they succeed in tying up their boat after.
Really?  Not that the two skills necessarily overlap, but I'd think that in this particular
case --belaying to a cleat-- a sailor (sails, w/sheets) must know the usual quick cleat-belaying
structure, and definitely not putting in a Clove Noose (how I'm coming to view such knots
-- noose being a compound structure, its knot here the Clove Hitch on the S.Part)!?
Indeed, I recall reading some yachting forum where there was a long debate about
whether to finish such belyaing with a locking Half-hitch, with one side opining that
the need for quick release ruled against it (the other reminding that the OP question
was actually for mooring, not belaying a sheet).

And of course that's it. The hitch is not for the sheets, it's for mooring. Foresail sheets are often on self-tailers, the main sheet in a cam cleat, and the halyards in rope clutches. For smaller boats, only halyards are hitched, never sheets. Sheets are often in cam cleats. The clamcleat is common as well. I don't doubt that these sailors might also know how to tie a square knot or a stopper, but generally, they do not use many knots and are living proof that to a large degree you don't need knots.

And I know of one particular guy that's on the team for exactly the same reason that they never picked him for a soccer team, his obesity. In harder winds that outweighs knotting knowledge.

Anyway, I'm working on it and I hope that the nonsense factor will be low.
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 31, 2009, 07:02:19 AM
Quote
pp.20-1/22-3pl.4#92/98/107  ...  Tension is applied to the knot in the direction shown by the arrow.
These are friction hitches shown tied to a horizontal spar, and in each
case the arrow points in the direction that the spar would need to move
for the knot to make sense; the likely interpretation is that the rope is to move
in the direction of the arrow, which is wrong in each case.

Quote
pp.15/17pl.2#48 The Gunner's combination Knot is a Clove Hitch with an Overhand Knot made by using
the end and the standing part.  This knot has very little use, aside from being a more secure form of the Clove Hitch.
This is incredible nonsense.  What this knot is was suggested by PvdGriend's
A Letter to Lester, which is a search for the origins of what Ashley
named "the Constrictor knot ", and so far this history traces back to
"Tom Bowling's" The Book of Knots -- which itself had only a verbal presentation.
Somewhere down the line of interpretations of Bowling or his later echoes came the
mis-reading of "the ends ... being simply knotted before being brought from under
the loop which crosses them"
  with an image of the ends knotted afterwards, then
atop the crossing part of the Clove Hitch!  --which itself in fact is a fairly secure Clove
hitch qua binder , which is hardly the usual task of this knot.  So, here we see that
Hansel&Gretel had the information before them, and came up with a fanciful reading,
and then a lame evaluation (the knot is nothing qua hitch ; worthwhile binder).

Quote
pp.25-6pl.5#125  The Surgeon's Knot Bend is tied by forming a Surgeon's Knot in the form of a Bend.
Except that the image --and this knot has seized ends, nb-- is of a Thief
orientation of parts, not Square, which surely is a mistake.
Quote
pp36-7pl.11#198 The Slip Noose Bowline  is begun by first tying a Slip Noose.  Then a Half Hitch is made
around the two ends of the Slip Noose, as shown ... ; and the standing part is put through the loop.
Uh-huh!?  And one would do all this for ... ?!  -- wasting time, filling up a
knots book, or ... WHY???! .  It is hard to imagine the genesis of this H&G gem.

Okay, enough for today.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: DerekSmith on July 31, 2009, 11:47:38 AM
Glenys wanted a quote. The first which spings to mind is by Geoffrey Budworth in Knots & Crime (p175, 1985):

Quote
[Many knot-tyers dislike formal taxology.] They prefer an accumulation of knotlore in their heads and fear
anything which threatens to blur their understanding of the time-honoured body of knowledge
.

After receiving a rather condescending and intimidating personal mail from moderator "squarerigger", I think I shall leave you now to further enjoy your knots on this forum. Mr. Philpott does not give permission to publish his email's content, but reference to its existence confirms its receipt. Forcing webmistress into placing an IP-address ban because some sensitive souls feel their emotions are upset is not worth it. The message is clear. However, do let me say that I do not give a hoot about his ideas and furthermore say that freedom of speech is a great good. Alas, IGKT holds a different view on that account. Proven herewith. 

Joop Knoop.



Joop, or is that 'Joseph'?

You are a strange cove.  From your first postings I immediately concluded 'TROLL', a very clever Troll, but Troll none the less.  However, lately, I have had to revise my initial conclusion, because Trolls rarely give more than they get, and yet despite the abrasive and humorously antagonistic phraseology your use, you have actually contributed much to fervent the awakening of this slumbering Guild.

My revelation came when you quoted from Budworths 'Knots & Crime' - I have tried for a long time to obtain a copy of that book, even the great man himself could not let me have a copy - yet you have gained access to his early writing !!!

Who are you Joop Knoop ?  And what is your purpose with the Guild ?

Although Knoop is a German origin (short chubby man), Joop is a Dutch familiarity.  I used to work with a Dutch team and was initially appalled at their rudeness.  Later, I discovered that they were simply being to the point and honest (perhaps honest and Dutch should not sit on the same page, so let's just be content with  'direct'), the issue was that in fact I was being effete as is my English way.  Only when I realised this could I constructively contribute to the team.  Are you a Dutchman let loose in the quiet backwaters of an English gentleman's paddling pool ??

