Our Guild Mission

General Discussion
21
...There are many areas about which I am a beginner (esp. ornamental and decorative knots). But I recognized immediately that the message board itself seems perhaps too general ... I would like to suggest that the forum itself create a couple of more theads that could be used as resources.

I think that what you mean is that the the current category Chit Chat should
be replaced with a couple (Decorative / Practical ?) more constrainted topics?
This could have the effect of giving a feel of denser information within each
such division (vs. being all in one pot).

The first additional thread would be concerned with cataloging knots, i.e., knot identification.
I'm surprised that to date I'm the first to point out that such a thread exists (though now pushed beyond the latest page of threads, with accumulation of others). It's a good, but tough issue.
Another thread might be concerned with knot and rope strength and member or contributor experiences using certain knots.
Here, too, is something I think is worth pursuing, at least to get a better understanding of the limits of prediction for practical purposes (something to consider in setting "safety factors").
Should a separate Worldwide Scientific Branch be set up, seeking its own funding? Should a University or Museum be approached in one or several countries? Just how could this happen?
Good questions. Re the cataloguing & identification, it might be simplest that interested contributers just post to an on-going Forum thread, with some kind of maintenance of a more formal/organized set of files undertaken in the background (updates issued as appropriate ...). E.g., someone could take some publication (book, article), and report the names/identification of knots given in it, and these would be recorded for the particular knots as we specify them in some master file. (One should beware that, as specification in documents is often ambiguous to what detail we should find necessary, that many citations from books/etc. would be attached to a few such [i]knots[/i] as we define them. So, after some period of seeking & recording, an entry for some particular knot could have a series of [i]sightings[/i] recorded for it. I suppose it would be equally helpful to have for each [i]knot-name[/i] its set of referents (to see to what, e.g., "fisherman's bend" has been applied--expected & unexpectetd).

From this, the IGKT Wise Ones might attempt to make some judgements, or perhaps
better, recommendations, about correct/desireable vs. wrong/undesireable
identification. (A real case: advise those in the arborist community to change from
calling the Scaffold knot (& like) a “Single Fisherman’s Knot”, given the denotation
of the latter name throughout history & other application areas.)

Such a compilation and periodic document (i.e., some set of recommendations
or at least citations of problems) should be of use to the knot tyers from various
application areas, who IMO typically lack a broad awareness of knots (and hence
can look at the Dbl. Fisherman’s Knot and figure that the use of one Dble.Overhand
component in noose form to hitch to a device should be “Single Fish.”, ignorant
of the conflict).

... how an authoritative body could be established for consulting purposes - or should it be? Would this body again be a separate Consulting Branch or would it be some separate body of people who are members but who only do that work or what?
Let me suggest that re this aspect the IGKT might not be the right sort of entity for engaging in any normal [i]consultation[/i]? --issues of corporate governance and liability?
We have 1100 members worldwide (maybe more or less) so there is quite a pool to pick from!
It's a question of quality, not quantity (though 1100 is not a big sample). Who of various application areas who are evidently active knots people are IGKT members?

–dl*

22

Hi Dan,

Welcome to the discussion! It is always encouraging to see people who are respected on any post, especially when it is not about knots, per se but about the way in which our organization perceives its own actions.

Let’s see - you are probably right that such a thread exists, but SKellyog was suggesting that whole new areas of the forum (other chat areas) be generated for discussions of what I referred to as the three types - viz.: general chat and then (1) scientific concerns having to do with strength (not specific as to type of strength), durability, type of cord, effects of contaminants including twists and hockles (otherwise and also known as kinks) etc., etc., (2) usefulness and application of knots of one type or another (is the bowline really best at what it is used to do, is the overhand knot really worthwhile being disregarded or are there some places it excels, etc., etc.) and then a third area titled decorative knots, so that we could bring together the people who have those interests in each area instead of doing what you have identified as being a common problem (although you didn’t say as much) that it is perhaps difficult to find the thread you want to join in with. It would seem to me that this would warrant another chat area - a total of six, including the present three, not just another thread (which might get lost) within the chit chat area.

Your sense of how the cataloguing and identification would go - do you have a specific set of knotbooks (or rigging books or sailing books or safety books or camping books, etc.) in mind or do you think we should start arbitrarily with ABOK for instance, or should we somehow use a list derived by the “committee”? Organization IS important, as is definition, but we also need to be able to retrieve the information - I would really appreciate your putting together a suggested organization.

