Why Won't Noss Stand Behind His "Work?"

[Phil Elmore]

I had never heard of this "Noss" until the thread about the value of his "tests" came up. I think, however, given that quite a few people have expressed support for what he does, that the question I'm asking is significant. If you post material publicly, and if you expect people to take that material seriously and to draw conclusions from it (all of which is implied by referring to these filmed knife-breaking stunts as "tests"), I believe it is your responsibility to stand behind your work.

In order to take responsibility for your public work, you cannot afford to be anonymous. It is your obligation to attach your real name and image to what you do, not hind behind hockey masks or paper bags or bondage hoods. If I go to the Blade show, I have to live with the fact that anyone might recognize me as that jerk Phil Elmore, and I have to then be willing to stand behind in person what I've said over the Internet. This is as it should be if we expect others to take our public work seriously.

To stand behind your publicly presented material requires more than just courage, however. It requires you to hold yourself to a standard of honesty that is higher than average, because at any time, if you make a mistake or if you deliberately say something less than objective, people will call you on it and hold it against you.

I say all this as somone who, for several years now, has had to stand behind publicly offered work, putting my name and reputation on the line every time I do or say anything. I'm okay with this; it was my choice. But based on this experience I have to seriously question why some are investing their faith in the anonymous work of someone like Noss, who refuses to reveal his identity or to stand behind what he does. He wants to have it both ways; he wants to retain his anonymity while having his "tests" stand as endorsements or condemnations of the work of various knife manufacturers (who are also forced to stand behind their work publicly, unlike Noss).

I demand that Noss reveal his identity and thus take public responsibility for the statements he makes public about others' work. Failure to do so indicates that he has something to hide, and that he understands on some level that his "tests" are less than he is presenting them to be.

 

[Elen]

None of the above. I would say his reasons of being anonymous are his own, and I couldn't care less about them. As for your demands, I would be surprised if they had any effect. Except perhaps laughter. There are two kinds of people in the world: people who generally do whatever others demand them to do, and people who don't care about the demands of others and go their own way, whatever that might be. What the indications of Noss' desire to not name himself openly are, depend rather much on who you ask.

 

[Phil Elmore]

There are two kinds of people in the world: People who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and people who don't. I don't expect "Noss" to take responsibility for his work, either. That's the point.

 

[Elen]

And what a fine point that is. I shall exit before the rather inevitable flamewar and ad hominems commence.

 

[watchcollector1968]

I dont know why he does not make himself known. I do have to say that I dont really think he is obligated to. Many people prefer not to fully indentify themselves on the internet. Some of these people simply feel there are just too many strange folks around and dont particularly want to announce to the world who they are. Some dont want to be identified because they want to run their mouth and dont want anybody to be able to call them on it. Whatever the reason, thats just the way it is.

As for his "tests"...people who view them either do so with a little common sense or none at all. Whether or not I know his name is irrelevant to the fact that his "tests" are silly and of no value to me. I also think that either way people will realize that CRK turns out a good knife whether or not we know Noss's name or not.

I do think if his was a "for profit" testing center then yes he would be obligated to identify himself and prove his qualifications. As it is, he is just some hack tearing up his own (or donated) property while patting himself on the back for his self-imagined expertise. So long as he is not running a public business or doing anything illegal, I dont care whether or not he identifies himself.

 

[Tree Herder V]

What would it change if Noss revealed his true name? One either finds his tests interesting or totally useless. I someone thinks they are useless and stupid - why to whatch them and to know who does them?
I find them interesting and don't care at all who really Noss is.

 

[Phil Elmore]

It's a question of responsibility. "Noss" makes public information that others use to form opinions about the work of various makers/manufacturers. If he is not willing to take responsibility for that work, it calls into question his credibility. In other words, it is less than honest to engage in these public campaigns for or against specific knives if one is not then willing to stand behind the results.

Because the "tests" are not "tests" at all, but stunts, it makes perfect sense that he wouldn't want to have his real identity linked to them. I'm raising this issue publicly because he has no problem doing it to others on the basis of his destruction of their work.

 

[emperorwang]

i really don't see why it would make any difference if noss identified himself or not. you either agree with his methods or not. who cares who he is?

 

[Joshua J.]

None of the above.

Wow, this thread didn't even get a chance.

I suggest it be locked.

 

[sunnyd]

I voted. I think he is either Cleft Stump or someone else that hides behind his masks because he has something, or multiple somethings to hide.

There is NO valid reason I can think of whereby one who is trying to be taken seriously and offering his so called "knife tests" over the Internet, must hide his face and identity.

Any of you folks here who say, 'his reasons are his own' or 'that's his own business' are just enabling him to perform his "Tom Foolery" in either videos, pictures or written form.

The ultimate goal and the end result of his alleged "knife tests" are nothing more than the pure destruction of a perfectly good knife in most cases. Knives are tools that are built to CUT THINGS softer than the steel it was made out of.

If one wants to chop wood, then one buys an axe or a hatchet.
If one wants to beat concrete blocks, then one buys a sledgehammer.
If one wants to pry something, then one buys a crowbar.