The splash you are making is certainly washing some of the ducks over the edge and causing some of the slumbering loungers to wake up in a splutter.

The Guild is little more now that a smouldering ember from the bright fire started 25 years ago.  Is it your intention to re-awaken these embers and breath new life into the Guild?  If so, might I caution that if you blow too hard, the smouldering embers might blow right out of the hearth before you can ignite the new fuel you have posted here.

You allocated yourself 100 posts to this Forum, that leaves us with 20 yet to come before you decide to abandon us as a truly lost cause.  If you are indeed Dutch, then where is your spine?  Surely you will not let a single filibuster (vrijbuiter) from Lindsey scare you off ?  Even though you might not need 'The Guild', if you have so thoroughly studied the subject as to have obtained a copy of 'Knots & Crime', then without question, 'The Guild' needs you.

Do we deserve you ?  Well, hopefully the consequence of your next 20 posts will convince you to continue what Budworth et al started 25 years ago.

Derek
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Sweeney on July 31, 2009, 02:09:51 PM
I have learned a lot from books and probably as much if not more from other knot-tyers but I have to say that I tend to look on books now as items to add to a small collection, bought because they perhaps have a different way of explaining how to tie a turk's head for example. I have found errors - sometimes after a very frustrating time trying to follow a set of diagrams or photos where the error not realised at first. But before we criticise authors' work (no matter how kindly or constructively) are we as a Guild contributing anything ourselves (as a Guild, not as individual members). 

For example I occasionally come across a reference to a knot in this forum but having looked at the website or Youtube video naturally have a look at what links are shown or other knots out of simple curiousity - far more details of knots than are in print I think. And errors abound to a degree which is at least unhelpful. The downside of being able to publish at little or no cost is there is no-one to check the accuracy but the upside is that others can add often add comments (as we do here) sometimes rather caustic ones at that.

So why point out errors in a book which would in all probability be difficult to find anyway?. In Waterstones in Liverpool last week - a major UK chain and this is a new and very large shop in Liverpool 1 - there was but one copy of one knot book (by Des Pawson) whereas the WWW offers easy access to thousands of sites - for free. if we are to make a difference let's not act as 'spoilers' but the opposite - identify sites which show the correct knot and method of tying (giving preference to members websites or contributions seems fair) and link to these. Our aim is to educate - best if we tried to do that positively I think.
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on July 31, 2009, 07:53:01 PM
But before we criticise authors' work (no matter how kindly or constructively)
are we as a Guild contributing anything ourselves (as a Guild, not as individual members).
This needn't be so ordered ("before ..."):  one can analyze and critique the
extant literature, and --in light of those very findings-- shape one's own progress
into building some knot knowledge .  As I have pointed out above, many
people have means to record instances found of actual knotting, and to further
learn of the state of the practice (instead of presuming that it is all known and
presented in some books somewhere).  And once you become aware of how
little of that was done in many published cases, you can adjust what it is that
you think you know about past practices, and realize that there's research yet
to be done, there too -- looking forwards  :o & backwards  ::) in time .
 
Quote
The downside of being able to publish at little or no cost is there is no-one to check the accuracy ...
Do you think accuracy was checked in published cases?!  THAT is what I'm
trying to bring to attention -- how VERY badly done some well-published
(broadly & successively, repeatedly) cases are, and still successful.  (The
modern publishing model seems to be one-time issues and then something
under a new cover, never a sustained book (though Des got to a 2nd edition).)

Quote
So why point out errors in a book which would in all probability be difficult to find anyway?.
I will repeat Why...? below.  But finding books these days is less well
done in "brick&mortar" places than on-line.  Which can be on-line to some
B&M shop making use of the greater visibility.  I just found a long out-of-print
copy of CLDay's Quipus & Witches' Knots, being cleared out by some New
York (state) library; the benefit to me is a 1st ed. in protective mylar cover in good
condition, dust jacket preserved.  There would be few looking for this book, but
via the WWWeb these remote sellers could be found by those few.  --as opposed
to trashing the book somehow.

Now, again, Why...?
-----------------------------------
I hope that a few pages of close reading of EKFR nonsense {will open some eyes}.
It stands as a powerful indictment of all of us who have gotten it and lumped it up
on the shelf, thinking it some wealth of information to mine when we just have
some time.
  But after confronting it point blank -- not mere "inaccuracies" but
outright ridiculous balderdash --, we must face up to the fact that we've let it
pass muster w/us for so long, so outrageously bad.

And that no one (apparently) has called its bluff!

Here, e.g., is a curious review by some "Cory Johnson" -- the only review by this person
(or might this be a seller's agent?):
Quote
[ 12 of 12 people found the following review helpful: ]
A MUST for the Profesional, April 11, 2000
This book is definitly NOT for the beginner! However it is also NOT the musty old tome that many feel that it is.
Aboard any modern merchant ship, this is a MUST HAVE...
I have used it in solving countless mooring "splice and dice" problems!
At an intermediate or advanced level (or if you are a sailor by trade) ... Buy it!
This brings to mind the discussion about Budworth's Quibble -- how any
modern merchant ship needs much knotting at all, let alone reference to an
old tome (it is old, face that fact), which must be noted has no presentation
of splicing anything but laid ropes (& wire)!
  But CoryJ found it a "must have"
for modern marine maintenance?  BULLLLLfeathers!  -- at least 12 of 'em, happily
plucked by twelve, er, rhymes-with-"pluckers"!   :D


And that that is (part of) the sad state of knotting *science* until today.
Which we should at last turn about, and chart a good course away.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: J.Knoop on July 31, 2009, 09:36:22 PM
Who are you Joop Knoop ?  And what is your purpose with the Guild ?

