Author Topic: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!  (Read 15799 times)

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #15 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.
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #16 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*
====
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 06:28:59 AM by Dan_Lehman »

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #17 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.



 

WebAdmin

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #18 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.
Lesley
WebAdmin

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #19 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*
====

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #20 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.


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #21 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*
====
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 07:08:09 PM by Dan_Lehman »

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #22 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.
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #23 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*
====
« Last Edit: August 13, 2009, 05:54:34 AM by Dan_Lehman »

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #24 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

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #25 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.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #26 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*
====

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #27 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.

Fairlead

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
  • IGKT Member since 1984 - IGKT Librarian
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #28 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)

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
Re: Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!
« Reply #29 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*
====

« Last Edit: August 13, 2009, 06:07:27 AM by Dan_Lehman »