What would you choose to keep ?

[nautile]

Hi to all

Suppose a bad "negative entity" will erase all knowledge about "knots" except one "part" of it.

Parameters: ( I know arbitrary and caricatural, but that is how I want it )

Each knot will, anyway,in any case,loose its "name "  being replace by an arbitrary identifying matricule randomly assigned

Any one choice is exclusive of all the others


            What would you choose to have him NOT ERASE:

- the knowledge of the structure of the known knots ( knots -bend-hitch....) ( how to cast it and nothing else beyond that )

- the usages to which each knot is put ( leaving you to decide how to cast it)

- the internal working of the knot without its structure ( pressure at point "A", strain at point "B",breaking point at point "C" )
I know it is absurd to think internal working without first going to structure, but for the sake of the poll "suspension of incredulity" just for the time to cast your vote.


           For which reason  did you make the choice you made :

- knowing that I can deduce the "missing" data

- I do not need the "missing data" to "use it as a tool"


I know there are other criterions and other permutations of them but I want those. Please let me have my whim on this.

ONLY one choice even if you swing from one to another, "Making a choice, is to deprive oneself" André GIDE wrote.
Be steadfast and undaunted and make only one !


Only available flavors :

1 -  Keep Structure only - I can somehow get the missing data by "thinking" and "experimenting"
2 -   Keep Structure  only _ I can use it as tool without knowing anything else by "thinking" and "experimenting"


3 -   Keep Usage only - I can somehow get the missing data by "thinking" and "experimenting"
4 -   Keep Usage only  _ I can use it as tool without knowing anything else or progress by "thinking" and "experimenting"

5 -   Keep Internal working only - I can somehow get the missing data by "thinking" and "experimenting"
6 -   Keep Internal working only _ I can use it as tool without knowing anything else by "thinking" and "experimenting"

Thanks for casting an opinion.

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

Hmmmm...

[ Opinion ]

Interesting question!  You must be an excellent scientist.  I see you continually pounding away at the coconut, from every possible angle.  Now you bring the scalpel.  I predict you will enjoy the meat and the milk ... one day.  

As for Jimbo, I would only want the "workings" of knottage, as this is how it "works" for me now.  I only started "formalizing" my understanding of knot-ology recently.  Since childhood, I have used knots as needed, but without a lot of concern with names (of knots or their component parts).  They literally "just come out of my hands" as I need them.  Oh, I have known many knot knames, (and of course I have never even seen "perfection"), but they just didn't mean much to me until lately.  Such is the burden cost of autodidactic development in isolation.  (He who would teach himself knotting has two fools in the forecastle.)  And again I am eternally grateful to CWA, IGKT, et al. for ABoOK, this WWWeb site, etc.

Ironically (considering that cordage is just a tool to me), it was the most decorative of knots, the Turk's Head, as well as the most practical, the Constrictor, which led me down the rabbit-hole which ultimately deposited me here.  That and a cavalcade of friends & acquaintances who invariably ask: "Cool, Jimbo, what's that knot called?"  Here's where I like the French approach.  I could only name names like "The Knot For Holding The Boat To The Tree", "The Knot For Holding The Couch In The Truck", "The Knot For Slinging A Bottle" or ... well, you get the picture.

"subject-object duality": Does it really matter whether you call it a "Manrope Knot" or a "Tack Knot"?  Not if all you need is a knob!  But if you're installing a Manrope, a Tack Knot just won't do!

However, once you have the: "First a Wall, then a Crown, first tuck UP, then tuck DOWN." mastered, you can call it "Bob" if you want to.

To me, a knot is a structure of cordage (not "just" a clever kink in a cord, .sig taglines notwithstanding) which serves a particular purpose -- to bind or fasten one thing to another.

You could enumerate examples of where a knot is used forever, and I'd not likely pay attention long enough to ... whatever.  Sorry.  ADD.

You could describe "bend here, turn there, pull that" forever, and you've just given me a fish.  I can follow your stepwise directions perfectly, but that's sub-optimal to me.  What if I'm following the directions for a Chain Splice & it doesn't "work" the way I read the directions??  And what if the situation is just enough different (I'm putting a knob on the Tack, not the Manrope) that the careful instructions no longer "fit"??

The construction method(s) may be important, and I'd hate to lose that, but you said I could only have one, so...

