Knifetests.com-whats YOUR opinion

[Lycosa]

Wait a gosh darn minute!! No one's mentioned Esav??

 

[Gator97]

It's amazing how folks here are so concerned with my post count,

Slight correction, it's not the count per-se as the content (your famous one liners - "excellent post + thumbs up"), as if OP really needs Guyon stamp of approval, although admittedly that is a lot better than namecallilng, except the places when you are cheering for the same namecalling. Repeated posting of the same pix... Have a little more faith, even the n00bs can get it from the first time And, I do get an impression that you don't really care what you post, just up the postcount and try to flood the opponent with the sheer number of your posts, if you can't win by the strength of your argument(s), looks like you're counting on the sheer number of your posts, no matter how irrelevant or repetitive they are.

At 25K posts, I get to kick back and enjoy my BFC pension. This thread has really helped me toward that goal. I can't wait to live the high life.

I suspect you get much higher kicks by posting. And no way in hell you will ever slow down until something serious changes in your life.

Edited to add: I know it'll aggravate Gator97 that we move off topic,

No worries, it won't. I don't think overall tone of my posts was "aggravated", especially compared to very hostile reprisals from "non abusive knife testing" proponents.

Even now, I'll pick up one of the books, read a little bit, and laugh.

Please do so That'll save a lot of time for the weekend.

Hmmm... must have missed this.

I guess so. In your post 544 you clearly promised to rescind:

Now, I've expressed opinions that might have hurt some tender feelings, but show me a false fact, and if it's wrong, I'll gladly and graciously rescind it.

I assume that was too long ago and it wasn't specifically about the word idiot and so on Don't bother with excuses, I already know them.

Again, I'm glad to see how Gator97 can speak with such concrete assuredness on what people understand and do not understand.

You != "people" That's not to hurt your ego, just pointing out one more fallacy in your judgment and logic.

 

[Guyon]

Hey, guys, maybe we could end the pissing contest, and get this thread back on track?

Kbrasmodeler, I don't think Gator97 was quite done pissing. He still had a few dribbles left.

 

[Guyon]

Correction.

After Gator97's edit... quite a few dribbles. See, I can rescind prior statements.

As far as falsities go, Gator97, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the post that I edited. No rescindment necessary there. I stand by the original version, but I changed the language to better suit your tastes.

It's interesting that Gator97 doesn't want anyone interfering in the minds and lives of the folks he calls n00bs (rather condescending name calling, if you ask me... I prefer "new members," "new knife users," etc.). Yet he's giving me lifestyle advice. Fascinating stuff.

Sorry, Kbrasmodeler, looks like the dribble fest continues. But then, since your post didn't speak in glowing terms about noss4, I doubt your request was given much attention.


.

 

[Kbrasmodeler]

Well, I did my part to try to bring sanity back to this thread. Apparently, I would sooner walk on water, then turn it to wine. Good luck, all.

 

[orthogonal1]

Man, toss out some opinions about TGHM and his doings, and people sure do get all worked up. It's not like I called into question anyone's religion.
Or did I?

What is that, the thousandth statement the Guyon has made that has nothing to do with the topic?

 

[orthogonal1]

...

orthogonal1's outrage is duly noted, and he has every right to post his objections in that thread. Until I see that these Mountain-Dew-induced tests are warping how we look at a knife, I'll abstain.

And I have a small request. Could orthogonal1 please add, "Purveyor of All Things Good" when he refers to me as the Guyon? It just adds a bit of flair to the dramatic moment.

...

Already changed how I look at knives so you better get busy - or is the Guyon simply showing the Guyon's bigotry.

It also appears the Guyon has a bit of a "god" complex. Has the Guyon sought medical assistance with these delusions of grandeur?

 

[Kbrasmodeler]

Maybe you guys could get back on topic. The last time any of you commented about Knifetests.com...I can't remember. All you guys are doing is complaining about semantics and post count. Get's a little tiring. Just agree to disagree, and move on.

 

[jvan]

If your screen name begins with a "G" you desperately need to seek out a life somewhere else.

 

[Guyon]

Careful, guys. If you can't play nice, Gator97 will come down hard on you.

