Regarding IDIOT tester.

Status
Not open for further replies.
noss4 said:
You know you critics are just full of hot air. You sit on you ass in front of your PC, bitch about everything an everyone doing testing. You preach your knowledge. You preach you know how it is supposed to be done. And guess what you produce nothing....
Click to expand...


Ad Hominem

You know, I felt my ass grow fatter in the time it took me to post that link. :yawn:


Seeing how you respond to criticism, whether constructive or otherwise, is enlightening. You just dropped several rungs further in my estimation.
 
nozh2002 said:
This is "Observation" stage of scientific methodology.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

Observation stage? Sorry, that don't make the grade.

Hypothesis and theory are often interchanged, and incorrectly so. The hypothesis is that if you hit yourself in the head with a hammer, it will crack your skull. In order to prove this hypothesis, thereby turning it into scientific theory, you must do it repeatedly, under tightly controlled conditions. Then after each whack, the results must be measured for anomalies and variances. Once confirmed by an independent third party that you do indeed have a cracked skull, and each crack is the same based upon identical actions of the hammer (mass, velocity, and inertia just to name a few), only then may the hypothesis be deemed scientific fact.

roughedhes and hlee are 100% correct. All Noss is doing is breaking stuff. There is no scientific fact (theory) behind it at all. Balderdash I declare.
 
roughedges said:
Ad Hominem

You know, I felt my ass grow fatter in the time it took me to post that link. :yawn:


Seeing how you respond to criticism, whether constructive or otherwise, is enlightening. You just dropped several rungs further in my estimation.
Click to expand...

O yeah an you produce what ? 0 I take criticism very well but don't be a cry baby when I don't agree with it. I can do that you know. I love you people. You want it both ways for you it's fine to criticize but you cry when it comes back at you. Grow up ! Better yet get off your know it all butts an test something.
 
noss4 said:
...... Why do I have fans ? because I'm doing it an you are not. The results I acquire are miles ahead of anything you are acquiring since you produce a big fat .......
I can call my site whatever I want to call it. You have no say in it. You don't own me. You don't control me. I'm sure this just pisses you off but tough for you. :p
Click to expand...


In the knife community....Kit Carson has fans....Sal Glesser has fans.....Tony Bose has fans....blah, blah, blah...you have "nut huggers". A nut hugger is someone that does not know you, anything about you....but loves what you are doing....even if they don't really understand the "why" or "how". You are welcome to all the nut huggers you have,....you earned them....

You CAN call your site knifetests....but all you test is how far to push a knife until it breaks.....which IS highly amusing, and says something....just not sure what.

I produce articles in magazines, and part of a knife collectors club, in case you were wondering.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
noss4 said:
O yeah an you produce what ? 0 I take criticism very well but don't be a cry baby when I don't agree with it. I can do that you know. I love you people. You want it both ways for you it's fine to criticize but you cry when it comes back at you. Grow up ! Better yet get off your know it all butts an test something.
Click to expand...

1. I haven't cried since Grandma died.

2. You haven't responded to criticism in your last few posts. Instead, you've attacked and insulted the people criticising what you do. Real stand up guy there! :thumbup:
 
roughedges said:
1. I haven't cried since Grandma died.

2. You haven't responded to criticism in your last few posts. Instead, you've attacked and insulted the people criticizing what you do. Real stand up guy there! :thumbup:
Click to expand...

I have responded very well to the criticism here for the last 2 years almost. I have debated everything front to back. I just think it's time to lay it one the line with you critics. I have produced work that will endure. Your talk will fade like an echo.
 
Kohai999 said:
In the knife community....Kit Carson has fans....Sal Glesser has fans.....Tony Bose has fans....blah, blah, blah...you have "nut huggers". A nut hugger is someone that does not know you, anything about you....but loves what you are doing....even if they don't really understand the "why" or "how". You are welcome to all the nut huggers you have,....you earned them....

You CAN call your site knifetests....but all you test is how far to push a knife until it breaks.....which IS highly amusing, and says something....just not sure what.

I produce articles in magazines, and part of a knife collectors club, in case you were wondering.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
Click to expand...

Can't lead a blind man I guess. Magazine articles are not destruction tests.
produce some destruction tests an get back with me.
 
Noss is correct. I do sit here on my rather well formed hind parts, behind my computer, and critique the antics of someone else. I do not have a degree in metalurgy, ergonomics, or whack-a-knife-with-a-hammerology. However, I do belive that I have sufficient standing to critique the <laugh>scientific</laugh> <guffaw>testing</guffaw> of the hockey masked.

Speaking of large lipid-filled posteriors... nevermind.

I would post my CV, but that would be a bit pompous. In stead I'll ask, what have you contributed to the scientific community? I mean, other than a pile of broken knife blades.

You can call your site whatever you want. I like to call my car a ferrari. It will never be a ferrari, but that is what I like to call it.