You may be right that the IGKT is not sufficiently separate from the “authority” to be impartial. I think that a separate body of people would be better (so they would have to be paid, of course) than volunteers, and they would need to be given a very defined set of definitions and instructions (all put together first by the IGKT or a separate committee) and then given a scheduled time by which the work is to be complete. A difficult and very long-term project. How about a quicker win for the team? Get a group of IGKT members to put together a suggested method for consulting and then get Requests for Proposals (RFPs) out to interested parties? Perhaps a university group of anthropology Master’s students might find this interesting?

Lastly, your point about the 1100 members is somewhat on target and somewhat off. You suggest that it is a question of quality. I think that, for people to firstly admit themselves interested in knots, and then to pay for that privilege year after year, speaks of quality. There are varying degrees of ability among those people, but they are all of quality. I spoke of quantiity because the simple numbers of such a self-picked group entitle a person to think that these are people with an already dedicated, interested knowledge area, and they will have a real commitment to see this succeed. Float an idea first, before we deny it from view. If it dies, it can be put aside for the time being. If it lives on, it was worth it.

When this Guild was first suggested nearly 25 years ago, it was not idly set up as a hobbyist group, and some lofty goals were set into the Mission Statement. In countries around the world, the dedication to the art, craft and science is amazing, from what little I have seen (I’ve only been here for 9 years now, and I am just getting started). So let’s give ourselves a shot in the arm and really build for the future of our craft among young people and among the people who now hold the best way of getting it started on the next 25 years - our existing members!

Thank you Dan - you are very valuable in bringing some sensible ideas and valid comments to this discussion!

Lindsey

23

All good ideas; i’d like to see lots of strides made in understanding knot tying mechanics of strength and security; as well as rope power increases by inline/ pulley pulls and non-inline/leveraged line sweating a’la Toss.

Thanx Squarerigger for bringing this forward, and Dan L. too, as well as that knudeNoggin person!

24

Thanks for your posting KC,

Knot-tying mechanics eh? I guess that is a long way from auto mechanics, isn’t it? Pardon my levity - just cannot resist sometimes … These items definitely would come into that part of the science of knotting, its study and practice. It could also be part of the research into all aspects of knotting, so it seems like we must be on the right track already, if you are a member and have a need for this information.

I have a question for you - if you were the IGKT person responsible for answering this question, where would you start? Would you want to be able to give answers right now or be prepared to wait, while an answer was sought by your action committee? What would you expect if you were the person who asked this question? Would you want them (IGKT) to give you an answer that is correct, based on a rough guess from experience or would you want something worked out like an engineer might do? Rigging 101 or Rigging 601?

Would you want to be able to turn to a recommended book? A recommended person or corporation? Would you want to be able to take some training, however that might be offered (in class, by internet, mailings, etc.), or do you want a quick and dirty answer? Is this (IGKT) really the right forum for your question? How secure would you feel in the answer?

Your question is very good at raising issues that are definitely germane to our current discussion. Our very existence is something that we need to exercise some care with, so as not to expose our Members to unreasonable expectations or risks. Thanks again, and please do let us know what your thoughts are to the areas discussed above.

Lindsey

25

Squarerigger and Nautile,

Rarely have I read such clarity of perception and structured determination to promote a worthy topic out beyond the closed ranks of the converted. Bravo gentlemen, I support your innitiative and offer my direct support.

I am a ‘hobby knotter’ (there is not much call for knots in the laboratory) and am not at present a member of the IGKT. When I first came across the IGKT website, I was not unduly impressed, nor convinced that the Guild had much for me. I hung around the forum, but, because of its failure to include images, again I learned little from the discussions between skilled knotters who’s descriptions frequently went way over my head.

And then came this post. Yes, to those within the IGKT all may seem on track, but to an outsider, there is virtually no attraction to join in. The site and its content are not ‘sticky’ and there is virtually nothing to attract newbies into the hobby. It was good to read that the Mission of the IGKT actually encompasses the aspects I intrinsically feel that it should include.

So, in an attempt to start to turn desire into reality I have started a Wiki which will allow anyone to contribute to any of the mission objectives in a flexible and unfettered manner.