Looks like orthogonal1 had some dribbles left too.

To my credit, in post 713, I did try to take the thread in a new useful direction by responding to theonew, but I had no takers.

Kbrasmodeler, I don't think any of these guys want to talk about noss4 or knife "testing" at this point.

Their arguments are long since worn out, and they'd basically be saying the same thing over and over anyway.

Apparently, I'm a much more attractive topic now.

A few of these guys feel like they've been backed into a corner because their views have been challenged repeatedly.

So they've decided to debate something else instead--my psyche. And then they accuse me of being off topic. Classic. Just classic.

.

 

[orthogonal1]

Careful, guys. If you can't play nice, Gator97 will come down hard on you.

Looks like orthogonal1 had some dribbles left too.

To my credit, in post 713, I did try to take the thread in a new useful direction by responding to theonew, but I had no takers.

Kbrasmodeler, I don't think any of these guys want to talk about noss4 or knife "testing" at this point.

Their arguments are long since worn out, and they'd basically be saying the same thing over and over anyway.

Apparently, I'm a much more attractive topic now.

A few of these guys feel like they've been backed into a corner because their views have been challenged repeatedly.

So they've decided to debate something else instead--my psyche. And then they accuse me of being off topic. Classic. Just classic.

.

Or more likely we are simply following the lead of the Guyon and giving drivel for drivel.

Off topic - Has the Guyon provided or found any proof that the conclusions of NOSS4 are incorrect? Thought not.

 

[Guyon]

Has ortho proven that noss4's conclusions are correct? No, of course not.

Has ortho satisfactorily addressed any of the critiques of noss4's methods? No, of course not.

Has ortho ever really understood that you can't satisfactorily disprove something that has no basis in the first place? No, of course not.

Has ortho contributed anything of value to this thread lately other than diss the Guyon? No, of course not.

Therefore, does ortho's opinion here hold much water? No, of course not.

 

[orthogonal1]

Has ortho proven that noss4's conclusions are correct? No, of course not.

Only the Guyon and the pals of the Guyon have stated to the affect that the conclusions of NOSS4 are correct or not.

Has the Guyon seen anywhere where orthogonal1 has indicated that the conclusions of NOSS4 are correct? Thought not.

Has ortho satisfactorily addressed any of the critiques of noss4's methods? No, of course not.

Numerous times. Perhaps those "passing out" incidents that the Guyon has mentioned numerous times combined with the "god complex" that the Guyon appears to have has resulted in a massive selective loss of memory.

Has ortho ever really understood that you can't satisfactorily disprove something that has no basis in the first place? No, of course not.

Generally, every scientist and engineer I've ever met would happily take on the challenge of proving that "something that has no basis in the first place" is incorrect. Such tasks are generally trivial.

I guess the Guyon is again indicating a lack of scientific and engineering knowledge/ability.

Has ortho contributed anything of value to this thread lately other than diss the Guyon? No, of course not.

What do they call it... Oh, yeah... "tit for tat".

Sympathizing with NOSS4 in that area yet?

Therefore, does ortho's opinion here hold much water? No, of course not.

We of course should, and do, hold such a standard for the drivel of the Guyon.

 

[Guyon]

Wow, ortho is on fire this morning. Someone douse that man.

Sure, ortho, you can run methodical tests and get a different set of results than noss4.

To say, however, that you've "disproven" something suggests that noss4 proved something in the first place.

Considering the haphazard way in which he makes cross comparisons, that position and choice of language gives credit where credit is undue.

Signed,
the Guyon

 

[orthogonal1]

Wow, ortho is on fire this morning. Someone douse that man.

As a matter of fact, I do have a fever and I'm irked as I can't get to work due to snow. But that is not a pertinent issue.

Sure, ortho, you can run methodical tests and get a different set of results than noss4.

"Can" is equivalent to "should, would, could" - doesn't mean much and no such "methodical tests" have been conducted. Therefore, such a statement is pure conjecture.

To say, however, that you've "disproven" something suggests that noss4 proved something in the first place.