Better to have a clear understanding of the function(s) of a cord in a knot, the interaction of friction, compression, tension, etc. within it, the better to pick the right technique(s) when the need is upon us.  I'd rather you teach me to fish, that I might eat for a lifetime.

[ /Opinion ]

TTFN,

Jimbo

[squarerigger]

Hi Charles,

Again - an interesting question...
Jimbo is right - give me what it does internally and I can figure the rest out for myself.  As to naming - how does one language translate to another?  In mathematics there is no need for a name.  As to form - from which perspective and with which line(s) loaded?  I prefer to know what it does inside and then figuring the rest is (relatively) easy.  Give it a name and hope that everyone abides with that name?  In cyrillic, in cuneiform, in sanskrit?  Make a picture and someone will misread it.  But give it function internally and the right person will get it right.  HOWEVER, not all people are the right person!!  When we see a tree, do we all have the same name for it or do we choose something that fits our understanding?  It is our understanding that allows us to first pick a name and then explore it further.  A tool, we understand it and then we name it, based on that understanding.  So it should be with knots, bends, hitches, loops, bindings, etc., etc.  Thanks Charles!  And especially thanks to Jimbo!

Lindsey

[nautile]

Hi Jimbo Hi Squarerigger

Thank you both for having been among the very rare to come and cast a vote.
More thanks for your two posts that are quite interesting for me.
A knot ( sorry, will play the dumb French : in my language, once again, hitch and bend are "without sense" , must use my english "mind map" to give them sense ) is a whole and should not be sliced except for discussion pupose.
As for me I am not the right knotter. My French "mind map" ? a personnal defect in neuronal networks ? my training ? well five me a structure any time and I can figure its functionning. Give me a 'functionning' and with so many different ways to get that function implemented with different structures : I will be lost.
As I already said : bend, hitch that is already giving a 'function' , we do not have that 'discrimination'  with the names used in French, we must use adjectives or other qualifiers much lenghty that the 4 or 5 letters bend and hitch.
Both of you argumented your point of view so well that I could 'almost' have been a 'convert' .
But I lack something still.
So I will cling to 'structure' for a while, and wonder what I am really missing for not being able to immediatly and unfailingly getting the 'one' structure' that can have this one 'inner working'  : high pressure there and not here, elongation here and not there , strangling there and not elsewhere .
However all is not lost for me , may be ? , given a use, the need for a specific tool, I would be less lost to imagine the 'right' structure than with  being given 'inner functionnning'.
I am sad that every one of those who came to read it did not cast a vote, even if they found the question caricatural ( quite intentional) , as it is the only value 'added' is your two posts, with 30 votes something could have been infered, and better still with a stratification on the 'latin' and 'anglo-saxon' culture of voters

[Brian_Grimley]

Usage only deduce

I assume that we have the physical knot in hand. The written work on "structure" and "internal working" is a record of the analysis and work about the physical knot that has been done by others. The analysis depends on the various intellectual models that have been used for the analysis and can be intellectually recovered.

The use of a particular knot is tied to the materials and technology available to mankind at various times in history. The application of a knot and its cultural significance is different at different times and places in history.  The materials, technology, applications and culture of mankind is forever changing and information on the use and significance of knots has, to a large extent, disappeared. Since rope and its knots rot, this information is most often an unrecoverable resource.

I hold a Clove Hitch in my hand. It is an interesting knot but the knowledge imparted by the knot itself is limited. But, consider its usage: in ratlines on the shrouds of the great tall ships; in rope bridges spanning gorges; in slings for packs on mules for transport; in building traditional Japanese bamboo fences; in binding packages in modern and medieval times; in securing sails; in securing computer cables. The Clove Hitch's usage gives us knowledge and understanding of different times and places that the knot itself does not contain. And, that is just the Clove Hitch. Think of the usage of the Reef Knot.

Knotters often ask why the general interest on knots is so low. One suggestion is that the limited information contained in the knot itself appeals to a limited audience. However, with a knowledge and presentation of the use of knots, one can create a diorama to attract many to the wonders of knots and knotting. After all, the slipped Reef Knot still has an audience - the large number of people who tie shoe laces.

The greatest lose is the lose of the use of knots in time and space.  So there! - Brian.

[nautile]

Thanks Brian for bringing help with a clarification I can partly suscribe to.

Only I do not see how with this question :
I want you ( your memory as well books have been erased) to give me " a knot to put at the end of a ratline" you can get "only"   the clove hitch ( that is the one that was "selected", but there could have been others candidates. )
Stating "a knot...ratline" give, for "english" world only, it is a hitch and not a  bend, but which one of the possible hitches. A "general concept, not a specific structure.