The Guild is little more now that a smouldering ember from the bright fire started 25 years ago.  Is it your intention to re-awaken these embers and breath new life into the Guild?  If so, might I caution that if you blow too hard, the smouldering embers might blow right out of the hearth before you can ignite the new fuel you have posted here.

You allocated yourself 100 posts to this Forum, that leaves us with 20 yet to come before you decide to abandon us as a truly lost cause.  If you are indeed Dutch, then where is your spine?  Surely you will not let a single filibuster (vrijbuiter) from Lindsey scare you off ?

Derek, your name could as well have been "Dirk Smid"; contaminated by your Dutch team members. At least your stereotyping of The Dutch Tribe is not far off and your amazing powers of observation now further explain many of your posts to me. Yes, I have followed almost all of them and I am one of your fans out there. However, you must compete with Dan Lehman and Jimbo for gold. Yet, on the other hand Lindsey will be huffed now, as you want me to fill my 20 final posts. A few days ago, I indeed concluded this forum was a waste of (my) time. You are right, I am not impressed by threats, promises or whatever one may want to call them,  but I am perhaps fast to identify lost causes. If freedom of speech is impeded for the sake of being politically correct, then there is a serious problem, which is not mine.

Is Geoff Budworth's brainchild a lost cause? I have followed your tribulations across quite some threads and know for certain that the tying of knots is not a lost cause. It is just the direction in which one steers the tub which might cause it to flounder. People all over the world tie knots, for practical as well as decorative purposes, access to the internet is allowing them to learn increasingly more about their subject. There is a dual-barrelled problem, though. You have once worded it compactly with a JFK quote: "do not ask what .... ". The crux of the matter is that things are affected by a fundamental asymmetry: "knotters can do their thing without any organizational format" versus "organizations depend on people". The "what's in it for me" question needs a clear answer. In 1982 the answer was evident. People like Harry Asher, Desmond Mandeville, Frank Harris, Stuart Grainger and  Percy Blandford were part of an awakening process. Hey! There are others like me; interested in knots! Now that made a splash almost 40 years AA (After Ashley)! What happened since then? The subject changed? Hardly. The people's attitudes towards knots changed? Hardly. Time caused Western societies to individualize; "what's in it for me" is more important now than it was 30 years ago. Can the IGKT cope with an answer to that question? I should think so. Like all other organizations they are marketing a product, a friendly product with very many positive aspects into the bargain. Then where are they missing the turn? People want information, verifiably correct information if possible. Is IGKT providing this? Personally I do not think they are delivering very well. The reasons they fail are manifold (more than 20 posts).

As for my identity, which is totally irrelevant, I have dropped sufficiently many hints by now for anybody to guess. Here are some more: yes, I have met Geof Budworth about 20 odd years ago, have signed 1st editions of Knots & Crime and most other contemporary knotting monographs in my library. No, I am not an IGKT-member and will not become one either, but feel sorry for the state it has come to. The idea certainly deserves to live on for another century - or so AA.

Joop Knoop.
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Fairlead on July 31, 2009, 09:53:32 PM
Allow me to post the first ERRATA, all of these mistakes were caused by editing and meddling by a so called proof reader I might add.  - I will post it here so that it fits with this thread and also in the Tec section as requested by Webadmin

Gordon (Co-author)
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 01, 2009, 06:31:31 AM
Allow me to post the first ERRATA, all of these mistakes were caused by editing and meddling by a so called proof reader I might add.  - I will post it here so that it fits with this thread and also in the Tec section as requested by Webadmin
Gordon (Co-author)
Thank you.  (Although you missed the later WebAdmin advisory re Subject format.)
I'm sorry not to have yelped earlier, but Errata msg.s do not belong in the
Knot Theory & Computing forum -- not for other than some testing
period, anyway.  They should have their own forum, as a single source
will often have Practical & Decorative knots and so garner errata for both.

Quote
access to the internet is allowing them to learn increasingly more about their subject
Although this begs the question of what this "more" amounts to?
As the OP shows, the WWWeb can simply spread nonsense more quickly
and broadly for being cheap & accessible.  There can be a real issue with
signal-to-noise ratio aspects of the WWWeb information.  Fortunately,
there is some hope with a good guard at Wikipedia, and some other active
minding of that.  But grounding some helpful information (i.e., providing
footnoted references) can be tough, as the published stuff is what needs
correcting or improving.  (In the time it takes for some few people to try
to check whether there ever actually was a use of the Bull Hitch with livestock,
several dozen sites can pop up and link to or copy the eHow misinformation
for their own.)

But further discussion of these sorts of things needs a new thread,
"Towards a Science of Knotting".