Its called, getting the right tool for the job at hand..

I could do this all day. But I've go to go hunting soon and use MY knife for what it was intended to do ....... CUT.

 

[sunnyd]

None of the above.

Wow, this thread didn't even get a chance.

I suggest it be locked.

Why? It is a legitimate poll and thread. Locking the thread would be an act of censorship. You wouldn't want that, would you?

 

[ADD]

I demand that Noss reveal his identity and thus take public responsibility for the statements he makes public about others' work. Failure to do so indicates that he has something to hide, and that he understands on some level that his "tests" are less than he is presenting them to be.

The Unknown Comic

Masked Pro Rasslers

Early KISS

"Mystery" shoppers

Authors who write under pseudonyms

Worked well for the Wizard of Oz for a while too (pay no attention to the man behind the knife tests).

 

[Phil Elmore]

Some of the believers in this "Noss" (of whom they are plenty, as evidenced in the other threads) don't seem to grasp that this isn't about whether one agrees with his methods, his stunts (which he calls "tests"), or the questionable results derived therefrom.

Rather, this is about taking public responsibility for one's public statments in which one criticizes the work of others.

If "Noss" is going to hold up to public ridicule the work of those manufacturers and makers he deems substandard, based on his knife-breaking stunts (such as, for example, Chris Reeve Knives), then he has a moral obligation, if he is truly to be taken seriously, to stand behind his public statements by staking his real reputation and identity on them.

That's the issue, here -- not the content of his public knife-breaking videos, not the dubious conclusions drawn from them, but the fact that people are investing confidence and faith in someone who himself lacks the confidence of his convictions. If this "Noss" truly believes in what he's doing, and thinks it is honest and objective, he should have no problem standing behind his work with his real face and name.

The people whose work he criticizes have the right to face their accusers directly. The alternative is a YouTube public-opinion kangaroo court made up of anonymous detractors -- who feel free to say whatever they want, no matter how biased, no matter how distorted, no matter how hyperbolic, because they cannot be held accountable for it.

 

[Morales]

Ok, you don't like Noss, no problem with that. But how many people, who post videos about more than just knives on youtube, do you know? What about their responsibility?
Does noss have to be anonymous? Maybe he needs to be, when there are a lot of people out there, who don't /agree/ with his tests. I'm really getting tired of threads about noss, his tests and so on, it comes down to something like CS. There are definitely more important things in knife-universe than guys like noss. I'm off...^^

 

[Phil Elmore]

So he's a covert CIA operative, then? Or he must remain anonymous because legions of people who disagree with his "tests" somehow mean him harm? Neither excuse holds much merit.

Lots of people disagree with me, too, but nobody's tried to kill me and nobody will. When you make public statements abot other people's work, you are obligated to stand behind those public statements (or be dismissed as an anonymous crank).

 

[Man of Iron]

For this reason???

 

[samhain73]

Yeah, Cliff somehow became a southern American. LOL.

 

[Eight Trigrams]

...

If one wants to chop wood, then one buys an axe or a hatchet.
If one wants to beat concrete blocks, then one buys a sledgehammer.
If one wants to pry something, then one buys a crowbar.

...

And if one wants Fido to fetch, one gets him a stick. Nice avatar, btw.

Yeah, show me in the Bible where it says that people on the internet have to give out their name because Phil Elmore did. There is no "moral obligation" for Noss to reveal a damn thing. He's breaking knives on youtube, not slandering knifemaker's families or anything. And if I was Noss, I wouldn't want some crazed knifemaker groupie sending me a mail-bomb either.

 

[ADD]

Lots of people disagree with me, too, but nobody's tried to kill me and nobody will. When you make public statements abot other people's work, you are obligated to stand behind those public statements (or be dismissed as an anonymosu crank).

1)Plenty of critics remain anonymous for various reasons.

Any legit issues with him would better be served on test methodology

2)The poll responses offered here are loaded.

3)Plus, how about some perspective?

Who puts much stock in an internet knife destruction reviewer ?

Why take it for more than what it is?

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

And if one wants Fido to fetch, one gets him a stick. Nice avatar, btw.

Yeah, show me in the Bible where it says that people on the internet have to give out their name because Phil Elmore did. There is no "moral obligation" for Noss to reveal a damn thing. He's breaking knives on youtube, not slandering knifemaker's families or anything. And if I was Noss, I wouldn't want some crazed knifemaker groupie sending me a mail-bomb either.

WTF does the bible have to do with anything?

Phil wants Noss to play by the rules as Phil sees them. If Noss was that "moral" he wouldn't be posting his "Knife Test" tomfoolery as legitimate tests. I understand where your coming from Phil, and agree with your points, but put on a jason mask and beat some knives with a hammer for a while then ask yourself how obligated you feel to the maker of the knife you just destroyed. Noss doses not seem to be the kind of person I would want to associate with, that said I think it's unreasonable to hold him to the higher moral standard that most people and companies involved in serious testing and evaluation of products adhere to.