It has been a regular activity of scientists and engineers to dispove a statement by someone simply as a matter course. One common area of such are the "miles per gallon" enhancers and in the area of various "folk medicine" practices.

Considering the haphazard way in which he makes cross comparisons, that position gives credit where credit is undue.

Apparently the Guyon has already given credit to NOSS4, else there would be no reasonable motive to make the many posts of little value.

Prove the NOSS4's conclusions are incorrect and the discussion ends. Simple. A showing of fact trumps all assertions.

 

[theonew]

I've got to throw theonew a bone here. (Get it? Bone? Dog avatar? Oh nevermind.) His was a conciliatory post in many ways, and it was a smart one.

Thanks

Lots to agree on here...

I've long thought that TGHM could have done things better from the get-go. A lot of the negativity here stems from his own adolescent-like proceedings as he began destroying knives, video-taping the results, and garnering some attention. I don't need to rehash it all; the threads are there. More on point, I recognize the difficulty of scientific testing by an individual with limited resources. But even if noss4 doesn't claim to do anything scientific, we see him making very suggestive cross comparisons. As I've contended all along, his standards are simply lacking.

Though I was a registered member when these destruction tests were in their infancy, I wasn't an active member until the controversy was full blown. So yesterday morning I dug up (yuk, yuk) some of Noss's earlier threads/posts and I do agree Noss handled himself very poorly, others did to, but he displayed way too much arrogance for my taste and I can understand why so many do not have a favorable opinion of him, mine dropped a good deal after reading many of them.

1) Get rid of "testing" and knife "tests." The term polarizes, and you're blind if you don't see how, in this very thread, that simple linguistic choice has an effect. Admit you're doing very subjective reviews, and even explain to an audience all the factors that make the performances subjective. In other words, offer up some reflective disclosure beyond something like "This is what I do. It stands for itself." This includes discussions/reflections that consider qualities like Rockwell, grain structure, stress risers, etc.

While the term testing doesn't really bother me, I just see it as non-scientific testing, much like I and most others here do on a near daily basis, it wouldn't bother me if the term was dropped altogether or at least more poignantly qualified. Offering up some reflections on performance would be very welcome IMO.

2) Get rid of the comparative ratings. They're subjective, and they simply serve to inflame, especially when somebody's revered knife brand only receives two Rotating Swords of Doom. Since the knives have not been subjected to the same standards, any such comparisons appear arbitrary at best.

I would love to see his rating system be removed. If you are interested in seeing what happens with a particular knife, watch the videos and draw your own conclusions. The rating system has encouraged a lot of cheap and lazy comparisons among knives that devalues whatever actual information can be gleaned.

3) If you insist on doing some kind of comparative report, then at least make some effort to do the exact same things to knives across the board. Same number of chops, same number of stabs, same number of hammer blows, and at least try to use similar force. There might be a clearly defined heuristic that guides every single review you do.

Agreed.

4) It would be interesting if you could practice blows, measure their force, and see if you're at least swinging a hammer with roughly the same force at a given time. We talk about accuracy in rifles, and of course, there's an element of human performance there too. But at least we try to put something on paper (groups) that gives us some indication of the combined ability of a shooter and a gun. noss4 has no such indicators.

Another excellent idea.

That's just a start. theonew's notions about temperature strike me as a reasonable consideration as well.

Edited to add: The point about materials is a good one too. While wood is never going to be exactly the same, there's a big difference between a gardening post that's been sitting in your back yard for a year and a nice, soft 2x4 from Home Despot.

More excellent points, lots could be done to add "precision" and professionalism to Noss's process. I've heard he's built some machines to use in future tests/reviews and hope that his process improves, there is lots of room for improvement.

Thanks for the bone Guyon (my pooch, though, is much more interested in the bone from a ribeye steak I ate last night ).

 

[Guyon]

theonew, I think the words "precision" and "professionalism" get at the heart of things. noss4's site is clearly one that attracts a portion of the folks who post here at BFC, so it would be nice to see some improvement in terms of the information and standards used there.