"knot  in hand " : problem is no structure = no knot in hand ; only the idea of "some yet undetermined"  knot (I use this word loosely, as in French) to put at the end of the ratline ?

That is the question I ask myself, unless, once more, seems to be quite apt to do that these days, I misunderstood.
Cheers.

[Brian_Grimley]

Nautile,

I am not sure I fully understand your questions. I will give a couple of answers and see if they are correct and a help.

As you know, the shrouds are ropes from the top of a mast of a ship to its sides that support the mast. Each mast, in the days of the tall ships, could have at least five shrouds on each side of the ship. Smaller diameter, horizontal ropes across these shrouds act as a ladder for the crew to climb. They are the ratlines. The ratline starts with a spliced eye which is lashed to the first shroud (certainly true of ships at the end of the eighteeth century). As the ratline crosses the other shrouds it is clove hitched.

Theoretically, there are many hitches that could be used for the ratline. However, the word "usage", as I use it, answers the question - Which hitch was actually used? The answer is the Clove Hitch.  The Clove Hitch was seen as best by those who rigged the tall ships. Why is another question!

I take a rope and tie a Clove Hitch around a cardboard tube. I carefully remove the tube and I am left with a Clove Hitch. I expressed this in my previous post by saying that I have a Clove Hitch in hand. In fact, one method of, say, temporarily mooring a boat is to first tie a Clove Hitch in a rope and then place it over a pole. The Clove Hitch does not need the tube or pole to be a Clove Hitch. The name "Clove Hitch" includes the idea that it will end up around something.

If I saw two overlapping loops of rope on a beach, they would only be two overlapping loops of rope. To become (let's call it) a "knot", I would have to see a use for those two overlapping loops of rope.  If I saw those two overlapping loops of rope as a way to temporarily hitch a rope to a pole, they would become a "knot", a Clove Hitch.  I think a knot and its use are inseparable ideas even if the use is broadly implied (e.g. bend, loop, hitch). A tangled piece of rope is simply that. A tangled piece of rope with a recognized use or potential use is a "knot".  Perhaps that is a meaning of "deliberate complication" in Nick Wilde's definition of a knot: "A knot is a deliberate complication induced into a piece of rope, line or cord, in such a manner that it may be later undone, or not, as may be required."  

This kind of talk is reduced by the absence of a Tavern (Cafe), beer (expresso) and non-virtual, convivial company!  Cheers - Brian.

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

Howdy all!

First, Nautile, please allow me to make a minor course correction here.  Brian didn't say

" a knot to put at the end of a ratline"

...  He merely pointed out (correctly) that ratlines are a place where Clove Hitches are used.  They're actually used in the crossings.  The ends are usually eyes whipped to the rigging or some such...  ABOK# 1176, 1177, 3437.

But I digress.

It's interesting that Brian chose the Clove Hitch as an example, because that's an example I use too.  I hope no one will think I'm criticizing Brian (or anyone else) in any way if I glom on here...

[ Opinion ]
The internal working of a Clove Hitch is basically thus: one Turn crosses the SPart, holding it to the spar/tree/shroud, while the Tag end puts Tension on that Crossing to secure ("nip") it.  The Tag end and the Tension it provides are held by the second Crossing of the diagonal part that runs between the two Turns.
[ /Opinion ]

That's how I see it, anyway.  I see a lot of CH's tied as crossing knots (ratlines, pilings, crowd control) (ABOK# 1178, e.g.) as well as the form where both ends pull away from the "something" as ABOK# 400 & 1670.  I do those, but the point here is I sometimes do a much different "set" of that same knot, which makes it a more powerful tool for me.

Picture a boat, an island, and a harsh storm blowing in.  We beach the boat to set up camp.  I haul on the bow line to stick the keel in the sand, as the rest of the crew tumbles out to deploy shelter.  Okay, it's 175 pounds pulling 2500 up a beach -- the word "stick" may be optimistic!    But I need to make it fast NOW, before the storm hits, plus I have duties on the tarps.