-----------
Okay, and just this for tonight's reading of a Hansel&Gretel bedtime story:

Quote
pp.86/88pl.39 #233, #235  The Cross Turn Bend is an unusual [I'll say!] method of making
a Bend with a cross turn in the middle.
&
The Hitched Figure-of-Eight Eye is made by passing a Hitch through a Figure-of-Eight eye.
Right-o.
The first peculiarity has the illusion of a Fig.8 but is actually a non-knot,
through which the 2nd rope is reeved, apparently in a "cross turn" -- and
of course we all know what that is!  No?  Well, H&G have a Glossary:
[C.T.] "Turns that are taken around a rope at right angles to the turns of the
lashings or seizing."  Not that this illusory Fig.-of-8 has such turns to be
taken at the perpendicular of, but ... no matter.
And, typical for H&G's book, the reader has NO idea of what ends are to
be loaded, in this so-called "Bend" (capital "b"!).  "Bend", btw, per H&G
"is defined as a method of joining the ends of two ropes together, or in
the language of the sea, the bending of two ropes together, as the Sheet
Bend, Carrick Bend, etc." ... "Also; to secure, tie or make fast, ...".  Well,
through many a tested seashell, and even directly, the sea has not spoken
to me quite thus, but this is a different world.  But take off 10 points for
the remark about "sheet bend" -- that is pretty well nailed to bending the
sheet to the clew (a non-rope entity).
But back to zero:  what is this knot supposed to do, and how?  No hint.
(It actually works half-decently if the ends on the same side/end (top or
bottom, in the book) are taken as the opposing S.Parts.  -- something
reminiscent of that "Technical Hitch (bend?)" Rob Chisnall once showed.
But I want most of the credit for discerning this knot out of #233.)

And #235?  As if one can give a history & purpose all in a name, does
"The Hitched Figure-of-Eight Eye " say it all ?  As you see,
there's little more than that, repeated, to follow, for all of H&G's text.
And, here too, there is no actual (and equally none apparent, even)
figure-of-eight.  And an "eye"?  This structure can work well
qua noose , which some think of as (non-"fixed") eyes; I prefer
to distinguish such things -- "eyes" are fixed; "nooses" maybe not so.
(For those lacking the tome, the knot I just discerned out of H&G's
ambiguity is like making Two Half-hitches, but instead of completing
the 2nd, take the end towards the object and back up through the
(first) Half-hitch and the bight just made in nearly making the 2nd;
this should be more secure than TwoHH, in tension and without.)

Well, I might as well visit nearby ...
Quote
pp.88/9pl.39#238 & p.102/4pl.40#356  The Twisted Knot in Eye is a method of tying
a twisted knot in an eye loop. [brilliant!]
&
The Crossed Eye Tie is a method for putting a crossed tie in an eye. [repeatedly brilliant!!]
Were not its alleged invention some years later (Ashley vintage), one might think
that Hansel&Gretel did a great many Crossed Eye Ties after a few too many Mai Tais.   :D
Again, one has no clue as to which end to load (or why bother); taking it qua
noose hitch, one has a workable item; qua eye knot, much less so.
These two "knots" are the same (one points upwards, the other downwards).
But you have your choice of names.  Blurred vision & slurred speech helps.
(I will not assert that there is not another occurrence of it in the tome.)

And we are --really!-- still just scratching the surface of this long-lived
"must have" book of "knots", rated so highly by relatively many on Amazon.

Sweet dreams, may your closed-eye ties free the ring from the bull.

--dl*
====

Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 01, 2009, 12:29:45 PM
I don't know about Hensel and Graumont, never seen a copy irl, and from my horizon, that tome is not of great importance.

Worse though that there pops up just another knot book about once every decade, with the same old stuff, maybe slightly reorganised, and with the scans mirror flipped and traced with pencil in order to make the copying less obvious. Those books are presented as "the ultimate" book on knots and ropework etc. The last contribution here in Sweden, with an IGKT member as co-author. The balderdash in it can be traced back to Sam Svensson, and apart from adding very little knowledge, it is downright misinforming in a few places. (Joop Knoop mentioned my clash with that book in another post.)

And I guess that's something that goes on not only here in Sweden, but in other countries too in different languages.

To me as a sailor, bibliography and history of knots is of little importance, more so the practical qualities of different methods, where knots are included. Of course for a bookworm (I am one) there's some interest in finding the errors, but as a sailor again, in navigation, I am not interested in where the reefs and underwater stones and other shallow spots are, I am only interested in the water where there's enough depth. Same for knots, I'm not interested in the unsafe ones or those thar cannot be untied, but only the ones I regard as good ones. Some of them are allowed to be difficult to untie, but then only for more permanent use, and most of them must be amply secure and also easily untied.

And it is on those latter points that knotbooks fail so badly. Hansel & Gretel's "Hitched Figure-of-Eight Eye" may be secure, but I haven't seen anything else jam so hard. The worst repeated mistake from the Swedish book is the Blackwall Hitch, which is recommended for lifting load, a heritage from Sam Svensson. It's even claimed to be more secure when doubled! And the Guild is taken hostage in the marketing blurb where the author's membership is presented as if it would grant some quality aspect. Would I want to be a member of the same guild?

