What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology

Knotting Concepts & Explorations
181

Good day, gentlemen.

To respond to the various points raised by my question over the placement of this thread:

  • Voting discovers the proportional will of those eligible and willing to vote. Those unwilling but eligible lose the expression of that will.

  • An assessment of the answers shows 5 ayes, plus the original requester, 1 which I don’t quite understand, and everyone else abstaining after a reasonable period of time.

  • Out of 176 replies, I don’t think the 2 purely relating to this move interrupt the flow greatly, and are not really worth deleting. Other replies are contained as part of longer posts.

  • The stated purpose of the Theory Board is that it is a discussion board “For those who want to get the knot between their teeth and shake it apart, either figuratively, or binarily.” I gather from the foregoing 12 pages of discussion that you gentlemen have certainly been doing that with this thread. Therefore, that seems the most appropriate place for it to go.

The pantechnicon is booked… safe travelling, gentlemen.

:slight_smile: Glenys

182

Except for someone who would not get along with this, who must remove
his numerous posts so that after the above writing the count became only 108
–68 deletions are what he was willing to pay … if he cannot get His way!

:frowning:

183

Yet again, the value of keeping things, and in a chronological order as well, rears it’s face. Now things are jumbled up again. But my post is probably more suited in “Chit chat”.

184

I know much better than the “Theory board”, the House of Lords, the Queen, and, of course, better than you, what really is a vote and what really is Knot theory. I am afraid you should find other servants…After 89 (!) replies, somebody decided to “knock out” (sic) the thread, orchestrated a farce of a “vote” that was nothing but a counting of opinions, that managed to reach the lamentable number of 6 ! :slight_smile: Great democratic procedure ! Give me a break, Dan Lehman, I would not post anything under a misleading title, I would not humiliate myself in “voting” about the practicality or not of the bowline ! I respect voting too much to do this…If the Web-administrator thought that the thread was not about “Practical knots”, he should have taken action immediately by himself right after the first posts, without excuses, without using the outcome of an opinion poll…because he should know what a “Practical knot” is, and what “Knot theory” is, and what “Computing” is ! Well, If he does not, I do ! ( I have posted here the reference of an article that has a minimum of something to do with the title of the section, because I would like this section to thrive more than you do !) But I do not want to reduce the “Practical knots” section to a mere “Applications of Practical knots”, however interesting those might be ( not exactly like this “escape-out-of-prison” “application”, of course… :)) And I do not wait from you, or anybody else, to correct me on this !.. :slight_smile: Last time it was done in about the same way, and the score was about the same. :slight_smile: 5-1…great number for the International Guild of Knot Tyers…If nobody wants to talk about the bowline, if any “[i]long discussion”/i about the bowline (!) should be [i]“knocked out”/i because it “could be a real turnoff for a newcomer!” (sic), then I do not wish to be part of the problem, Yours highness… :slight_smile: It is easy to be an advocate of the “majority” :), is nt it ? Go on…

185

I guess such petulance in moving a thread after 89 (!) posts to where it does not belong, can t be trusted in the future, and I should not say anything that, next time, can be buried somewhere deeper in the Forum… :slight_smile:

I have all the pictures, but they have nothing to do with “Knot theory” and/or “Computing”, I am afraid…And 5.000.000 to 1 “votes” :slight_smile: can not change this ! I would be glad to post them wherever they will not be deleted, AGAIN, (like the previous time…), or moved where they do not belong (after 89 posts ! ), when somebody decides that the thread is “very” long, and orchestrates such a lamentable “vote”, with a 5 to 1 outcome ! I guess such petulance can not be trusted… :slight_smile:

186

Gentlemen,

I didn’t post the request for opinions elsewhere because it was not about anything else - it was about this post. So I believed that this was where I should post about a request to move it: where those whom it would most seriously affect would be able to see it and comment on it, without confusing those who were not involved in the discussion.

I didn’t see any clearly stated objections apart from those mentioned in my previous post. And, I have tracked down the reference to a mis-moved post: it occured when I was in trying to work in a rush, and was subsequently unable to get back on to the forum for the next 3 months. Consequently I missed Dan’s message alerting me to my mistake. I apologise, and thank you, Dan, for trying to bring it to my attention.