I haul on the bow line & pass it around a tree (sweetgum, if it matters), holding all the Tension I can & taking the Tag end close under the SPart.  Then I lead the Tag end up (I started with "under") and over the SPart where the SPart makes good contact on the tree.  The Tag end now holds the SPart against the tree (Friction holding Tension), so I can relax a little.  Now I pass the Tag end further around and up the tree, holding a Bight & being careful to not disturb that crossing Bight that holds the SPart.  I Tuck the Tag end under that Bight & haul away on it further around and further up the tree.  The diagonal piece now holds the SPart and the Tag end, but separated by several inches & 180 degrees + of rotation around the tree.  That's all I had time for, as tents needed casting and the usual camping chores needed to be done, all with a major summer thunderstorm bearing down hard on us.

The knot looked a mess, but after the storm passed, with no other rope tricks, we still had the boat.  I've used the CH this way a lot of times, with different types of cordage, and (when it comes out of my hands) it works perfectly.

I've never seen this usage mentioned, so the enumeration of usages wouldn't have helped me here.  The customary structural view of a CH doesn't consider the splitting of the two Turns nor the nipping points -- not that I've found.  The only way I could get there was to haul the SPart tight & nip it with the tag end & then repeat that operation with the top Turn...  Okay, I confess, it's harder to read than to describe than to do.  Sorry.

The point being, it works, although it requires you pull your second crossing way around.  (changing structure)  It also requires a very rough (and round) hitchee.  And no, it probably won't work that way for anyone else.

Now...

You know the Clove Hitch.  You know where Clove Hitches have been used historically.  Can you see my knot?  Is that the knot you'd choose to use, given the same scenario?

Perhaps, but I maintain that the "Internal Workings" view is the only way I was able to adapt that knot to that problem.  And yes, (PABPRES) I know the correct answer was to use the right knot!!  I just didn't have anything else "in my hands" at that time.

Anyway,  enough about me!

TTFN,


Jimbo

[nautile]

Hi Brian

Nautile,



-a/  As you know, the shrouds are...it is clove hitched.

-b/
The Clove Hitch was seen as best by those who rigged the tall ships. Why is another question!

-c/
I take a rope and tie a Clove Hitch ... I have a Clove Hitch in hand. In fact, one method of, say, temporarily mooring a boat is to first tie a Clove Hitch in a rope and then place it over a pole.

-d/
The name "Clove Hitch" includes the idea that it will end up around something.

.-e/
To become (let's call it) a "knot", I would have to see a use for those two overlapping loops of rope.  If I saw those two overlapping loops of rope as a way to temporarily hitch a rope to a pole, they would become a "knot", a Clove Hitch.

-f/
I think a knot and its use are inseparable ideas even if the use is broadly implied (e.g. bend, loop, hitch). A tangled piece of rope is simply that.

-g/A tangled piece of rope with a recognized use or potential use is a "knot".  


-h/Perhaps that is a meaning of "deliberate complication" in Nick Wilde's definition of a knot: "A knot is a deliberate complication induced into a piece of rope, line or cord, in such a manner that it may be later undone, or not, as may be required."  

-i/This kind of talk is reduced by the absence of a Tavern (Cafe), beer (expresso) and non-virtual, convivial company!  Cheers - Brian.

Yes you are right under your conditions, not under mine.
I said or thought that my wording said : name erased and replaced by arbitrary matricule

-a/ I have a passion for old sails. So yes

-b/ You cannot know that under my conditions, a clove hitch it cannot be, "name are erased and only usage is kept" : in the case in point usage is "some knot known as N° X45V3Z to fix the ratline"; that is the only detail that remain known to humanity.

You just have an old engraving in A4 format that show you the rigging of an old ship to direct you.
I still hold if what remain is N° X45V3Z diagram or drawing , the structure,then you will soon , find a use for it, and may be go for in the ratline.

-c/ you cannot tie a "clove hitch" since you do not know there are clove hitch, you only know :N° X45V3Z. and from the usage asked : "attaching the ratline to shrouds you can infer :HITCH N° X45V3Z because you are English speaking, for a non-english spoke French if will be Knot N° X45V3Z  ( still less knowledge would remain for us)

You just know from an annoted on the engraving : knot (?) to fix the ratline on the shrouds ( the shape/form/lay of the knot is forgotten, its name too, its internal functionning too".
Repeat : only  N° X45V3Z use in attaching the ratline on the shrouds.
I do not know enough about knots to be able to lay as unique solution what is known to us now as "clove hitch". Not with just that remaining in my mind and in my books.