And of course, with knotting having just a seedling of science, the grounds for pointing out such "errata" would be only our experience and lore. The latter gives me more confidence in running my own race. Who could say I'm wrong, when there is no norm and the competition so weak.
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 01, 2009, 07:31:26 PM
I don't know about Hensel and Graumont, never seen a copy irl, and from my horizon, that tome is not of great importance.
No.  But it's appearance and the claims made for it make it to be a compendium
of the history of knots, from all over.  It is only by careful/attentive examination
that one comes to question this, that one sees in it outright mis-copying (i.e.,
one knows a prior book with knot and words matching (nearly) what H&G give),
copying of nonsense (the knot was bad before, and they echo or change it and
it is still bad), hilarious/ridiculous non-sequiturs (Turks shooting farther on account
of a knot tying bowstring to bow), and entry after entry of makes-no-sense "knots"
that can only be understood as efforts to fill up a page (or else, ... what?).

"not of great importance":  I imagine you could say much the same for the
reports of test data, of knot strength, too.  What sort of test data would be of
relevance to the knots user (better: "to the knots user in <this field> ") ?
Further discussion along these lines is better located under the new thread
Towards a Science of Knotting under Practical Knots .  E.g., cyclical,
repetitive testing for abrasion damage?  Some serious (but not break) loading
to check for knot tightness & ease of untying?  Just a good round of such testing
in a variety of cordage?  Again, "Towards a Science ..." is aimed at bringing
forth such insights.

Quote
Worse though that there pops up just another knot book about once every decade, with the same old stuff,
maybe slightly reorganised, and with the scans mirror flipped and traced with pencil in order to make the copying less obvious.
Those books are presented as "the ultimate" book on knots and ropework etc. The last contribution here in Sweden,
with an IGKT member as co-author.
You must be in a relative backwater from the main flow of this:  such things have struck
me more of --for that one particular author of great popularity-- a book-a-month club !!
But as the count of Budworth's output is now around 20 since 1990 or so (yes, he had a
book prior to that -- which got reissued, thankfully!); Amazon.com enumerates these pretty
well, but one must beware of reissues under different cover/title, or split one into two.
For him to be reusing images for his follow-on works is understandable (though
one might ask for some improvement here and there); but for other authors/illustrators/&
publishers to copy broadly (mistakes and all) really begs the question of any sort of honesty
and checks in publishing!?  There have been a couple cases of joint authorship in Geoffrey's
case which are misleading:  after being unable to continue on a recent work, the publisher
not caring to delay, got another fellow to finish up; and GB was himself tasked with the
similar duties for another, earlier work.

My sense is that certain publishers want a knots book of this sort of Knots-Lots 101 level
and nothing else, and see $uce$$ spelled out as N-E-W, not in sustaining (revisions, additions)
some G-O-O-D effort.  Be done quickly, get it out of the door.  And some general-reader reviewer
will make positive comments on the authors cred.s, the pretty images, and the number and thus
apparent "completeness" of the work, for buyers to suck up.

Quote
The balderdash in it can be traced back to Sam Svensson, and apart from adding very little knowledge,
 it is downright misinforming in a few places. (Joop Knoop mentioned my clash with that book in another post.)
...
The worst repeated mistake from the Swedish book is the Blackwall Hitch, which is recommended for lifting load,
a heritage from Sam Svensson.
I'm skeptical as to Svensson's influence:  Ashley doesn't recognize his work (1940 vs. 1944);
and for the Blackwall Hitch i.p. Ashley cites Steel of 1794 -- well prior any even thought
of Svensson!  And I suspect that the circulation of that knot is broadened in 1800s.  Maybe
someone omitted putting in a stopper in the rope end?  -- a quick stress test beside me with
pulley was held, 5/8" manila on a smallish, like-thickness hook; 300#(?) force.

Quote
Hansel & Gretel's "Hitched Figure-of-Eight Eye" may be secure, but I haven't seen anything else jam so hard.
Which by your initial statement I deduce means that my verbal illustration was
your guide?  I hope it worked (I've been frustrated by others claiming not, and
not willing to pursue further words to clarify, in some past cases).  I just tried it
with soft-laid 1/2" PP and 5/16" diamond-braid PP vs. PES (squarish) ropes,
and found that the knot could be forced loose by pulling end & S.Part apart
after lifting away the outer collar.  The HH does put a load on the two parts,
but they can be used to break that.  YMMV per circumstance, I'll guess.
(Oh, tied around a 1cm 'biner.)

Quote
Would I want to be a member of the same guild?
Would you want to change it from without or within?
Or ignore it -- in favor of ... the freedom of ...  ?!
I understand your thoughts.  I've wondered at inviting those of some
fields such as rockclimbing to be in the IGKT, but, no, we haven't got a lot
to offer that would make a favorable impression.  But we are met -- several of us --
by that association; and are on an IGKT forum now.  And those books testifiy to
how well (not) things were going prior to and besides the IGKT; that the IGKT
has yet to make much influence in that, that its members are following in the
not so great publishing footsteps, is something to recognize and something
to step beyond.  "step beyond" doesn't come best by "stomping upon",
as Dale Carnegie might point out.