I don’t have the ability to backup, that has to be done by Mel herself, and I have emailed her to find out if the thread is retrievable. Of course, if Xarax would reinstate his posts, then they would retrieve the thread themselves.

Just in case anyone is not sure of what I’m trying to explain, since they’ve joined the forum since I was last on: I’m Glenys, I’m the WebAdmin, it’s my role to act as a liaison between those wanting to post stuff on the site or forum and the WebMistress, who is Mel. Mel has kindly replied directly to posts in the past, but I know her business responsibilities have increased in recent months, and she may not have so much time to respond quickly. I have limited access to website/forum utilities, and I am neither tech-literate nor do my knot-tying opportunities ever have opportunity to progress beyond basics, because my family life is too busy. I can’t join in discussions such as you gentlemen have, simply because they are too far above my level of knot education.

Xarax - please would you reinstate the posts you have deleted? If that is not a facility available to you (I’ve never had to try it, so I don’t know if it can be done from a non-administrative membership) then please let me know and I will work with Mel to do it for you.

Thank you

Glenys

187

I appreciate the polite tone of the previous post, which is something that can solve the most tightly jammed issue, I believe. So, let me restate some things I have already tried to point out in two previous replies, in vein…

  1. The first request for a “vote” was made at the 89 th reply (!) of this thread, that is, 88 replies after the first post, and almost ONE MONTH after it had started. Not the subject, nor the essence of the replies were changed in any significant way in between the first and the 89 th reply. So, why did the Web-administrator waited all that time, before asking for this “vote”? Was it because somebody decided that the thread was already too “long”(sic), and forced the Web-administrator to impose that meaningless “voting” farce, as an excuse to its removal ? Was it because of the fact that he did not liked the prolongation of the debate, and not because the debate itself was off-section ? My understanding is that this was indeed the case, that it was the size of the thread, and not the subject of the thread, that was the real motive to [i]“knock it out”/i from the “Practical knots” section, and bury it somewhere it was less annoying…
    I can only guess it from the following revealing text :

I wish I am mistaken on this, of course…

  1. In the first request for the infamous “vote”, the Web-administrator was cautious not to express any personal judgement about the heart of the matter :
    [i]“I have received a request to move this thread to a more suitable location on the grounds that it is a purely theoretical discussion, rather than a practical one.”/i
    Then, after the so-called “votes” were cast and counted, ( by the way, not a very difficult job, taking into account the fact that the “votes” were 6 (six) ! :)), the tone was changed :
    [i]“I gather from the foregoing 12 pages of discussion that you gentlemen have certainly been doing [Knot theory and Computing] with this thread. Therefore, that seems the most appropriate place for it to go.”/i
    So, now after 176 (!) posts, 12 (!) pages of replies and 40 (!) days , and been equipped with this cataclysmic 5-1 result…the Web-administrator finally made up his mind, and decided that this thread was really off-section ! I thank the Web-administrator for all the laugh that this prompt action offered to me ! :slight_smile:
    The action should have taken place right after the first days and posts, without any help/excuse of any “vote”. If the opinion of the participants of the discussion was needed, they should have been asked for it, but they should not made responsible for any decision, which is in the absolute power and responsibility of the Web-administrator - whatever the outcome of the “counting” of any such opinion poll. I have the courage to express my opinion, even if it is the 1 of the 5.000.000 opposite opinions, and so I expect/demand the person who has the power and the responsibility to move or remove my posts, to do the same ! The hypocritical-like “voting” was forced without any reason, and it should have stopped right after it was stalled to this lamentable 5-1 result, of which we should be ashamed !