There is value in destructive testing. But, even crash tests are done under controlled circumstances.

Hockey mask or lab coat. It's still a guy in a costume whacking a knife with a hammer to see if he can break it.

I outgrew breaking my toys when I was about 5.
 
hmmm, i guess the word "entertainment" isn't a scientific enough word for some. ah well, hey noss, any word on the HI Kukri test?
 
Noss do not feed trolls, they do not really care about subject, but just making you mad. Ignore list is right place for them.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
I'm not going to go round an round with a few of you on this. I have already been there an done this many times. I'm just going to continue doing what I do.
for those that are interested then they now where to find it.

I have said what I wanted to say on this matter.

This idiot,hockey masked,clown tester is checking out. :D Have fun :thumbup:
 
Derek24: It should be soon. Maybe this weekend. I'm just waiting on my camera man.

nozh2002: My troll food has gone dry. Thanks for the kind words.
 
nozh2002 said:
Noss do not feed trolls, they do not really care about subject, but just making you mad. ...
Click to expand...

Yet another example of your typical tactic of dismissing the opinion of those who don't agree with your nonsense...
 
thombrogan said:
sodak,

Did you try either suggested method for sharpening idiots? Did they work?
Click to expand...

I snared a couple last night. I put up a sign in front of the house, "wimmin an' likker in here". Neither way seemed to work, all they did was flail. I think the only way to sharpen them is to send them back to school.... Now if you'll excuse me, I have a wet clean up in the garage..... :D
 
roughedges said:
For a test to qualify as scientific it must be repeatable and controllable with what is being tested isolated from all other variables.
Click to expand...
In general that might be true, but what would that give for hand held tools such as knives. Let's say Noss uses some sort of device that swings the mallet with exactly same amount of force, perpendicular, etc. You get some data out of it. So... Then what? How many times you, me or any other human being will be able to match that by hand? And when you need to perform such task in the field or wherever else, and you don't have that machine with you, you will use your hands and introduce numerous "variables" to that lab test. Will those results ever apply?

For all the criticism I've seen here out outside, I don't recall too many (if any) suggestions what he should do to make tests more scientific. All I see is dismissal of the test results, scientific or not. Why are you guys even watching it over and over again?
 
Gator97 said:
In general that might be true, but what would that give for hand held tools such as knives. Let's say Noss uses some sort of device that swings the mallet with exactly same amount of force, perpendicular, etc. You get some data out of it. So... Then what? How many times you, me or any other human being will be able to match that by hand? And when you need to perform such task in the field or wherever else, and you don't have that machine with you, you will use your hands and introduce numerous "variables" to that lab test. Will those results ever apply?

For all the criticism I've seen here out outside, I don't recall too many (if any) suggestions what he should do to make tests more scientific. All I see is dismissal of the test results, scientific or not. Why are you guys even watching it over and over again?
Click to expand...

Are you actually trying to imply that what Noss does is typical of field use. Please stop, cola through the nose hurts.

The point is not how well the human may be able to reporduce the action of a machine in the field. This is spurrious logic. In fact, one of the design criteria of the experiment would be to exert some force- typical of an average human- in a contolled setting, and do it over and over again. This allows one to compare between samples. If two samples are subjected to two different tests, even if the tests looks similar on the surface, there is no basis for comparison.

What we have is...

"Wow, this knife is tough.

Tough is relative. Tougher than what? Tougher than you?

Tougher than some other knife.

Okay, by what metric are we making that assessment?

Well, this knife broke and this other one did not.

Yeah, but they were not subjected to the same tests.

So, these tests are not supposed to be scientific."


Hopefully you can see the disconnect in logic, and where the dissatisfaction arrises.

If you like the videos, great, but stop telling me you are learning something- my sides are starting to hurt.

You could learn as much or more from watching the same amount of Seinfeld.

By the way, I don't watch the videos. Once you have seen one, you have pretty much seen all of them. Peel the apple, cut the webbing, chop the board, split the 4x4, chop the cinder block, etc.
 
hlee said:
The point is not how well the human may be able to reporduce the action of a machine in the field. This is spurrious logic. In fact, one of the design criteria of the experiment would be to exert some force- typical of an average human- in a contolled setting, and do it over and over again. This allows one to compare between samples. If two samples are subjected to two different tests, even if the tests looks similar on the surface, there is no basis for comparison.
Click to expand...

:thumbup: You said it better than I could. Unfortunately, I don't think it matters.
 
On my observation some losers are so desperate to get at least some attention so they start attacking someone who well deserved and attract attention of many for good reason, for bringing something into community. They get what they want for some time, but I just update my ignore least and move on. Noss do not pay attention to this really, you should not be angry on them if you know what it is and why, you should be sorry for them - at least I am just sorry for them.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
vassili,

pretty soon you'll have the whole bfc community on ignore.

then you'll just be reading your own posts and responding to them.

that'll be a hoot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top