Spine whacking? WHY????

Status
Not open for further replies.
5b1ffd37c9f5f13bf4c2a9ee5e27d13a7be09958eb62ac819b12f648104544e9.jpg
 
bodog said:
Self defense and defense of others is definitely not assault with a deadly weapon as a criminal act or almost 2nd degree murder. It's defense of others. That's a justified use of force. People need to learn the law and how it applies to them. There's a reason why what's his nuts didn't get convicted of killing trayvon martin. Justifiable use of force. Personally I'm glad I was able to stop the woman from getting hurt even more than she was. Truth be told that story is one of the reasons I'm in the line of work I'm in. It was a defining moment in my life and where I decided that I needed to do something that took my personality and ballsiness and stupidity and "white knight" mentality and used it for something worthwhile.
Click to expand...

^^
Quoted for relevance to spine whacking. It's worth, repeating! :thumbup:
 
Jsega51 said:
A thread that goes from "testing" knives all the way to assault with a deadly weapon (that almost became 2nd degree murder)....wow.
Click to expand...

Bodog's post was a reply to the post above.

trevitrace said:
bodog said:
Self defense and defense of others is definitely not assault with a deadly weapon as a criminal act or almost 2nd degree murder. It's defense of others. That's a justified use of force. People need to learn the law and how it applies to them. There's a reason why what's his nuts didn't get convicted of killing trayvon martin. Justifiable use of force. Personally I'm glad I was able to stop the woman from getting hurt even more than she was. Truth be told that story is one of the reasons I'm in the line of work I'm in. It was a defining moment in my life and where I decided that I needed to do something that took my personality and ballsiness and stupidity and "white knight" mentality and used it for something worthwhile.
Click to expand...
^^
Quoted for relevance to spine whacking. It's worth, repeating! :thumbup:
Click to expand...
 
What's funny is that they want real life stories, not made up fantasies. They make fun of people saying they want reliable tools/weapons. I give them a real life story about a reliable weapon that kept me from getting jacked up and they even try to screw with that. I've had several of these trolls on ignore for a long time and just read their comments and reply whenever I feel like it. Trevitrace, gwashington, craytab. They're trolls that the mods allow. Just put them on ignore. Or put me on ignore if you don't like what I'm saying. Either way.
 
Ahhhhh bodog, you're so full of it. Gonna use the "self defense" and the "defense of others" schtick. It's not defense of yourself or anyone when you admit that you were going out with your military buddies to intentionally start fights with "marks", and knew that one day you'd meet your match so you started carrying a weapon.

The woman was punched and that scuffle was over since you said she dropped to the ground. No mention of any further hitting occurred (harassment charge in most states). You came in on your white horse with a weapon, and by attacking the head, it was done with deadly force since as you put it, you "crushed his grape" and even said the man almost died. (Congrats on your "sucker punch" attack).

What you did was assault. Plain and simple. You like to spout off about all of your "work" and "assignments" traveling the globe "putting sights on people", I'm calling BS.
 
Jsega51 said:
Ahhhhh bodog, you're so full of it. Gonna use the "self defense" and the "defense of others" schtick. It's not defense of yourself or anyone when you admit that you were going out with your military buddies to intentionally start fights with "marks", and knew that one day you'd meet your match so you started carrying a weapon.

The woman was punched and that scuffle was over since you said she dropped to the ground. No mention of any further hitting occurred (harassment charge in most states). You came in on your white horse with a weapon, and by attacking the head, it was done with deadly force since as you put it, you "crushed his grape" and even said the man almost died. (Congrats on your "sucker punch" attack).

What you did was assault. Plain and simple. You like to spout off about all of your "work" and "assignments" traveling the globe "putting sights on people", I'm calling BS.
Click to expand...

Tried to make a story as short as possible. Don't really need to go too much in depth. Yes, he attacked her with the real intention and possibility of causing her serious bodily harm. No, he wasn't stopping. And I don't really care if you believe me. And I don't really care if you take my words and twist them to make me sound like I'm saying I'm something I'm not. Anyway, this isn't whine and cheese. Please stick to the topic or just don't reply. It's pretty easy to do. I simply gave a story of how a reliable tool was needed in a thread about testing for tool reliability.
 
Is the topic of this thread still spine whacking? If so, I'm still not for it. Maybe a light tap like Sal suggests to check for an obvious flaw but anything beyond that (like the silly cold steel tests) is completely useless and will damage your knife to ensure that it will fail in the future.
 
craytab said:
Is the topic of this thread still spine whacking? If so, I'm still not for it. Maybe a light tap like Sal suggests to check for an obvious flaw but anything beyond that (like the silly cold steel tests) is completely useless and will damage your knife to ensure that it will fail in the future.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree as long as the person doing the testing plans on ever using the knife. If they're testing to failure and/or destruction just to test the limits then so be it. It's their knife.
 
bodog said:
Please stick to the topic or just don't reply. It's pretty easy to do. I simply gave a story of how a reliable tool was needed in a thread about testing for tool reliability.
Click to expand...

