Yes, sorry, i made mistakes in the drawings.
It is interesting why i use this bend. When I am "in wild" and
need [a] temporarily solid bend (no question about life)
I am sure that can not make mistake (get evil impostor) with this knot
(but in the original drawing I did 
).
I am not expert (in sense to have good arguments), so only I can citate Dave Root: ...
But this points to a question of
How much of
a knot does one know? --i.e., that one can know
enough to get to the point of various finishes,
and not further.
Frankly, I think that more is made of "evil impostor"
--a name-calling akin to cheap political talk--
than is warranted. OTOH, that warning has merit.
In the case of tying #1452, I form one
overhandand then *aim* for reeving the 2nd end into this
at a point where I will
also bring it out --and
that focus ensures that the desired version is tied
(and re this knot, one will usually have easy enough
loosening & untying for common duties; in uses where
great force is expected, than take care on dressing).
Similarly, one should understand #1408 well enough
to put tails so that the draw of the SParts twists them
to advantage and not draws them out.
.:. It seems that one posits correct-enough tying for
the
butterfly and arbitrarily cites a point where some
casual tying might go wrong/inferior with other knots.
My annoyance is that I find the
butterfly structure came
to value in a case where ends cannot be used; but where
ends are available, why not take a symmetric knot?
That said, Alpiner's nifty quick-tying method can be used
for the end-2-end knot and so gives some claim benefit
(but given the free ends vice the mid-line's continuous
strand, there is a degree of trickiness to keeping things right)!
--dl*
====