-e/ OK

-F/ Of course! I cannot fault you.in the real life and more so with the quite precise English language nomenclature when compared to the French one.
There is nothing that I know, "man-made" or "man-adapted or modified" that have "no function" ( may be no function known ( e.g some prehistoric artefcts)) So if you have a "structure" you know it has at least one use. And I know, thanks to you, a meager part of the view that can be held about "ornemental" knotting for instance : function is there.

In fact we are (my fault) here discussing, for the sake of "schematizing" under the most artificial conditions : never good to "slice" a "whole"or you kill it. But I feel essential to "study" part after part and then got for the real objective a "synthetized holostic" view of "the thing" studied. Of course after dissecting the animal in anatomy life if you do not go in the field to observe it, you do not know much about its "real being".


-g/ There I cannot follow : a tangle is not a knot in my mind-map, or by happenstance only.
It is either a mathematical entity ( not to be entered here) or just an haphazard intertwining of rope ,so it cannot be, for sure , a knot, at least in my "mind map".In my mind "knot", structure exist quite independantly from "usage made of it" : you can abandon one specific usage and keep just another one , it will knot change the structure of the knot. Only the "view/opinion" you have of it for "good for doing..."
There I feel French" knot" superior to "knot-bend-hitch" since you are less "fenced in".

-h/ see the post I put just on "complication". I am not sure I like this "raccourci".That may be more preferrence or lack of the finer shades of the language.

-i/ there I concur 110%. That is just like playing chess with a computer : a good training and learning ground, but not fun as a choosen social activity. But look, 50 years ago we would not even have known of our mutual existence. Teleportation is coming I hear.:-)

Anyway, at least for me, it is fun to interact. Thanks.

Nautile /Charles

[nautile]

Hi Jimbo
You put your post when I was writing mine to Brian!
You lost me with the "words" description of your knot , I am not good with that : even operating procedure are never learned with "words" but with "things" under hands. So I am not good with words only, must have, like illeterates some nices "cartoons" like drawings.
But that did not kept me from following your argumentation.
Problem is : knots are so "multifaceted" that they are not really "reducible" easily.
Putting aside, the strong base of knowledge for some of the best endowed, of which alas, I am knot, I think that every one of us has so much of strong feelings ( quite outside the thinking sphere) about what (s)he feel is the right notion of A knot ( loosely use, French fashion) that it will come out.
That is a "good" thing, in my view, to happen.
See : your notion of "not yet" known usage would not have come to me as "a real case" , only a a safe "systematic thing to think of". I am glad to have that to keep in mind.
In fact structure-usage-function slicing is so caricatural with so "lively" things that it give occasion to many , many, ways to say "hold it, you are forgettting that....".
That is OK because each time, someone say something like that, the problem is ,not clarified, but dissected further.
I , for one, learn much more from "contradiction" or "correction" than from "I concur", pleasing as it isthough.

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

You lost me with the "words" description of your knot

Sorry.  I confessed it's as hard to write it as it is to read it.

Unfortunately, as the BeeGee's said "It's only words, and words are all I have..."

But...

So I am not good with words only, must have, like illeterates some nices "cartoons" like drawings.

Ummm...  If I make you a Nice cartoon, does it mean I have to go to Côte d'Azur to draw it?    Would a Villefranche-sur-Mer cartoon do just as well?

Sorry, you can shoot me now.  I never get a chance to bother people with polylingual puns, so you get to be the victim.

Better a pun than a picture.  I'm about to prove that, re: Mats...  You'll see.

But that did not kept me from following your argumentation.
Problem is : knots are so "multifaceted" that they are not really "reducible" easily.

I was hoping someone would get to "reducible"...  My "trick" is really a Single Hitch (ABOK# 49) being backed up by another Single Hitch.  <sigh>

You see the problem.  You've been hammering on it until you put a scalpel to it here.

What's the difference between a Clove Hitch and a pair of Single Hitches backing each other up?

the best endowed, of which alas, I am knot

That makes two of us!

That is OK because each time, someone say something like that, the problem is ,not clarified, but dissected further.

I wholeheartedly concur!  We can best discern the full nature of Truth by examining both what it is as well as what it isn't.

I, for one, learn much more from "contradiction" or "correction" than from "I concur", pleasing as it isthough.

Okay, that's the last time I'll concur with you!!  

Seriously, we are "birds of a feather" here too.  I never learned anything by being right.

Happy Knotting!