  2. There are people that have an altogether narrow view of knotting, and believe that the “Practical Knots” section should refer only to applications, uses, of practical knots, and not about the practical knots themselves, their form and their structure. Any discussion about a knot, however “practical” this knot might be ( and there is no knot more “practical” than the king of knots, the bowline, of course…) seems to those people a waste of time, a waste of valuable bits and bytes, and a danger to new registrations by newcomers. Now, if this discussion is short lived, like most of them are, they just ignore it. However, if it starts to be really interesting to some people, and generates many replies, they start to hate it, and try to de-evaluate it by all means, ridicule it, etc.. I have been the victim of such behaviour. not one, not two, but many times…Some members of the forum translated and posted their “comments” in my native language, for me to understand it ! Of course, I have not seen any Web-administrator noticing this racist behaviour.
    I refused to obey to this attitude then, and I will never obey to this attitude ever. If this will be forced on my posts by some pre-fabricated “majority” of 5 or so people, let it be, but I have the right to delete any of my posts, before they will be deleted or moved or removed by others. without any reason given and against my will, as it has been done already in the past !
    The truth is simple: There are horses for courses. Knot tyers that prefer to solve problems using knots as tools, and knot tyers that prefer to study the knots themselves, their structure, their form, their function, trying to improve those tools. This has nothing to do with any “Knot theory”, which is a theory of the mathematical, not the physical, not the practical knots. The “Practical Knots” Section could have been divided into those two sub-sections, the “Applications of Practical Knots” sub-section, and the “Structure/form/function of Practical Knots” sub-section. Both are indispensable for the promoting of knotting, and should be respected equally.
    So, unless this distinction is not implemented, or both of those sub-sections are not considered as part of the existing “Practical Knots” section, as it was supposed to be till now, I do not wish to post anything under the misleading “Knot Theory” section, and diminish the “Practical Knots” section. Needless to say, if my opinion -of what is worth- was asked, I would have had no doubt whatsoever where the “structure and characteristics of bowline” thread belongs ! However, I was not asked about it…I was asked to “vote” if it should be contained in the “Practical Knot” section ( Of course it should ! ) or in the misleading, non-existend “Knot Theory” section ( Of course it should not !) .

  3. When 68 of my posts, which I spend so much time to write _ and, not having adequate access to the language, I spend much more time than the other members of the Forum to express myself …-, when all my pictures of the knots, which I spend so much time to explore, tie, shoot, select the better of them, convert them to a white background, reduce their size…-when all this work was moved by the 5-1 “vote” under a misnomer “Knot Theory” section, , I said, enough is enough. However, I made a copy of them, and kept them in a file, just in case a member of the discussion wished me to send them to him. And then, just as it had happened the other time, there comes the usual suspect, the self appointed advocate of the “authority”/majority", with his carefully chosen vitriolic style :

In short, I am some kind of [i]“raving lunatic”/i AND a masochist, too,(!) that is willing to spend a month of his short remaining life, only to delete it afterwards, to impose HIS way ! One easily gets mad >:( with this - what was probably the real intention of the author of this envious “reply” - and pushes the delete button at once ! So, I deleted my copy of the thread with all my 68 replies…and I have regretted this now, of course…I only managed to save some pictures, that I had filed in another folder. If I had my replies, I would have posted them to the Web-administrator, because I have a soft spot of polite manners, even coming from people who had treated me so wrongly and unfairly in the past.
I do not believe that anybody really wishes to have this discussion go forward, but me… Judging from the number of visits at the attached pictures, I have not seen any interest in the pictures of the “8” shaped bowlines, or the double.crossed coils bowlines, I had spend so much time to explore, tie, take pictures of, etc.. People just wish to learn how to escape from a prison, using two sheets - not with the Count-of-Monte-Christo way, of course… :slight_smile: Anyway, I have learned a lot by trying to express my view on this thread, and I would love to participate in a new dialogue that could take place somewhere in the future…(if my participation is of any worth, or asked by anybody…) - in a proper “Practical knots form/structure” section, next to the “Applications/uses of Practical knots” section ! :slight_smile:

188

I for one would love to have copies of the fruits of your labors xarax! The thoughts of all your Work going into the netherworld of cyber malfunctions gives me the chills, severely!
Might be a great backup for me to have copies. ;-))

I had been finding this particular thread very enlightening and it had been broadening my own understanding of the forces created and encountered within practical knots, all of them, regardless of application(s).
The greater the understanding of the inner workings, the better one can apply them. And more safely too!

I fear that this move to “theory” will obscure the learning to be had by the “newtimers”.

I sincerely hope that the train (of thoughts) have not been derailed.

Hmm, I wonder if this could be moved back?

