Inclusive the hard way

Quite possibly the most obtuse (see what I did there?) thread I've seen in fifteen years of BFC. It should win an award. Please keep discussion about angles and not people. You're still in General, though honestly, this thread would fit right in Whine and Cheese.
 
Last edited:
Guyon said:
Quite possibly the most obtuse (see what I did there?) thread I've seen in ten years of BFC. It should win an award. Please keep discussion about angles and not people. You're still in General, though honestly, this thread would fit right in Whine and Cheese.
Click to expand...

It would probably be more fitting in Whine & Cheese, but the General Discussion forum gets a ton of traffic. I'm very suprised that something as simple as me saying No, started all of this :D
 
cncpro11 said:
Hmmm, look what google brought up. Right from Bladeforums dot com

Click to expand...

that's just an explanation of what an inclusive angle is. It explains that an inclusive angle is a sum of the bevels on both sides. I don't find anything there that says that both sides have to be equal for the sum to be called an inclusive angle.

Ok, my turn. What would you call the sum of two unequal bevel angles? Inclusive means including without qualifying what values are included and what values aren't included. You really can't disprove that statement with positive ones. You can only disprove that statement with a negative one. A definition of inclusive that states what is included and what's not.

You really haven't posted anything that defines what inclusive is not, well, except for what you believe.
 
Last edited:
I think the real question here, one which we all seem to be avoiding, is this: what do you call the angle of the dangle?
 
singularity35 said:
that's just an explanation of what an inclusive angle is. It explains that an inclusive angle is a sum of the bevels on both sides. I don't find anything there that says that both sides have to be equal for the sum to be called an inclusive angle.

Ok, my turn. What would you call the sum of two unequal bevel angles? Inclusive means including without qualifying what values are included and what values aren't included. You really can't disprove that statement with positive ones. You can only disprove that statement with a negative one. A definition of inclusive that states what is included and what's not.

You really haven't posted anything that defines what inclusive is not, well, except for what you believe.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. In all honesty I thought we were discussing knife edges.
So would you be ok if someone turned your chisel edge into a V grind because you asked for an included angle?
 
cncpro11 said:
Thanks for clarifying. In all honesty I thought we were discussing knife edges.
So would you be ok if someone turned your chisel edge into a V grind because you asked for an included angle?
Click to expand...

That's just the sharpener making the wrong assumptions, as you are.

But that's not even relevant.

Inclusive means both sides, whatever their measurements are. You probably are referring to an exclusive angle since you will exclude the angle that will not be equal to whatever side you're measuring.

How would you you call the total angle of a knife with an asymmetrical bevel?
 
I don't think your going to get the point across no matter how simple you break it down. Some people just don't believe 2+3=5.
singularity35 said:
that's just an explanation of what an inclusive angle is. It explains that an inclusive angle is a sum of the bevels on both sides. I don't find anything there that says that both sides have to be equal for the sum to be called an inclusive angle.

Ok, my turn. What would you call the sum of two unequal bevel angles? Inclusive means including without qualifying what values are included and what values aren't included. You really can't disprove that statement with positive ones. You can only disprove that statement with a negative one. A definition of inclusive that states what is included and what's not.

You really haven't posted anything that defines what inclusive is not, well, except for what you believe.
Click to expand...
 
cncpro11 said:
...
Click to expand...

Common, what do you call the total angle of two unequal bevels? Or would you rather take the 5th? :p

You can post all the example of symetrical bevels you want, it doesn't make the total angle of asymetrical bevels any less of an inclusive angle. That's as plain as the nose on your face. If you can't see you nose, well...

Tell me once again what you're trying to prove with those diagrams....:confused:

Can you spell it out?
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day, there needs to be a reason that anyone started using the term "inclusive".

I had thought that it was a term that allowed knife people to compare symmetric and asymmetric grinds directly.

Most everyone agreed with this, with a few objecting that it was good for symmetric and asymmetric, but just not chisel.

Then cncpro11 shows up and says we're all wrong - "inclusive" is only useful for symmetric grinds, even though we already have the super useful and very clear symmetric only term "DPS".


Cncpro11, why even use the term "inclusive" ever? If it isn't useful for bringing commonality to different grinds, and isn't directly referenced by any grinding or sharpening system, what possible use does it have for cutlery when DPS does the same thing?
 
How long can y'all regurgitate the same comments over and over? It seems like we are at a stand still. Each side has shown ample evidence to prove their argument, so now it is up to each individual reader to decide.
If the Lansky system poses that big of an issue then learn free hand. Problem solved. You're welcome.
I get the feeling that this topic is being way over thought.
 
SadSappySucker said:
How long can y'all regurgitate the same comments over and over? It seems like we are at a stand still. Each side has shown ample evidence to prove their argument, so now it is up to each individual reader to decide.
If the Lansky system poses that big of an issue then learn free hand. Problem solved. You're welcome.
I get the feeling that this topic is being way over thought.
Click to expand...

I think many of the posters are simply enjoying having a little back and forth that isn't about brands or anything else that hurts feelings.

In other words, it's fun. Like everything on a knife forum should be.

Though I'm sure there are some real "life or death" importance threads out there we should be participating in. Right? :D
 
I just want to add that, mathematically, a single-item set can be inclusive, as well. The set of all numbers equal to 1 is inclusive of 1. So an inclusive set or inclusive angle can be a single-item set. The implication that "inclusive" implies a set of more than one just isn't there.
 
I'm more and more amazed that this is still going every time I see another post in it. 7 pages arguing about "inclusive"...I'm just...speachless.
 
re:your analogy of the apple story, you say "together" they have 3. together=inclusive, sorry dave, you can call him anything you want but you are dead wrong...
 
RX-79G said:
I think many of the posters are simply enjoying having a little back and forth that isn't about brands or anything else that hurts feelings.

In other words, it's fun. Like everything on a knife forum should be.

Though I'm sure there are some real "life or death" importance threads out there we should be participating in. Right? :D
Click to expand...

We started a pretty good fire with this one. If you were near, I'd say let's grab a beer and watch everyone duke it out.
I put my gloves down a while ago.

Have you noticed the resurgence of large fixed blade recommendation threads? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top