Jimbo

[squarerigger]

Hi Charles and Jimbo
I think that you are almost there!  Charles, you had a problem with internal structure and Jimbo said (I think?) that the CH he uses is really 2 HH.  Exactly so!  The difference with the CH is that there is additional friction of the 2 rope parts aginst each other in parallel, making structure internally the most important definition.  Jimbo, if the two parallels do not rub against each other your 2 HH will still work but not quite as effectively as when you use them together.  Here's a glass of wine in toast to you both!
Lindsey

[knudeNoggin]

... the CH he uses is really 2 HH.  Exactly so!

?  If I find "Half Hitch" in my Ashley, I see not even one of them in either
the Clove hitch or Jimbo's tree hugger.  (And I wonder why he didn't do what any
sane knotter would and just tie off the line with another turn and then a Clove hitch
to the SPart?)  Although I've found the sense of "half hitch" somewhat hard to derive
from some of its uses.
Rather, it looks like Jimbo made Round Turn and wrap up into a Single Hitch.

The difference with the CH is that there is additional friction of the 2 rope parts aginst each other in parallel, making structure internally the most important definition.  Jimbo, if the two parallels do not rub against each other your 2 HH will still work but not quite as effectively as when you use them together.

The difference I see is the loading of the two disparate parts of Jimbo's Clove hitch,
where the lower structure is if anything pulling its continuation tighter against
itself, but the upper one pulls tighter upon itself.  (To further secure this, a third
turn & tuck--another Single Hitch--should be put on immediately below the 2nd,
making a Seizing Hitch (reversed, it is a Groundline Hitch).)

*knudeNoggin*

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

Jimbo said (I think?) that the CH he uses is really 2 HH.

Uh...  Sorry, the Half Hitch is a Single Hitch taken around its own SPart.  That is not what I use.  A Single Hitch is a Half Hitch taken around an object (the "hitchee").  A Single Hitch around a very rough hitchee can hold a surprising amount of strain.  It can hold you as you climb down a cliff, if that's all the rope you have.

My second Single Hitch holds that first Single Hitch, which holds the boat...

However, for those who want to "name names", this does meet the strict definition of a "Clove (as in "split in two" -- 'cloven hooves', 'cleft palate', 'meat cleaver' (but not 'Beaver Cleaver') etc.) Hitch"...  Sorta.

The difference with the CH is that there is additional friction of the 2 rope parts aginst each other in parallel, making structure internally the most important definition.

Very good points!  However, when I try that, the 2 turns don't bind too well to anything, not even each other.  The diagonal part that goes between the two turns just barely nips the SPart to the second Turn and vice-versa.  It just makes me want to throw an OH under there...  But that's no longer a CH, is it?  My "trick" nips the ends (Standing and Running, Bitter and Tag, Coming and Going, Fo'c'sle and Poop) to the hitchee.

If the "hitchee" is fairly slick (mine seldom are), I can crank the "textbook" CH down tight, binding the 2 parts fairly well, but that same slick-ness works against the knot, allowing the 2 Turns to unreeve themselves a little.  That's why a dumb old cow can untie one.  That's why ABOK# 1670 shows the tag end stopped to the SPart and ABOK# 1672 shows a CH backed up by a Tuck Splice.  I also think this is why the CH is used as a crossing knot.  The slack & tension on either side can pass through the CH & balance each other somewhat...  ABOK# 212 is a useful example.  But I don't use it that way, so I don't know.  (But isn't it wonderful that we can air this out together this way?)

Here's a glass of wine in toast to you both!

Thank you!!  And here's a Frozen Margarita in reciprocity!

<- Click me?

Nazdrovya, y'all!


J...

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

(And I wonder why he didn't do what any sane knotter would and just tie off the line with another turn and then a Clove hitch to the SPart?)

<ROTFLOL>!!!  Me too!!  That's one of the "Great Mysteries" of my wretched life!!

Here's some insight, if it helps:

First, haul on a rope as hard as you can.  That's not hard enough!  If you relax, it'll cost you $5,000.00+ & perhaps the life of a Friend.  Next, have all the children you know run around you asking a zillion questions.  Now, without losing a micro-Newton of force on the rope, have a friend sneak up behind you, clap as loudly as they can, and yell BOOM in your ear!  So loudly it shakes your ribs against your lungs.  Now have all the children start screaming, and it's your job to erect them a nice storm-proof shelter from scratch, [shadow=red,left,300]NOW![/shadow]

Now, what knot comes to your mind?

<>!!

Good point, though!  That is exactly why I'm here!

Jimbo