SS

189

I am soooo idiot, I had deleted the copies I had made of all the thread, because of this Dan Lehman s vitriolic “reply” above, where he portraits me as some kind of a selfish person AND a masochist, at the same time…a selfish mazochist who finds great joy in destroying his own 40 days 68 posts effort, just because he wants things to be done his way…I wonder, whose way those things were done, at the end of the day…because that was not my way, that is for sure ! If Dan Lehman is soooo happy that the thread is buried, at last, in the “Knot Theory” section, and my replies to him were lost because he managed to drive me mad AGAIN, I conclude that I was right from the beginning…in that the “proper” collar is an indispensable element of the bowline, and that this collar is not needed to stabilize the nipping loop, but to secure the tail…even if his highness manages to move this thread to the other side of the moon ! :slight_smile:
I believe that there are two ends in the rope of truth…and that some people that thought this thread had some remote relation with some vague thing they have in their mind, which they erroneously call “Knot theory”, had a point. The thread was about the structure, form and function of a practical knot - indeed- of THE practical knot- and not about some specific application or use of this knot in solving a particular knotting problem. This is a distinction which is real, I think, and possibly the administrators of this Forum could decide to split the “Practical Knots” section into two sub-sections, according to this distinction. I do not know ifa split like this would be beneficial to the Forum as a whole, and it is not something that is in my powers or responsibility to judge. It is something for the Web-administrators to decide and implement, based upon their experiences so far. I personally feel obliged only to say what I happen to see in a knot, without considering if this would have many readers, a few readers, or even none at all. Most of the threads I have started in this forum had only a few posts, so the 68 posts in this thread, a number that Dan Lehman tried to ridicule, were something exceptional . Had I predicted such hatried response, I would have though to post them twice…I felt obliged to repeat some things more than one time, it is true, because I think that I have used and studied the bowline at least as much as the more experienced members of this forum. Out of this experience and study, there came out a particular view of the bowline,that I have tried to convey, probably without mush success, but tried anyway…I also I had explored and tied a number of bowline-like or not end-of-line-loops, and posted their pictures, but no, they were, too, theoretical discussions, not practical discussions !?!?!? I have responded to every question that has been submitted to me, while this was not the case with the questions I have submitted to others. Contrary to Dan Lehman s accusations, there was nothing selfish in my effort whatsoever, but some self-appointed blue-blood princes and lords and popes, wanted to knock this effort out of the “Practical knot” section, and, if possible, out of the forum itself, I suspect … If they continue to behave as “friendly” as this to anybody that is not made to be their humble servant, they should not be surprised by the single digit numbers of their “votes”.

190

Go spit in your mirror at that “vitriolic” [sic] image of hate you fancy.

The request to move this thread was NOT made (or known) to me.
The matter was put to vote of those interested --apparently a small
number at the point of decision (judging by views of images, too),
and the move made with a 5-1 (& X. not in favor though refusing
to cast a vote --since he “knows better …” [sic]). (Derek voted against,
but so far hasn’t thought to delete his posts to show how much he knows.)

... the thread is buried

This is a curious and judgemental [sic] (and have some more "[sic]"s,
as I’m sure you must be running low on them by now) view of this
(sub-)forum. One might otherwise think that the thread will continue
with what activity it had at the time of the move --noted to be among
a few–; and it might enliven some of the other threads started here
but left idle too long, re nomenclature. Either place, “a rose by any
other name, will smell as sweet” (for those who care to “stop and smell
the flowers”).

The thread was about the [b][i]structure, form and function[/i][/b] of a practical knot - indeed- of THE practical knot- and not about some specific [b][i]application or use[/i][/b] of this knot in solving a particular knotting problem. This is a distinction which is real, I think, ...

No, not immediately/directly. Rather, the topic is about how to
classify “bowlines”, which is more a philosophical (hence, “theoretical”)
investigation --to wit (from the OP):
| but no one coherent body of theory that [u]defines a Bowline.
| So this is an attempt to bring together our collective knowledge into one place.

I personally feel obliged only to say what I happen to see in a knot, without considering if this would have many readers, a few readers, or even none at all.

And yet you voice such angst over this move because
you think it will “bury” [sic sic sick] this thread.

... the 68 posts in this thread, a number that Dan Lehman tried to ridicule

“ridicule”?! You have some imagination (in one direction, re me)!
I simply pointed out the extensive damage [sic][sick] you did to
the thread. YOU, no one else (though you try to blame me!).