To all:-

To view the Wiki, go to http://igkt.pbwiki.com you can read any of the content already entered as a starting point. If you would like to then add or edit content yourselves, simply log in. Enter your name, email address and the password which is igkt

Give it a try and let me know if you think this is a tool which can be used to promote the Guild Mission.

Any questions just drop me an email

Derek Smith

26

Hello Derek,

Thanks so much for your comments. I see that you have also responded to some other posts and that you have set up a Wiki page that is arranged so as to gather and disseminate information about knots. Your commitment to the Wiki system is to be applauded. I also encourage fellow knotters to examine the Wiki system for themselves and ask how this may help them in their own search for valid information. I feel that, at ANY time that you are looking at a system on ANY web-based information (including this site), you should check for supporting or corroborating information, else that system or that information must be treated with a little caution - not that it is necessarily wrong or suspect, but that information, wherever it derives, must always be accorded the authenticity of its author(s), with sufficient basis for acceptance. You all have likely heard the adage “I found it on the web, so it must be true”? That adage applies to any system of information, so please use good judgment.

Derek, you have set up a very interesting place where people can enjoy themselves by posting their information in, as you say, an unfettered manner. I am looking forward to seeing what people post there!

Looking at the Long Ashley Bend, as you call it, #1452 in ABOK, from your puzzles on the Wiki page, it is not only different in appearance than #1452, it has been tied such that the tucked ends (or what should be tucked ends) appear to be the standing parts tucked - at least that is what I have seen when I tried to recreate the knot shown on your Wiki page and then untied it to remove the ends. My description requires more explanation - why don’t you ask others for their explanation here on another thread? You are sure to get some interesting replies.

Thanks again Derek - I wish you joy of your efforts and I shall watch with interest.

Lindsey

27

Hi Lindsey,

Thanks for the comments, I hope others find the Wiki to be useful, particularly the facility to upload pictures for discussion.

Re the puzzling dressing of Ashley #1452, I will create a new post as you suggest and upload images of its dressing to the Wiki.

28

Fantastic! i have a small sight, that Dan and KnudeKnoggin have helped on. It is mainly for tree worx; but that encompasses biology, knots, rigging and yes mechanics.

Here are a few Lynx, table of contents at bottom of each page:

Knot Links Page

Bowline to SheetBend Commonalities/Mechanics Comparisons

Tree Climber’s Friction Hitch Commonalities/ Mechanics comparisons

2HandingPower

And, yes i believe that knot mechanics is appropriate; and am glad that somehow we here have settled together at this time; perhaps to allow the IGKT to give more leadership in these things.

i think that if you make a 180 degree bend around a pulley and anchor 1 end, while pulling on the other; you get 2x effort - friction at the said bend. Inside a knot, i think the same mechanics are relative. So in studying strung rigging, we can have a microscopic view of what happensi inside the tiny microcosm of a knot! For, they are powered by the same forces, even use the same materials of ropes and bends. i think that only inline/linear with no friction or impact gives same force; but a bend of any kind takes a longer route to do the same work; so alters the amount of distance to carry the same load; and voila we have leveraged forces. Just like a lever takes a longer route of input motion, than the output motion to give more power. For only force can overcome distance; so anytime the distance is not inline and altered on one sode of the balanced formulae of equals and opposites, thereby; commands that force be altered on the opposite side of the balance!

Orrrrrrrrr something like that!
:o
P. S. Luv that this site allows Flash animations; many don’t!

29

For those of you who wonder what that 2handing power thing is (like I did), click on the click point and you see moving pictures.
If you do not, maybe you need to allow pop-ups for this site.

Thanks for sharing KC.

Willeke

30

Excellent KC!

This is exactly the kind of thing that should be in an area of its own on our web-page - how about it Mel?

Lindsey

31

Thanx; i sent this to you in a PM earlier; it is an application from a book, that i dug up to prove / show the theory, but have met much opposition on elsewhere’s anyway.

From “The Marlinspike Sailor” of the great knot author Hervey Garret Smith; a ship’s use of this prinicipal i thought you’d like.

i’ve always been the little guy; and have pulled many a bigger man over with this principal ever since a teen; shen force applied like below. There’d be a sudden stop of their laughter as i switched from the strategy in the top of the picture, to the strategy in the bottom of the picture; though you use the same amount of effort! More power available by pulley on anchor, not load here; seems to be a brain teaser causing disbelief!

http://www.mytreelessons.com/images/Anchored%20Leverage.GIF

32

Thanks again KC,

Of course, as an engineer, I would say that the effort expended is greater, to achieve the apparently greater pull, based on the principle that energy is neither created nor destroyed. However, your point is well taken - thank you!