Knife forum, thread about knives, your story about using a slim baseball bat as a weapon....who's off topic here?

With regards to "spine whacking", I don't see the point. Applying forces that go against the intended geometry of the knife is simply going against the design of the knife itself. If you're out to find what will defeat the lock, with enough beating and prying, you'll probably find it. It doesn't prove much
 
bodog said:
Pretty much agree as long as the person doing the testing plans on ever using the knife. If they're testing to failure and/or destruction just to test the limits then so be it. It's their knife.
Click to expand...

The problem is testing to failure like cold steel does isn't telling us anything other than they can break a knife. No real world value in the least. Further it is one data point. I'm not interested in if overwhelming force can break a type of lock. I'm interested in the specific lock on my knife has a non-design related flaw that will cause it to fail. Light hand pressure or a light tap is all I need to tell me what I want to know, not some crusade against every other lock type on the planet through destruction videos.
 
craytab said:
The problem is testing to failure like cold steel does isn't telling us anything other than they can break a knife. No real world value in the least. Further it is one data point. I'm not interested in if overwhelming force can break a type of lock. I'm interested in the specific lock on my knife has a non-design related flaw that will cause it to fail. Light hand pressure or a light tap is all I need to tell me what I want to know, not some crusade against every other lock type on the planet through destruction videos.
Click to expand...

So then your problem isn't with the testing itself, it's what the tester is trying to prove. That's cool. I agree. But valid testing really does try to isolate from all variables so that the end result is usually just one data point. Like Ankerson's wear testing. He does what he can to isolate from variables and ends up with which steel at which hardness heat treated by which company at x thickness cuts rope the longest. That's one data point and many people find that helpful, or at least interesting. Same with locks. Some people want a lock they can hang a Buick on. I just want one that reasonable and reliable. Some people want a knife that cuts rope forever. Some others want a knife that's reasonable and reliable. The point is that testing is needed to find that out. Some people are retarded about it, some people aren't.

What was the guys name who hit fixed bladed knives with a sledgehammer? That was retarded but if that's what he had to do to get the knife to break then that's what he had to do to get the knife to break. Doesn't mean he was finding the best knife for everyone. Just meant he was looking for a knife that was ridiculously hard to break. That was one data point and if I recall correctly Busse seemed to hold up teally, really well. People seem to like Busse knives a lot while others find them less than appealing. For those looking for that type of knife I'm sure his tests were helpful even if others thought it retarded.
 
Last edited:
bodog said:
So then your problem isn't with the testing itself, it's what the tester is trying to prove. That's cool. I agree. But valid testing really does try to isolate from all variables so that the end result is usually just one data point. Like Ankerson's wear testing. He does what he can to isolate from variables and ends up with which steel at which hardness heat treated by which company at x thickness cuts rope the longest. That's one data point and many people find that helpful, or at least interesting. Same with locks. Some people want a lock they can hang a Buick on. I just want one that reasonable and reliable. Some people want a knife that cuts rope forever. Some others want a knife that's reasonable and reliable. The point is that testing is needed to find that out. Some people are retarded about it, some people aren't.

What was the guys name who hit fixed bladed knives with a sledgehammer? That was retarded but if that's what he had to do to get the knife to break then that's what he had to do to get the knife to break. Doesn't mean he was finding the best knife for everyone. Just meant he was looking for a knife that was ridiculously hard to break. That was one data point and if I recall correctly Busse seemed to hold up teally, really well. People seem to like Busse knives a lot while others find them less than appealing. For those looking for that type of knife I'm sure his tests were helpful even if others thought it retarded.
Click to expand...

No need to put words in my mouth. What I said is what I meant. No need to drop the r-bomb either.
 
craytab said:
No need to put words in my mouth. What I said is what I meant. No need to drop the r-bomb either.
Click to expand...

What r-bomb? Retarded? That's an actual word and I used it according to its definition.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/retarded

I won't allow your misplaced sensitivities to diminish the English language. If you need a safe space then find one, but don't demand I alter an entire language just to suit your desire to be protected from what you feel is offensive when it's not. I did not use that word as a pejorative towards a legitimate handicapped person. I used it in its proper context.

"characterized by a slowness or limitation in intellectual understanding and awareness, emotional development, academic progress, etc."

Feeling the need to carry a 1/2" thick fixed blade knife just because it survived being hit with a sledgehammer without regard to any other factor "shows slowness or limitation in intellectual understanding..."

Feeling that you need an otherwise crappy folding knife with a lock that HAS to withstand 800 lbs of weight on the spine without regard to any other factor "shows slowness or limitation in intellectual understanding..." of what a knife is. Simply showing a knife can withstand 800 lbs of weight or simply designing a lock that is that good is not retarded. Showing a knife can reliably withstand normal use and can also withstand the occasional accident or abnormally rough use is not retarded, or " slowness or limitation in intellectual understanding..."

Almost to 16
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top