Bull Feathers -- How Bull Flies w/o Hitting the Fan!

General Discussion
1

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

[b]A bull hitch is so-named for its use in [i]tying a rope to a bull's nose ring[/i][/b]
(!)

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:

... Make a half-twist with the loop, bring it over the ring and [b]push the ring completely through it.[/b]
[b][i]... and the bull will be sure to follow![/b] remarks the sage Nautile/Jimbo !! :o

RE-MARK-A-BULLLL…feathers!!! :wink: :smiley: ;D

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

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) :

[p.64#65,] The [i]Turkish Archer Knot[/i] 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, [i]probably because the unusual method of using this knot apparently has been forgotten.[/i] [!! 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.
:frowning:

–dl*

2

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.

3

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:

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

4

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.

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 [u]EKFR, I’ll --yes-- enumerate, for it’s that sooooo MUCH of that
book just begs the question Why is here?!. – along with
obvious, traceable mistakes in some cases of known knots.

Maybe this posting topic in Chit Chat is the right place,
I thought it a more general topic than [i]Practical[/i], 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 [u]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 [u]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).

  1. 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.,
    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? !
p.61/3pl.24#33 The [i]Topsail Sheet Bend[/i] 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 [i]seized[/i] 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.
p.60pl24#36 The [i]Single Bowline on Bight[/i]. 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, [i]Which end ... ?[/i]
p.60pl.24#47 The [i]Dutchman's Knot[/i] 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 ... .
p.62-3pl.24#38 The [i]Clevis Knot[/i] 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.
p.62-3pl.24#39 The [i]Interlocking Overhand Knots[/i] 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, ... [i]what???!![/i] 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*

5

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.

6

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?

7

My dear Mr Knoop,

publicly name & shame the knotbook author

My aim is not shame but education and erudition. Ultimately the aim of the IGKT is to educate

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

8

Dear Mr. SR and Roo,

How would [i]you[/i] prefer to be corrected when [i]you[/i] 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

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.

9

Would you like to answer the question anyway?

Apparantly, gentlemen, a turn has been missed during your self-proclaimed knotting expertise.
Where was my proclamation of knot expertise made? ???
10

Dear Roo,

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

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.

11

And that’s the problem. :frowning:

12

Roo, yes, that is your problem indeed. Responding w/o reading. I am ever so happy you cottoned onto that. :smiley:

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

Joop.

13

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

14

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. :stuck_out_tongue:

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

15

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:

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.
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.

16

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.

17

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 [u]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?)

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 [u]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*

18

Inkanyezi wrote:

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:

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.

19

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 :slight_smile: 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.

20

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*