Xarax, I am disappointed that once again, you cannot refrain from leaving the subject and going into unfounded accusations and innuendo.
I have only stated that your scribblings on the Carrick Bend are unhelpful, and that I regard them as rubbish. I have not made any personal attack on you, and I would never characterise people as "rubbish" or whatever. I do respect humans as humans. I do not allege anything personal, I only declare that what you say regarding the making of the knot is hogwash; you are ranting, and your rants have no substance. "Rubbish" is common usage and synonymous of "nonsense". I was only telling you that my opinion is that your rants are nonsense. My reason for characterising your image and the purported "tying" as nonsense is mainly that by removing the diagonal pattern, as well as removing any hint of what is end and what is standing part, you remove two essential items from the pattern, without which, the knot cannot be tied.
The topic of the thread, which is not yours, but a thread on a discussion board about knots, is a knot: the Carrick Bend. There is a reason why the "b/q" method is not fruitful, and the reason is that you cannot lay one form on top of the other and then complete the knot, like for those knots where the "barbeque" would work. The Carrick Bend is not built up of overhand knots, and it is fully interlaced; in each of its crossings, when you follow any of the two lines, the cross is the opposite of the one before or after. The pattern is simple, and it is readily memorised just by looking at it, but the pattern is of little or no help in finding a
method to accomplish it. You have failed to present a method; you only present a 45 degrees twisted image of the usual pattern, where you fail to give directions of where the standing parts or the ends would go.
The most common way of tying presented in books and videoclips consists in reeving one of the lines through this pattern. It might help in learning just how the pattern is built up; it is a regular weave, and tracing it with one of the ends will be much akin to weaving. However, it is impractical to do so in real situations. To trace the route, you will have to lay the lines down on a reasonably flat surface. You cannot hold them in your hands while doing it. As a method, it does not work well in real life. It can be done, but it is unwieldy. Your "simple" picture is not simple at all when it comes to actually tying the knot. And the diagonal image is better, as it covers a crucial feature of the correctly tied knot; the diagonal pull, which distinguishes it from the Josephine knot.
Below is a photo sequence of how this diagonal pattern is accomplished by reeving one of the ends through the pattern. I do not regard that as a tying method, but rather an explanation of the regular weave and how the standing parts and ends relate to each other within the knot pattern. It should also be remembered, as always, that this pattern is not the finished knot, but a step in its making. The dressed knot is something entirely different.
- The "passive" end is laid diagonally and a round turn is made with the end (not fully round but about 3/4 for nitpickers).
- The "active" end is laid in the opposite direction, along the standing part of the first one, on top of the round turn.
- The active end was passed over the passive end's round turn, hence it must go under the standing part of it, and then over its end.
- The sequence is then completed by the working end taken under the round turn, but over its own standing part.
The result is a mirror image of the previously shown tying methods, and to draw it up, it needs only be lifted from the surface, so that the ends hang, whereupon the standing parts are drawn away from each other. This pattern is less suitable for laid rope than the one previously shown, as in some crossings in the finished knot, the strands will lie parallel to the cuntlines and might bury themselves there.