Had I predicted such hatried response,

The only hint of “hate” comes from you, first in the act
of thread violence done by your deletions, then in your spew
of anger and blame.
Now, one can wonder what sort of response/reaction DID you
“predict”[sic] for your deletions?

Contrary to Dan Lehman's accusations, [b]there was [b]nothing[/b] selfish in my effort whatsoever[/b], ...

Oh, right: it was the noblest of acts,
deletions done for the betterment of … ?

–dl*

191

Yes, exactly ! You used my own words ! I refused to “vote”, because I know better than anybody what a “vote” is : I have gained the right to vote, it was not offered to me. Vote is a sacred thing for a citizen, your opinion poll is for the mass media spectators. It might suit better to you, but not to me, I am afraid…
My opinion was not asked ! And I have not seen the opinion of the person who started the thread, set the tone, and published so many pictures. You have no interest in his opinion either, do you ?

So what ? Am I supposed to be a subordinate to Derek Smith , because I refuse to be a servant of yours highness? Are you trying to gather “votes” again ?
I did not deleted my posts because of the reason you, by the vitriolic twist of my words, are attempting to ridicule again. I deleted my posts because they are not part of any Knot theory, they do belong to the “Practical knots” section - to the structure, form and function of “Practical Knots” part of it. And I do not wish to reduce the “Practical Knot” section into a mere “Applications/uses of Practical knots.”
I am repeating things that I have already said, but this is what one has to do to defend himself against the advocates, who are repeating their false stories again and again to “gain”=steal any more “votes” from the jury they can ! :slight_smile:

I do not bother, because you are providing new quotes by the dozens ! Good boy ! Keep preaching the way you do, and keep twisting things by those advocate-style “arguments” of yours -which I’m sure you do believe tthat hey are also soooo “clever”! :slight_smile:

I have not voted for or against anything, I simply do not wish to post anything under a misnomer…But you advocates do not see the difference between a right and wrong word, do you ? You only want to gain “votes” from the jury…Well, keep selling your story. I am not a seller or a buyer, I try to be a creator.

  1. The defence of sacred right to vote when voting is cast between citizens, as an expression of their free will, not spectators, as an opinion poll, a right where advocates have no place ! Advocates exist because of democracy, not the other way around ! And I would not ridicule that right in voting if the bowline is a practical knot or not, or if a rose is a rose or not. You love to reduce that right as much as you can, don t you ? I understand it is a method of gaining the “votes” of humble servants, but not of free men.

  2. The defence of my right not to write anything under a misnomer, a false title. ( Advocates do exactly the opposite: they twist the meaning of people s words, and deliberately put wrong labels to texts, just to “gain votes”=steal temporary emotions, and get the “public opinion” of the mass media to their cause.)

  3. The defence the right to say things with their proper names, and describe the bowline as a practical knot, and any discussion of the bowline, long or short, , as a discussion about a practical knot, so belonging to the Practical knots section.

  4. The defence the right to keep the "Practical Knots"section as it is, till now, and not reduce it to half of its value, by considering it only as an “Applications of Practical knots” section.

    Of course, you only have to defend a lesser cause, the "majority"s opinion, don t you ? I had already pointed out to you that you should not leave your day work to become an advocate… :slight_smile:

    Keep twisting my sincere motives, my true words, keep portraying me as a black sheep in the “paradise” you have created, where only a chosen few are permitted to enter..You are giving me plenty of new lamentable materiel to quote ! . Dan Lehman, have you though where you are going to offer your services, when the “vote” will be 1-0 ? When you would be able only to split your image to a mirror, do you believe the votes will be 2-0, or 0-0 ? :slight_smile:

    Good knot tyer, unemployed lawyer, needs a job. Failed twice, but who knows what future has for him ?