All this talk of "proving this" and "disproving that" misses the crucial point that noss4 is doing some version of qualitative research. You could "prove" something scientifically, but would it even square up with what you see at knifetests? So okay, fine... noss4 is doing qualitative exercises. Let me add that I have no problems with qualitative research if it's done well. You may not be able to generalize from it in the same ways that you might statistical studies, but you can transfer some knowledge--again, if it's done well.

That doesn't mean you escape the need for methods. Good qualitative work involves methodology, and on top of that, it usually involves painstaking disclosure of methods employed. Letting videos stand for themselves is lacking in this regard. Therefore, in addition to some of the stuff above, I would also like to see things like:

(a) A more clearly defined problem. What is noss4 after? If it's toughness, how is he defining this concept, and why is it as important, if not more important, than other attributes like edge retention? (I've seen the machine theonew alludes to, and it's my understanding that contraption is meant to test edges.)

(b) A rationalization of how and why certain methods square with some investigation into toughness (if that's the problem). This kind of disclosure is a hallmark of good qualitative research. If you're doing things in order to discover something, then you should account for WHY you're doing them (ie. why they make sense). Is it because these tasks are likely uses in the field? Something else? Here's where some folks part with noss4--because they simply don't relate to some of the tasks he employs. Accounting for these tasks in some way would be beneficial.

(c) Thicker description of the knives under review as well as the context in which they are subjected to usage. I'm borrowing the term "thick description" from Clifford Geertz, an anthropologist by trade (and I think he may have borrowed the term himself). Anyway, the term mainly involves providing greater details about context. These things include disclosures of information as diverse as metals and their known properties, geometries of the knives and how those might affect performance, the temperature of the building, the make-up of materials used for testing, maybe even the physical state of the practitioner when the test was conducted.

Note: Before anyone gets up in arms, I'm not saying noss4 NEVER does any of the above. It's just very uneven.

For some reason, when I thought about measuring/practicing blows, I kept thinking of the old sledge hammer and bell mechanism at the carnival. There's probably some equivalent that could help someone "dial in" his/her hammer blows with some degree of precision.

 

[greater]

Did you see the video where the Lancay (420HC) M-9 bayonet is tested along side the Russian AK-47 bayonet.

That was a great and very interesting review. It definitely enlightened and educated me. The M-9 was the most usable tool of the two. I can't find part 10 of that video however.

It is absolutely good watching.

 

[theonew]

You know, Guyon, you posted a lot great ideas above and most seem like fairly low hanging fruit. Noss if you're listening and give a rat's a$$, there is some excellent constructive criticism there :thumbup:

I really like the thickening up idea. The only videos on his site that I've actually watched have been about knives that I either own or have read about fairly extensively and thus am familiar with the shape, thickness, steel composition, hardness, etc. This type of information would be very welcome for all the tests.

I think you're right about the machine, guess I was misremembering :grumpy:

 

[Guyon]

Well, I've done enough railing against noss4 in this thread, and while the back-and-forth with others was oddly entertaining and mildly illuminating, it's really not productive for the greater community, about which I do have concern regardless of what others believe. noss4 is not going away, so if one is not on board with noss4's efforts, then one can either (a) complain till one is blue in the face, (b) dismiss him entirely, and/or (c) (your suggestion) try to think about how reviews might be different and better. Of course, these choices are not mutually exclusive.

I'll be the first to admit that my own reviews, few though they may be, have little value when doing cross-comparison, even though I may have imparted very vague differences in "feel" or "impression." Even though we're wired basically the same, it's been my experience that "feel" can vary wildly across users. Some like fat scales, some like thin scales, some like to choke up, some don't, etc.

The latter course above (labeled "c") has me thinking about how I could at least "thicken" my own descriptions, including descriptions of my own tastes, and provide better information for someone who might be interested in a knife. That's a valuable exercise.

I don't know how you'd get noss4 to pay attention to critique. In the past, he's been pretty dismissive of criticism--even initially, before all the long pro-con threads came down the pipe. A new thread? Well, I thought of posting my reply to you in a new thread, as per your suggestion, but it was likely just going to blow up into something like this one if I mentioned noss4. A more generic thread might be successful, up until the point that someone invokes knifetests. I suppose one could register on noss4's forum and toss some suggestions his way. Be interesting to see how that would go.

.