What is the intended purpose of "New Knot Investigations" forum?

[agent_smith]

To the moderator(s):

I put myself in the shoes of a casual (layperson) reader of some of the posts under this general section of the forum (ie new knot investigations).
I have to say, from that perspective (of a layperson) - it is confusing to try to
figure out who discovered what, and on which date(s).
Its a mess.

The are links pointing to links, pages and pages of thread topics, and unclear claims
with conflicting cross-claims.

...

I think a contributing factor is that there doesn't appear to be clear-cut directions for how
to actually present a new claim.
What is the format for presenting a claim?
Should a claim be presented in a prescribed way that is coherent and unambiguous?

Example of a format for making a claim:
"I am making a claim that I discovered the presented knot on (insert date)."
I will wait for peer review of my claim in order to allow sufficient time for discovery and counter-claims.

...

I read this comment from Dan Lehman:

Mainly, I sense someone having too much concern over
supposed knot-invention dates.  It's not as though a Nobel
hangs in the balance, after all.

I find this odd - given the strong reaction to some posts/claims made in this forum... eg The 5 coil slide and grip hitch that had been attributed to Bernd Strasser.
Dan made strong assertions that it wasn't 'Strasser' - that it could be traced back to Bob Thrun and/or Allen Padgett ('On Rope' book).

And I could also mention the Zeppelin bend - and Dan's assertions re Bob Thrun's original discovery dated in the 1960's.
And the Butterfly image appearing in Henry Bushby's personal notes (unpublished) - again raised by some individuals who thought it important.
There is also numerous references to a 'SmitHunters' bend (a play on Phil Smith and Hunter) - I mean, why assert this name? Does it matter?
Should it be Riggers bend - or should SmitHunters bend override it? Why even bother? Does anyone even care?

There are many instances were various individuals have made claims, counter claims, more claims, more counter claims, and so on.

I can't help but ponder what is the ultimate purpose of this section of the IGKT forum?
Is history important?
Is it important to acknowledge and give credit to an original creator?
If yes, why?
Why should we bother?

It would also imply that yChan's posts are of no importance - why should he bother posting?
What if someone tried to claim all of yChan's 'new knots' and insert their own name and date?
Would it matter?

[Dan_Lehman]

I've been slow to respond to this thread
because it is a complex matter with challenging concerns.

I read this comment from Dan Lehman:

Mainly, I sense someone having too much concern over
supposed knot-invention dates.  It's not as though a Nobel
hangs in the balance, after all.

I find this odd - given the strong reaction to some posts/claims made in this forum...
eg The 5 coil slide and grip hitch that had been attributed to Bernd Strasser.
Dan made strong assertions that it wasn't 'Strasser' - that it could be traced
back to Bob Thrun and/or Allen Padgett ('On Rope' book).

Which is indisputably the case, and which are hard-material,
published evidence.  So, attributing the first invention to Strasser
is just clear spitting into the wind --obviously refuted.  Note
that we needn't challenge a claim to his having discovered
the knot w/o such available *guidance*.
Now, if one were to assert that the adoption/use of the
hitch arose from Strasser's advocacy, that's another thing.
(Which would of course question the influence of esp.
On Rope (1st ed.))

And I could also mention the Zeppelin bend
--and Dan's assertions re Bob Thrun's original discovery dated in the 1960's.

Which again wasn't mere "assertion" but published proof.
Then came the fun finding of Adm.Rosendahl's admitting
that he knew nothing of the fabled knot, which must leave
us searching for clues --as it's unlikely that the 1976 Boating
article about the knot arose from Thrun's small-publication
revelation; but from where ... ?!
Here, it's I think reasonable to cite the main publication
as the source of our awareness of the knot, even though
some awareness occurred via Thrun earlier.

And the Butterfly image appearing in Henry Bushby's personal notes (unpublished)
--again raised by some individuals who thought it important.

Well, for me, it shows that a mind had worked its way around
to getting this knot.  Being unpublished (and I think pretty much
un-*shared*), the HNGBushby presentation can't account for
the knot's popularity; likely, it is Wright & Magowan's Alpine
Journal article that did that, at least for rock climbers; there
was yes knowledge of the knot via Burger's 1912 presentation
of "lineman's loop" which from him was evident reporting of
some then-current practice (of which one should hope to find
other evidence of --of how lineman came to know it).

There [are]also numerous references to a 'SmitHunters' bend
(a play [my *words fusion*] on Phil 'Smith' and 'Hunter') :: I mean,
why assert this name? Does it matter?
Should it be "Riggers bend" - or should "SmitHunters bend" override it?
Why even bother? Does anyone even care?

All touch on tough issues.
We like names for knot references; and when the set of knots
we want names for is small ("small" ~= 50 or fewer?),
making names is not so hard, at least by number.
But trying to manage a set of names for e.g. yChan's
300+ *new* knots, or Lehman's asserted 2_000, et al.'s
hundreds, becomes I think beyond daunting!!

It must be that we might hope to have **knot IDs**
for getting unique identification, but not really names.

There are many instances where various individuals have made claims,
counter claims, more claims, more counter claims, and so on.

But if the sole point of such claims is first-to-the-knot,
that is not all so important, ipso facto.  If we find the claims
are credible, the knot worthwhile, then I think we should
have credit enough for all.

But just for "new"ness, eh, here I think we by now should
be exhausted of new knots.  E.g., I have yet to try to get
an illustrated collection of yChan's knots --heckuva lot of
work to do.  (I'd like a set of images of the tied knot, not
a batch of tying-the-knot-from-THIS-start-&-THAT-start.)
But already there's one that quite impresses me :: the
different dressing & setting of #1425a SmitHunter's Bend !!
*I* have known that knot since discovering it for myself
in 1973?, but I don't think I ever got the yChan dressing
--which IMO is a significant version, its own "knot", really
(more like its number-sake #1425 --which, hmm, hints
that Geoffrey might've realized?!).

Is history important?
Is it important to acknowledge and give credit to an original creator?

Well, it might depend upon the knot.  I think that as shown
above the Butterfly, Thrun's Joint, and some other knots
which have gained currency in usage ought to have their
histories presented.
Acknowledging "original" creator is more problematic ::
I don't think that much special credit accrues from being
"first".  E.g., Rusty, Xarax, Reimann, Lehman, & Nuttall
I believe each discovered for himself those "Hawser Bends"
(JR's names); one might see more/less credit to each guy
based on his path to the knot --e.g., JR's was by revision
of an Ashley knot; mine was more by mere *feel* of
wanting back'n'forth S.Part curvature.

What if someone tried to claim all of yChan's 'new knots' and insert their own name and date?
Would it matter?

Ah, tough issue.  And one that I think should be of concern
of occurring should someone point their AI-fodder-gathering
tool at such available discussion/presentation we have here.
As I've elsewhere remarked at some recent AI-generated
books (damn!).


--dl*
====