Quote
And of course, with knotting having just a seedling of science, the grounds for pointing out such
"errata" would be only our experience and lore.
In part, right.  But also continued (begun!) research with many eyes SEEING
what is done, where, how, why.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: squarerigger on August 01, 2009, 07:35:59 PM
Quote
The worst repeated mistake from the Swedish book is the Blackwall Hitch, which is recommended for lifting load, a heritage from Sam Svensson. It's even claimed to be more secure when doubled! And the Guild is taken hostage in the marketing blurb where the author's membership is presented as if it would grant some quality aspect. Would I want to be a member of the same guild?

An interesting comment about the Blackwall Hitch, recommended by Nares in his treatise on seamanship from 1862 for lifting a load with a tackle.  Brady and Lever both also mention that it may be used for setting up rigging but do not recommend against using it for lifting a load.  I have used it and its fellow the Double Blackwall for lifting a 600 lb anchor sucessfully and without incident hundreds of times - what is it about the hitch that so appalls so many?

Have you had practical experience with setting it in place and found it to slip under load?  Is there a specific kind of fiber with which you would not tie it (I have used it with manila, hemp and Roblon, a form of polypropylene), and I now have a 600 lb fender hanging in my back yard suspended off a tripod some 14 feet in the air which has been hanging there for several months using a nylon rope (a bit weathered and stiff, but nylon nonetheless) cast on an open hook with nothing more than a Blackwall Hitch.

Is there something about the kind of load suspended i.e. a dead load or a dynamic load?  Whose literature has some definitive testing that shows the hitch to be defective such that its use should be condemned?  Whose literature says with definitive testing that it should only be used for lifting loads?  What august body has provided something, anything, that shows the hitch to be defective?  Is there any other body of testers or users who has something to condemn use of the hitch?  More information, please, so that we can collectively put this to the test - inquiring minds need to know! ;D

SR
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 01, 2009, 08:00:39 PM
An interesting comment about the Blackwall Hitch, recommended by Nares in his treatise on seamanship from 1862
for lifting a load with a tackle.  Brady and Lever both also mention that it may be used for setting up rigging but
do not recommend against using it for lifting a load.
I have used it and its fellow the Double Blackwall for lifting a 600 lb anchor sucessfully and
without incident hundreds of times - what is it about the hitch that so appalls so many?

Have you had practical experience with setting it in place and found it to slip under load?
Is there a specific kind of fiber with which you would not tie it (I have used it with manila,
hemp and Roblon, a form of polypropylene),
and I now have a 600 lb fender hanging
in my back yard suspended off a tripod some 14 feet in the air which has been hanging
there for several months using a nylon rope (a bit weathered and stiff, but nylon nonetheless)
cast on an open hook with nothing more than a Blackwall Hitch.
When we get through with logical explanation of the badness of this hitch
expect that fender to fall, by conviction!  :D

This is exactly the sort of check-&-see evidence that is valuable.  And here
from one knowing what he is doing (i.e., choosing deliberately a definite
structure) and with pretty well identified gear & loads, repeatedly.
I wondered --and wanted to better check this in my just-now stressing--
if orienting right-/Z-laid rope around the hook clockwise (moving towards
end) would make it such that the hook-side lay ran parallel with it and so
might be pressed open to give some additional grab !?

One can wonder if there's some not-so-distant tipping point at which
the confluence of material structure, condition, hook shape, and load
can yield slippage (which once begun with much load will surely spill it)!?

I'm reminded of the Lyon Equip (2001?) testing in which a Clove Hitch failed
in almost all tests --at considerably different forces-- to hold, but did hole each
time (three) to break in the one tested dynamic rope!?  So a rockclimber takes
successful experience into caving (or canyoneering) with a different but similar
cordage and maybe has a problem!  Actually, there was a fellow at Sterling Ropes
who did some drop tests on a Clove hitch and there they all? failed, until stopperd.
Climbing fall arrests in practice would be well less than this severe, device-wrought
static load drop test, but it does give one pause.  The Clove h. is used regularly
in anchoring the belayer, but also with some back-up.

Quote
Whose literature has some definitive testing that shows the hitch to be defective such that its use should
be condemned?  Whose literature says with definitive testing that it should only be used for lifting loads?
What august body has provided something, anything, that shows the hitch to be defective?
Further discussion along these lines is better located under the new thread
Towards a Science of Knotting under Practical Knots .


Consider:  a typical slow-pull test device drives a pin farther from an achor and
thereby exerts force upon a joining structure; but intermediate failures in the structure,
and some tightening-adjusting will at times significantly lessen the force upon it
-- as the slowly distancing pins are moving at a preset rate.  Whereas in practice
a suspended load is in constant bearing upon the structure, and a sudden bit of
yield in it will only accelerate the load to apply force with some increase, no
slacking up!?