Lindsey
PS - If anyone has a different point of view, or would like to discuss this further, what about starting a new thread?

33
Your sense of how the cataloguing and identification would go - do you have a specific set of knotbooks (or rigging books or sailing books or safety books or camping books, etc.) in mind or do you think we should start arbitrarily with ABOK for instance, or should we somehow use a list derived by the "committee"? Organization IS important, as is definition, but we also need to be able to retrieve the information
This touches back to the prior thread, where I gummed up the works with issue of (even) [i]What IS a "knot"?[/i]--which seems the foundation on which to build. But for getting off the ground (which process can help show up issues needing resolution, to find actual paradigm problems / case studies, so to speak), one might begin with some [i]Annotated & Extended Ashley[/i]: "crunch" all in-hand documents (books, WWWeb pages, ...) to extract the names that are given to Ashley's set (and the Extended superset) of knots. Products would be a set of knots each with a list of citations for names attached to it; and a set of knot names, each with a list of knots (& referenced sources) so noted. (E.g., the Scaffold Knot's list would cite works that named it "Fisherman's Knot", and under "Fisherman's Knot" there'd be a citation for the Scaffold.)

And pretty soon, it should be perspicuous that knot naming is mass confusion!
(And knot users cross various application fields, where such confusion is quite
detrimental.)

You may be right that the IGKT is not sufficiently separate from the "authority" to be impartial. I think that a separate body of people would be better (so they would have to be paid, of course)
I'm lost as to what this reply attaches? (My only thought re IGKT appropriateness was in terms of liability concerns for much [i]consultation[/i]. I see no problem with the quite factual compilation of aspects of knots literature, or even of any recommended nomenclature that might derive from that analysis.)
Get a group of IGKT members to put together a suggested method for consulting and then get Requests for Proposals (RFPs) out to interested parties? Perhaps a university group of anthropology Master's students might find this interesting?
Anthropolgy? I've mused about perhaps helping to define knots-testing projects such as are occasionally conducted in university settings. Such help could be to broaden the literature the tester is familiar with, and to provide some better set of knots (where this might be some knots whose differences are slight & focused and thus maybe better at highlighting some aspect, than knots more broadly different).

continued …
[POST CHOPPED FOR SIZE (DARN!)]

34
I think that, for people to firstly admit themselves interested in knots, and then to pay for that privilege year after year, speaks of quality.
A couple years ago there appeared in [i]KM[/i] a somewhat favorable review of one of the worst knot books I've come across--Derrick Lewis's [i][u]Great Knots and How to Tie Them[/u][/i]. I think of the IGKT (obviously not the reviewer!), I was alone in objecting to this review, even though I appealed to several fellow members to join in the condemnation of the book. The IGKT's [i]KM[/i] is the LAST place one should find the sort of rubbish that pops up (one might be suspicious!) on Amazon.com, where at least a couple members entered sharply critical reviews to counter the nonsense ones (by "Top 100/500 Reviewer"s). That speaks of "quality" only in the sense of poor quallity--very poor. FYI:
[i]Negligence or Deceit?![/i] [this refers to Top Reviewers!] ,[i] March 31, 2005 Reviewer: Dan Lehman (Falls Church, Virginia United States)

I cannot stand to let any positive review of this book (even one
implying some acceptability of it) risk influencing a potential
reader: this supposed book on knots is beyond the pale bad!
One reviewer remarks that the book shows “a few knots that you
probably will not use (Hangman’s Noose…)”, and this helps show
one (of many) egregious flaws: the photo of the supposed Hangman’s
Noose is in fact of a simply coiled hank of rope–you know, with
multiple loops at each end, and a couple lines that suspend this
hank running up out of the picture. In short, it’s nothing at all
like the alleged knot! That is the nature of this terrible book.
How can anyone giving even cursory review of it not see this at
once? --(gross) negligence, or deceit![/i]


KM also carried my objection to its review & the book, to be fair.
Against this, you see, comes a strong desire for translating what CLDay called
perhaps the best knots book, Om Knutar, 2nd ed. 1916–something
all who aspire to knots understanding should have the benefit of reading. It
would be well worth the effort; we do have Swedish members. (I don’t know
how well e.g. Sten Johansson might feel about spearheading such an effort,
though he provided a bit of it in one or a couple articles in KM?) It would
be worth vastly more than yet one more book in the bargain bin full of color photos
of knots often in most UNtypical cordage & settings–pretty for publishers’ sake.

