What’s your point? You have the same problem with a Constrictor, a Butterfly, a Pile Hitch, a Double Dragon, and many other knots when they are tied “in the bight”. You need access to the object end.
Anyway, Korg recently clarified the terms of this thread above. Let’s all play along. The “Timber Hitch with the Bight” shown on Roo’s website, and other such knots, are not part of the discussion here.
I did not criticize your Slipped Buntline. I just made it clear that it wasn’t obvious that you meant tying the buntline with access to the object end.
However, if you want me to criticize your Slipped Buntline, there are other hitches which are simpler to tie on the bight when you have access to the end of the object
Anyway, Korg recently clarified the terms of this thread above. Let's all play along. The "Timber Hitch with the Bight" shown on Roo's website, and other such knots, are not part of the discussion here.And why isn't the "Timber Hitch with the Bight" relevant? What kind of practical problem doesn't the "Timber Hitch with the Bight" solve, which the other knots solve? Why is an Eskimo Hitch a so much better and relevant than "Two Half Hitches using a bight"? I believe the original poster got rather confused because of the argument, than "Timber Hitch with the Bight" not solving his practical problem.
He mentioned the Clove Hitch and Constrictor in his very first post. Is this because he wants to load both ends of the rope? If this is true, several of the mentioned knots won’t fit his needs.
Take it up with the original poster. He defined the terms. You might want to re-read his original post and his most recent posts. Basically, he’s eliminating the idea of tying a knot as if a bight is a single strand of rope. There would be no point to this thread if that was an option here.