knudeNoggin
New member
[ QUOTE ]
The concept that because I know something that works for my own quest,
I am ethically bound to to tell all who[] ask, is not valid:
[/ QUOTE ]
Welllll, I'll leave off the ethics of that (which itself is a matter of choice),
and simply say that one could be (more) helpful by giving a rationale,
rather than a nondescript opinion--in the same number of (time=$$(L) keystrokes).
And it only assumes that your assertion HAS a rationale, not correctness of it
--THAT is what should be offered for consideration. It is of some enlightenment
to many to learn that a bowline, certainly in some materials, has a tendency to
loosen; and that in a loosened form, it can capsize (into a Pile-Hitch noose).
It is also going to surprise some that in some new (hence, not much experience to draw
upon) materials the knot can slip rather than break; and that it can break (once slipping's
stopped, by some means) at MUCH lower % of tensile than the domain of pub'd
results would suggest--at HALF or less of that.
[ QUOTE ]
2. The practical implications and costs involved of ensuring the message is understood through this medium. Treebuzz is a great educational tool, but too many use it as a substitute for proper training.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm ambivalent about these oft'-urged preferences for some for-fee, single-teacher
training sessions versus the eclectic advice one can obtain by the Net. As though
somehow the same people (in many cases), when giving for-fee instruction, all of
a sudden become enlightened and correct, but if that same advice were offered
(freely) by Net (by them or their students maybe even quoting from materials)
it is to be doubted. Frankly, I can find the most incredible nonsense in a great many
not-for-free materials, and must assume that their authors would tell much the same
story in any course they might give. (And the question of message fidelity with
such transmission remains.)
Moreover, those who survive such for-fee instruction, often espouse a dogma they
paid for (and maybe feel more need to believe it because of their investment in it!),
as the instruction typically comes devoid of the sort of challenges & cross examination
that opinions/assertions can get on the Net. (One can think of e.g. the one-time
instruction to use the Offest Fig.8 by AMGA or some like mountaineering/rescue
association, even after Tom Moyer explicitly urged them otherwise based on his
testing and some recent tragedies.)
[ QUOTE ]
5. If there is no fee, there is no accountability, and therefore questionable credibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
In this day (perhaps esp. in the U.S.A.), such talk of basing accountability on a fee,
or an election & public office, must come across as dubious!
How accountable one cares to be, freely, is up to one's own choosing.
There's a lot of crap that goes down by fee. Know any lawyer jokes, e.g.?
[ QUOTE ]
Despite that, i think I do more than most to see people on their quest OK.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, you do well. Which is probably why Mahk & I & others might've felt deprived,
and thus curious, and ...
The concept that because I know something that works for my own quest,
I am ethically bound to to tell all who[] ask, is not valid:
[/ QUOTE ]
Welllll, I'll leave off the ethics of that (which itself is a matter of choice),
and simply say that one could be (more) helpful by giving a rationale,
rather than a nondescript opinion--in the same number of (time=$$(L) keystrokes).
And it only assumes that your assertion HAS a rationale, not correctness of it
--THAT is what should be offered for consideration. It is of some enlightenment
to many to learn that a bowline, certainly in some materials, has a tendency to
loosen; and that in a loosened form, it can capsize (into a Pile-Hitch noose).
It is also going to surprise some that in some new (hence, not much experience to draw
upon) materials the knot can slip rather than break; and that it can break (once slipping's
stopped, by some means) at MUCH lower % of tensile than the domain of pub'd
results would suggest--at HALF or less of that.
[ QUOTE ]
2. The practical implications and costs involved of ensuring the message is understood through this medium. Treebuzz is a great educational tool, but too many use it as a substitute for proper training.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm ambivalent about these oft'-urged preferences for some for-fee, single-teacher
training sessions versus the eclectic advice one can obtain by the Net. As though
somehow the same people (in many cases), when giving for-fee instruction, all of
a sudden become enlightened and correct, but if that same advice were offered
(freely) by Net (by them or their students maybe even quoting from materials)
it is to be doubted. Frankly, I can find the most incredible nonsense in a great many
not-for-free materials, and must assume that their authors would tell much the same
story in any course they might give. (And the question of message fidelity with
such transmission remains.)
Moreover, those who survive such for-fee instruction, often espouse a dogma they
paid for (and maybe feel more need to believe it because of their investment in it!),
as the instruction typically comes devoid of the sort of challenges & cross examination
that opinions/assertions can get on the Net. (One can think of e.g. the one-time
instruction to use the Offest Fig.8 by AMGA or some like mountaineering/rescue
association, even after Tom Moyer explicitly urged them otherwise based on his
testing and some recent tragedies.)
[ QUOTE ]
5. If there is no fee, there is no accountability, and therefore questionable credibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
In this day (perhaps esp. in the U.S.A.), such talk of basing accountability on a fee,
or an election & public office, must come across as dubious!
How accountable one cares to be, freely, is up to one's own choosing.
There's a lot of crap that goes down by fee. Know any lawyer jokes, e.g.?
[ QUOTE ]
Despite that, i think I do more than most to see people on their quest OK.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, you do well. Which is probably why Mahk & I & others might've felt deprived,
and thus curious, and ...