In countries around the world, the dedication to the art, craft and science is amazing, from what little I have seen
What, re science of knotting, have you seen to amaze you?

One thing that might help knot testers would be a resource that presented knots
in different orienations/settings, which could be referred to by testers. A common
case of ambiguity I point out is for trace knots (e.g. Fig.8 loopknot) where
one has a choice of ends to load (unlike for a Bwl)–test data usually gives no hint
of which choice was made. The Net (e-mail/WWWeb) is a powerful resource for those
wanting to collaborate. “Special Interest Groups” is a form of association used by
some professional groups to focus efforts. There might be something there for us
to build on.

I was not unduly impressed, nor convinced that the Guild had much for me.
I've thought about making express invitation to those practitioners of knotting in various fields such as rockclimbing, caving, SAR, arborism(?), ... , but came to believe that they'd have just such an opinion of IGKT literature (and, egads yes, what have *I* done about that--touche'!). Yet I continue to believe that there is some big step that can & should be taken, to move knotting beyond the historical nonsense parroting of those who have or affect typically maritime/nautical connections, to a higher level of understanding and awareness. (E.g., after Jimbo's slight of the Granny for shoelaces, I've been tying my shoes . . . with the Granny! "untied" ? --not! And I learned a bit in so doing--Granny ends need to run opposite to Reef ends, which is awkward for tying; but it holds (one should note, precisely this is a Doubly Slipped Granny, and the extra material in the knot matters, methinks).)

–dl*

35

Hi Dan,

First, let me say that I am beginning to get the hang of these tag-tools on the bars at the top of the box - watch out now! Your posts inspired me to look, so please don’t think I am just trying to look good - I’m trying to get the message across more clearly. Let’s see:

Dan, you have many points that need airing and that also need better responses than I can give. I would like to think that I have all the answers, but I do not. I wish I could wrest the sought improvement from your obviously keen mind - could you come up with some more specific suggestions as to how this will work? You did make some good suggestions…

You suggested:

Yet I continue to believe that there is some big step that can & should be taken, to move knotting beyond the historical nonsense parroting of those who have or affect typically maritime/nautical connections, to a higher level of understanding and awareness.

OK - let’s look at what that might encompass. Do you have a specific idea as to how one might improve the basis that this entails? You appear to suggest that the majority of knot books are crap, because they parrott what has gone before without thinking and that color photos are put in to sell books. I am not wealthy enough to publish books under my own name as a publisher and hope to have it sell, thereby rewarding myself for the effort involved, even if I am parrotting (which I do not think I am). Therefore I need to follow to a certain extent what the publisher wants to have, because they are taking the financial risk. So, in my search for the Holy Grail, what is it that such a publication would include to promote “a higher level of understanding” such as you suggest, presumably meaning higher understanding on the part of the knot-book author?

Then you suggest:

One thing that might help knot testers would be a resource that presented knots in different orientations/settings, which could be referred to by testers. ....

“Special Interest Groups” [SIGs] is a form of association used by
some professional groups to focus efforts. There might be something there for us
to build on.

I agree that SIGs would be good and that such a resource would be good to have, if a little limited in scope to what is thought worthy by the compilers of such a reference.

Now, I am going to do just what you have suggested is a really bad thing - I am going to ask our readers to focus on just those two ideas for now - I feel sure that others will come up. Based on those two ideas only, that small quantity, what do our readers think?

First: Could SIGs work? How would the reference work be compiled, who would compile it and how would it be paid for? Is this a worthwhile resource?

Second: What is the big step that could be taken to prevent or improve the parrotting? How could quality be improved? Is that really necessary or will individuals find their own value - after all they have a brain and can pick out what they like and do not like or that they think works or does not work.

Just focussing on those two ideas, could anyone suggest some real-time solutions?

Thanks again for your input Dan - you have very valuable questions that cause us all to think.

Lindsey

36

Hi Lindsey,

Yes I believe that SIGs can work. They require a champion, a goal, a team of ‘activists’ and a means to meet/share work, ideas, results, review and conclusion.

