". . . In any case, the more time we slow you up doing that, the less advance into further trouble you might get, eh?!"
Nah, I'll always have the uncanny ability to get into deep trouble very quickly. Many have tried to slow me, but to no avail.
"I simply didn't see how using some presumed strong but otherwise undesirable knot in order to strengthen the desired one got you anywhere free of the undesirable characteristics of the strong knot."
But I never claimed that a freedom from "undesirable characteristics" would prevail; I claimed only that the method would yield--for the line--the breaking strength of the knot that forms the loop. And the reason to claim this was only to show that knots with less-than-high breaking strengths can be used without having to suffer their less-than-high breaking strengths, and so, to show that a restriction to knots with high breaking strengths is entirely unnecessary. (Are you sure that YOU didn't get into trouble with this one?) Remember that I'm trying to show WHY I'M NOT A PROPONENT of knots with high breaking strengths. And since, in this day and age, we have access to a variety of strong materials, there is even LESS reason to be concerned about the subject of which so many tirelessly speak.
I caught a glimpse of your post about heading towards a science of knotting. I think that that could be a useful pursuit (there's that useful word again), but I think that it should be ENTIRELY distinct from knotting. Too many are trying to turn knotting into what it isn't and are failing to recognize what it is. No allegations of unqualified assertions, please. Just think about what I have said. By the way, most of Ashley's comments are unqualified assertions; however, that doesn't mean that I don't recognize his contribution or that it's any less enjoyable or valuable. Many times I have vehemently disagreed with the almighty Ashley and thought, "he must have been drunk when he wrote THAT." How amused I get when I hear some folks say things like, "Ashley says THIS" and "Ashley says THAT," as if his many unqualified assertions were anything but.
". . . so how is it of benefit to stick a bowline (for ease of untying?) onto the end of that?"
You're getting into trouble: I never spoke of any "ease of untying," I spoke only of the "properties" of the chosen knot. That's just ONE little property, which, in this case, does not or cannot come into play. I never claimed that a freedom from "undesirable characteristics" would prevail. Life is full of gives and takes.
"One can see in some knots where the initial 'deflection' . . ."
Lots of really good stuff you've got in these final paragraphs. You're more observant than most. I know, I know: That's an unqualified assertion.
One of the reasons I like to be that observant also is that doing so can generate ideas concerning the DESIGN of knots, which helps me to make good decisions on the selection of knots (based on ALL properties) for what I call my "personal library of knots." I seek to maintain the smallest possible library that offers the greatest possible versatility. Currently, I boast that I can meet the demands of almost any application using just nine knots--which are used to build the CONSTRUCTS (there's that constructs word again) that then directly meet an application's demands. More on this in future posts. . . .
JCS