192

Thank you for your so kindly evaluating my contribution - of what this contricution was worth of- as you did. However, you are absolutely mistaken for my motives that have pushed / forced me into this desperate act. Do not quote the twisted view of the majority advocate…Imagine that you have spend a month and a half, tying knots, hanging heavy chairs from the ceiling with ropes, taking pictures, learning how to use software programs to transform those pictures into pictures with a white background, as asked…and paying money to buy those software programs, so you are not obliged to use the demo mode, as I had done initially…So, your family is in summer vacancies, while you do wild things, because you love the thing you do, and you love to present it to others, always with the hope that some time in the future, that might serve somewhere…
And then, after 40 days, after 68 posts of yours, suddenly, out of the blue, here come a farce of a democratic procedure, a false “vote” , by a lamentable 5-1 outcome of “votes”, to throw this work wherever somebody though it would be less annoying…And imagine that this is not the first time that a “majority” has been orchestrated against you, and turned into some kind of a lynching mob…
What exactly, my dear Derek, would you do ? Of course, being part of the establishment here, you do not run a similar danger, or you can not imagine a similar situation against you, however good intentions you have.
My real mistake was not the deletion of posts, which was explained by me a number of times…(Read MY quotes, not the "majority "s advocate, and try to understand my true reasons)
My real mistake was the deletion of my back up, which I had kept to offer it to whoever of the participants or not of the Frum asked from me, a silly deletion achieved by the old fox s vitriolic remarks about “selfishness” , that you are now ready to swallow !!
No, my dear Derek, you are wrong here as you were with the Sheet bend/bowline relation, :), I am probably the more modest and less selfish man you have met :)…and I am no f… masochist to destroy my own work ! However, I can not say with certainty that the "majority"s advocate is not a sadist ! :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

193

This is not a problem. I can re-instate your deleted posts. So I can only echo the Web Admin’s question:

Do you agree to the reinstatement of the posts you have deleted?

194

OK, I might well have overreacted, and that there was just such a mess, by an unfortunate series of bad luck..We can not control our lives entirely, can we ? And we make smaller or bigger mistakes, when we are being squeezed into a corner, against our will… I would have not deleted my posts, if that deletion were to cause such problems it seems that indeed it did. What the hell, the post you publish is not yours any more, you throw it as a message in a bottle in an unknown ocean, it can float and reach remote islands, or it can sink right in front of your eyes. I do not wish the other participants to feel somehow betrayed by me, in any degree. So, I would be glad to have my posts reinstated, and, please, put them wherever you wish ! ( I also believe that it was the author of the original post, with the main idea and the many fine pictures he had contributed to it, who should have been asked to express his opinion at the first place.)
I have a suggestion ;
If you move the thread to the “Practical Knots” section, there can be a label showing that this thread belongs to the “Structure/form/function/definition” of a Practical knot. This will be an indication about what a reader should expect from such a thread, so there will be no danger of a newcomer to be disappointed. By the same token, if a thread is about an application/use of a practical knot, it should be labelled accordingly, so that I, for one, will not be disappointed, when I will discover that the method of escaping from a prison is different from the one I already know for 50 years : that is, the Count Monte Christo way ! :slight_smile: I do not know if it would be better for the Forum to split the “Practical knots” section into two sub-sections, according to the above mentioned distinction, but that is not a matter I know anything about, or I should have been asked about.
If you move the thread to the “Knot Theory” section, please identify this section correctly, as “Theory of Practical knots”, and let us hope that, eventually, we will reach there before we die…But this will leave me, for one, in doubt about where we should publish something that has nothing to do with an application/use of a practical knot, and/or has nothing to do with a pure “theoretical” aspect of a practical knot either ! I have happened to meet and tie some “new” simple knots, or some obvious, or not-so-obvious modifications/alterations of some known knots. Should they have been posted in the “Practical knots” section, or not ? Most of the times, the main interest of those knots comes from their structure, that can help us understand/improve already known knots, and not from their practical value, which is a matter that can be answered only after some time. So, should such knots be posted in the “Theory of Practical Knots” section, because their main theme is the structure of a Practical knot ? My opinion is that a thread about a “new” or not knot belongs to the “Practical knot” section, if this knot is simple enough, and is intended to be used as a practical knot, but I understand that many/most of the people here think otherwise. To deal with this, I suggest that there should be also a label that characterizes such a thread as a thread about a possibly “new” knot, right from the beginning - so the newcomers will not be disappointed if they do not find in this thread the solutions they might seek to their knotting problem.( And it is natural for a newcomer to search for solutiions to applications/uses of practical knots, and not for practical knots. It is not the best way a newcomer can enter into the field of knotting - he shoud better learn the tools first, and only afterwards how to applicate/use them…- but it happens most of the times.)
( To people that were disappointed by the unfortunate deletion, I apologize, because, although I was the one who lost more from this story, ( 68 posts, and the work and pictures and texts behind them was not a negligible effort, for my age…), I should have thought what this action would have meant to them, too. )