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: squarerigger on August 01, 2009, 08:46:41 PM
There is a likelihood that someone applying any knot, hitch, splice, bend or other conjoining of lines or forming of stoppers, incorrectly, will end up with a mess.  There seems to be very little that one could do to obviate this.  Yes, the configuration that I have found specifically to work is wrapping of the right-laid line (no testing yet with braided line) such that the hook is loaded on its left side when facing the bill and having the shank at the rear or side away from the observer.  The shank shape also is important, in that it must have a nock that will permit the crossing toward the eye of the hook (ring of the hook) and will not have a shape that requires the hook-body to be smaller or larger to accomodate the size of line.  A small line in a large hook will definitely not work!  Also, a very large line in a very small hook (sorry, no sizes that I can quote you, as yet) will not work.  It is also necessary to gradually load the line so that a purchase is effectuated.  When and if I see the load slipping, even a tiny amount, I stop the action, re-assemble as a Double Blackwall and again end up with the load to the left using right-laid line.  Invariably, when I get slippage, it is because of the relative size of the line and hook, a vital component of the Hitch not identified in knot-books (including my own) - then again, I am not trying to teach people with a few simple photographs how to become an effective rigger.  It is a truism that, if you follow advice from a book alone, with no further personal advice, counsel, training or trial, you are a fool.  Thanks for asking!

SR
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 01, 2009, 10:08:36 PM
Yes Dan, the verbal description is easy to follow. First a single hitch around the standing part, then a "backhanded", i.e. around the SP and back around the load and up through the half hitch along the SP. it draws up, and keeps the nip after once drawing up. When heavily loaded, it jams and is a bit difficult to untie, but it works if the "backhand" bight is turned to the side, which loosens the knot.

However, there are several knots that are just as easily tied but behave better. I wouldn't use it if I didn't specifically need a jamming knot.

Re Blackwall Hitch: This knot and a few more has led to a total banning of knots for lifting. For professional use, no knot is permitted for lifting, only slings may be used. There are scores of knots that are much safer, without so much careful working or having to match the line to the hook size. Ashley states that it is used in setting up rigging when you have a short lanyard end, and he says it should not be tied to a cargo block. I know how to make a half hitch that holds, but everyone don't, and if you use it for cargo, and the load just touches something that for a moment releases the knot, the situation may change rapidly. The Blackwall Hitch does not have a lot more security than the balancing pole hitch.

So, of course, given the right size of hook, one could suspend a load indefinitely, but what for? The knot does work, when the hook is the right size for the rope, the friction is reasonable and the load is carefully applied. But considering what such knots might be used for, I would not recommend it. The three most common lifting scenarios with small boats are:

 In neither case will the blackwall hitch be easier to use than one or more slings.

So I wonder, why would one include a questionable knot where a malfunction might be fatal, when there are safe routines for that kind of work?
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: squarerigger on August 01, 2009, 11:46:57 PM
Quote
So I wonder, why would one include a questionable knot where a malfunction might be fatal, when there are safe routines for that kind of work?

Very good question and not one to be sneezed at.  Frequently, one is attempting to do something that has been tried time and again, with no fear of losing the load, no fear of the load landing on anything that will suffer loss and so on and so on.  None of this is an excuse to use something different, but, when needs must, when it is simple and safe to use for that application, it is a useful hitch to know.  I would not recommend its use where it is banned, for whatever reason, nor would I use it if someone's life depended on it.  However, in raising an anchor from the water's surface to the caprail on an old squarerigger, it is perfectly feasible, it works and there is no reason to change to anything different.  I sail on old squareriggers (hence the nickname) and I have had nothing but success with it.  I am not responsible for what other people do - if I were I would recommend against any knot that was not tied by someone with years of experience.  In the front of my own books I have the reminder that no knot should be relied on for life safety - if I did not do that, there would be no knots in the book!  No knot is foolproof and no knot, hitch, bend, splice or any other fixing with a flexible fiber (do not read in here that a steel rod is flexible and therefore should not be used) should be used in any life safety application, unless assembled by someone with insurance against all possible accidents - yes, even your slings can be mis-applied and the strapping is frequently loaded to a maximum, because it is used by idiots.
Your advice is well taken, but taken nonetheless with a pinch of salt - thanks for the feedback!

SR
 
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 02, 2009, 03:17:00 PM
Yes Dan, the verbal description is easy to follow. First a single hitch around the standing part, then a "backhanded", i.e. around the SP and back around the load and up through the half hitch along the SP. it draws up, and keeps the nip after once drawing up. When heavily loaded, it jams and is a bit difficult to untie, but it works if the "backhand" bight is turned to the side, which loosens the knot.
Well, that to my following is way different than what I described.
As I said, proceed as though tying the venerable Clove H. to the S.Part
(aka "Two HHitches"), BUT just at the point where you would tuck the
end to make that 2nd HHitch, instead pass a little OVER the crossing
part, and reach towards the hitched object to u-turn through the 1st
(only) HH and loop made by the end in place of a 2nd HH.  The end
makes a HH, then makes an encompassing Overhand knot in which
it passes through the HH and so this Overhand is kept rather open,
and the end might be used in combination with the S.Part to pry
loose the Half-hitch.  (Definitely no backhanding & no going back
again around the load/object.)

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: [Inkanyezi] gone on August 02, 2009, 06:28:50 PM
Got it now...

Not jamming, behaves rather well, but not really beautiful.
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: WebAdmin on August 04, 2009, 11:36:51 PM
Whilst I'm grateful for the warning never to buy a knot book that sounds like a fairy-tale (is this a "too good to be true" book ;)  ) how can I or any beginner be sure that the book I have just purchased is reasonably error--free?