I can’t provide the first three, but I have added a SIG section to the Wiki and popped a couple of possible SIG goals in there so the place is not quite so empty and foreboding (very few people like an empty sheet).

You can get to the SIG home page from the Menu sidebar through this link http://igkt.pbwiki.com

If your rationalisation was Step 1
and the provision of the Wiki SIGs section was Step 2 in this long journey, then possibly Step 3 would be to see if readers have ideas for topics they would like to see set up as SIGs.

Derek

37

i think that the field specialists should come in. The mechanics of knotting betwixt the seperate fields be examined. Then, the ‘binding’ elements of this mechanics be distilled out. Then, this place would be the holding of the comprehensive overview; of the continuity of these mechanics in their simplest and evolved forms.

At least that is what i looked for here, a few times over the years as i stopped in. i was looking for the elemeants of working knots; to progress my own understandings, and found mostly discussions on a few ornamental knots and meetings. Not that there is anything wrong with that; jsut not the comprehensive view i suspected; from what i’d thoght would be the world’s leading authority on knots!

Derek, once again i think the Wiki is great; i have more than a few things on knots and pulleys i’ve maid; just kinda wondering what fits etc. There is a link in my signature to a page on my web sight for knot links, and index at base of each page; if anyone wants to take a look and give guidance on what fits here or there. Dan has sent me great hand drawn knots through email and snail mail over the years.

http://www.mytreelessons.com/Easter/rabbit_painting_happy_easter_lg_clr.gif

38

Thanks Derek!

I’ll continue to watch and see what happens. You have sung the praises of Wiki very fully, so for now I’ll wait to see who else signs in. Thank you

Lindsey

39

Point made Lindsey,

I’ll give the voice a rest.

Derek

40
Here are the three parts of our Mission:
  1. To promote the art, craft and science of knotting, its study and practice
  2. To undertake research into all aspects of knotting.
  3. To establish an authoritative body for consulting purposes.

Hail and howdy, fellow kinkers of cordage!

OTOH (On The One Hand), This IS the “Great Work” which the world wants the IGKT to produce.

OTOH (On The Other Hand), I’m but one of many who has piped up with suggestions, etc. toward this very end, which inevitably die “in committee”, as it were, when the threads either get hijacked by some spammer, poisoned by a petty squabble, diverted by a stray unfocused reply, or otherwise snubbed before any progress can be made.

This is all Good, as a “false start” is still a “start”, just lacking a “go”. Maybe SquareRigger has the “go” this time…

Meanwhile, scientists, engineers and “computer people” have figured out the analysis process pretty well over the decades, as analysis to us is like knotting to sailors: it’s an inscrutable, seemingly-small part of the job, but a part without which the job itself would not exist.

The “analysis methodologies” used are many and varied, and I won’t bore anyone here with that distraction, but using the techniques can still be handy. One design methodology is called “Bottom-Up Design”.

Bottom-Up: ‘Define atoms with which to build molecules with which to build chains with which to build …’

Problem: Words:
Kinkers of Cordage need a major vocabulary overhaul!!

Examples:
If the lead is melted, a leading rigger, rigging leaders, can lead the lead into the lead. Take the lead in using more lead for the entire leader’s lead. Did you follow that? Or shall I lead you through it again?
Hitch up your britches & hitch that wagon to that star, with a hitch. If the hitching doesn’t go without a hitch, you can hitch a ride home.
You can whip with a hitch, or with service, but stopping isn’t whipping, serving nor hitching. Am I stopping this whipping or whipping this stopping? I started marling, but I’m about to have a seizure, just wrapping this rope with string!
Why do you “bend” to a spar (a horizontal piece of wood) but you “hitch” to a rail (yet another horizontal piece of wood)??
Why do sailors “tie up” at the end of a voyage? It looks like “mooring” to me!

EEEEK!! Holy impediment to effective communication, Batman!! The word “definition” has a specific meaning, so should the words the IGKT uses. PS: Let’s not forget that a huge chunk of our terminology came from a bloodthirsty horde of ignorant, superstitious men with nothing better to do. And no, I don’t mean PABPRES!!! :wink: I’m talking about sailors! Not that tree- and rock-climbers have been any help!

Solution:
Pick one meaning for each word and find new words for all the other “meanings”.

(Snipped for YaBBc, Pt. II follows)