195

I could have not done this. When a vote is cast, however the outcome and the procedure, I feel that I have to respect the fact. ( When your fellow citizens condemn you to drink the poison, you should obey, even if you believe that this vote and its outcome was a farce ! :)) I could only do what I have done, and which I should have not do…because it might be misinterpreted - as indeed it had, also by you - as a “selfish|” (!) action ! :slight_smile:
Let the Web-administrators do their job the way they think is better, re-instate the posts whereever they believe they should be re-instated, and I will post any criticism in another, proper place - when it will not run the danger to be thought as a means to impose MY way. Advocalligators are dying to twist such cases, especially when they express the will of the “silent majority”! See you later, alligator ! :slight_smile:

196

Thank you for your agreement to reinstate the posts, Xarax.

I have never had to do this before, so I will ask Mel to make sure that I know how to do it the right way, so it may be a day or two before they are all back in place.

For the core of the remaining discussion regarding the move of the Bowline thread - there is obviously room for lively discussion on what constitutes knot theory (in my understanding of this I do not have in mind the purely mathematical theory alone, but also esoteric discussions by afficionados of why a group of knots is defined as it is, and how they are distinguished between, and so on). I will copy this part of my post as the beginning of a new thread to discuss such matters over on Chit-Chat initially, and I will put up a poll over whether or not to keep the Bowline thread on Theory, or move it back to Practical. I prefer straight yes and no answers on such matters, it’s easier for me to find out what people want me to do that way.

Once the final disposition of the Bowline thread is settled, then I can look through to see which of the obtruding posts can be removed. That will probably be most of the posts of the last couple of days, all of my own posts, and the few which were in sole answer to my question.

Regards

Glenys

197

Regarding the title “Knot Theory” : I have googled it in the advanced search / this exact wording or phrase:. I have counted the number of times that an article cited there had something to do, however remote it might be, with any “Theory of Practical knots” , as we understand this term here. In the first 100 results, guess what the outcome was : 0 (Zero)
Let the section of “Practical knots” be divided into two sub-sections, the “Applications of Practical Knots”, and the “Theory of Practical knots” , or something like this. Or, let there be a label that distinguishes threads/posts along those two broad categories/classifications.

198

Exactly : there is little or no serious thinking about practical knots
(things in cordage, contrasted with mathematical knots). Which
is why the development of such under this forum is a desirable thing.
Not only is there but shallow thinking --untested assumptions-- about
physical aspects of knots (e.g., the widely opined “bending rope
weakens the outer fibres, which break” (something I have seen enough
of --breaks-- to contradict)), but also scant philosophical investigations
of conceptual & nomenclatural aspects (e.g., What is a knot?
(as opposed to an animal, or …);
… (as a particular knot in contrast to any other knot);
What are the types/kinds/classes of knots (e.g., eyeknot/end-2-end
knot/hitch/stopper/… ; of structure: traced/interlocked/pull-together).

It is just silly to pretend that subdividing the Practical forum to do
this vice using the extant forum is better --or did you find a treasure
of “Theory of Practical Knots” Google results (your apparent test for
validity of a forum title) ?!

–dl*

199

Sorry but no. You cannot attach strings to this - no matter what knot you use. Your mass deletion of posts severely disrupted this topic and, as a result, was detrimental to the forum community as a whole. I am asking for your agreement out of politeness. I would rather carry out this (extensive) repair work with your support than without it. But either way, the good of this community comes first.

200

If a suggestion means to “attach string to something”’ , you or I need the Google translator roo is proposing !
I suggest you read again my reply, and act accordingly. Sorry, but I am not going to untie your jammed knot.
P.S. If you have the files, the work is not “extensive” at all ! Send them to me, and I will put the replies in order in no time ! If I had copies of those replies, I would have done it by myself. I know what is good for the forum community at least as much as you do, because I am part of it.