This weekend, I taught 2 young ladies the Diamond/Lanyard/Chinese, tied in hand, and the Viking Fingerweaving I picked up at Yorvik, which is useful because from a single cord they can now practice making bracelets, key fobs, or - as their motivation - copies of my camera wriststrap.  I didn't pick Solomon/Portuguese because they haveno access to a tool to pull through with.

I will be recommending them Stewart Grainger's "Knotcraft" or "Creative Ropecraft" - I know for sure the latter is available through the public library system.  Both have good progression, beautiful illustrations, and lead naturally to projects.  As I trust, they are error-free.

But how do I tell them: caveat emptor; here be possible errors, when I don't know whether a book does or doesn't have errors?

The amount of trust involved in buying a knotting book as an amateur/new knotter is huge.

Regards,
Glenys
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Sweeney on August 05, 2009, 10:50:12 AM
Glenys

With the best will in the world even the best and most meticulous author can have their work altered before publication - probably inadvertantly in many cases - and no-one is perfect.  Personally I find a much greater problem with fancy knots where I simply cannot follow the illustration/text even though it quite correct. And yet another author showing the same knot may be easy to follow. Nowadays I tend to use the web to learn or look at a knot I am not familiar with - chances are there are several sites often offering different interpretations (not wrong, just different!) - and there may be a comment section as on Youtube where you can see others opinions.  I buy books for enjoyment as books rather than a manual these days

Barry
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 06, 2009, 05:59:57 AM
...
In the front of my own books I have the reminder that no knot should be relied on for life safety
 -- if I did not do that, there would be no knots in the book!  No knot is foolproof and no knot, hitch, bend, splice or any other fixing
with a flexible fiber (do not read in here that a steel rod is flexible and therefore should not be used)
should be used in any life safety application, unless assembled by someone with insurance against all possible accidents ...
And yet rockclimbers, arborists, cavers, et al. continue to rely on knots
for life safety as they have done for decades!?

When I see advice to seek personal training on Net forums, I have
to ask how it is that someone in person suddenly becomes so wise
vs. perhaps that same person via the Net -- and one can remark here
at accounts from students/clients of what their for-hire trainers have
instructed them to do that is decried by experienced practitioners,
and contrary to state of the practice.

Books/documents that ask for fee in purchase then quickly disclaim
"we give no assurance that anything here is helpful or even correct"
leave me wanting to go upside a lawyer's head!   :(

Information delivery should be better than this.
(I do recall one of Geoffrey's books making what to my mind was a
quite sensible disclaimer -- some common sense reminder of issues
while proclaiming some effort at correctness.)

--dl*
===

ps:  My, what an amazing bunch of cleat hitches I found !
   -- and an eye splice for the record books!!  :P
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: squarerigger on August 06, 2009, 07:11:03 AM
Dan,

I could not agree more - however, we are blessed or besieged by lawyers, who are ever wont to decry their lot by saying it is other people who want them to sue someone, not the action they themselves might take.  It may be a free country but it is awfully limited when you try to do something!

Here is my take on personal training - if someone is trying to tie right in front of your eyes, you can see so much more and have so much more control over their actions, inactions, assumptions and misunderstandings than you can when you sell them a book.  As an author I have precious little control over how the book is used.  A little like a rope manufacturer stating that the breaking strength is X pounds, when the user tries to pull that load and the line breaks, they wonder why and blame the manufacturer for lying to them.  The user has misunderstood the meaning of breaking strength (actually average BS) and they have abused the line or purchased it as part of a job lot that has been sitting in someone's warehouse heat for five or six years.  The manufacturer has NO control over how the rope is used, abused, misinterpreted and the facts that they give (breaking strength = BS) are NECESSARILY an average - it wouldn't make sense for them not to be.  Similarly I have no control as an author over how many pages the publisher will allow, what level of stupidity the reader may lack or possess, what errors have crept in during ineffective proofreading, etc., etc.  It's something that I learned when I came to the USA - it is called CYA!!!

As for those cavers - they were trained not by a book alone, nor do they practice alone - they are in company and have received personal guidance or they would not be allowed access.  They do not rely solely on the use of knots, they also use carabiners, stitched and proof-tested webbing, safety belts, helmets, two-way radios and a host of other safety precautions - and they also practice using backups, not just a single knot.

Thanks for your comments anyway...

SR

PS:  here is Geoffrey's publisher's caution: "Do not use any of the knots, bends, hitches, etc. in this book for a purpose that involves forseeable risk of loss, damage, or injury without the appropriate training and equipment.  Cavers, climbers, rescue workers, wilderness or ocean-going adventurers who wish to use a particular knot for those (or any other) activities and pursuits are strongly advised to seek the advice of qualified practitioners first.  This book is intended only to be a safe and simple introduction to knot tying."

How's that for common sense? :o
Title: Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
Post by: WebAdmin on August 12, 2009, 12:04:50 AM
Hi,

Just burning up some Mbs on my cousin's brand new wifi!  We weren't able to get on line as we'd expected to during our stay at Exeter.

Thank you for the post, Barry, I nearly got so carried away that I forgot how much pleasure there was in just doing.  That got rectified on the M6/M5, just learning a couple of "new" (as in, only tried them once before during a really long print run) knots that I can put into my retinue of "good to know when you need them" knots :)

Regards

Glenys