WSK Pics

[Daniel Moore]

Right, because Rambo is the only one who ever goes into the woods.

 

[Inoxophile]

Right, because Rambo is the only one who ever goes into the woods.

Can't argue with you there; and yes, to save time, and disallowing any prescient abilities on my part, I'll concede right here and now that I am sure your knife is bigger than my knife.

 

[rocktheflock]

Before you all go crazy about that tree. I showed these photos also in the german knife forum, where I stated right at the beginning that no damage was done to that "living tree". I would never cut down a sound tree.


I cut them down anytime I want on my acerage! Trees are a renewable resorse.
Dont worry about the tree huggers Man, God put all this stuff on earth for us to use resposibly. So hack away

 

[rocktheflock]

Im sorry Lotus1972, but that is one of the homeliset kniives I have ever seen. that said, I dont have the talent to make one , so good job I guess

 

[chardin]

Christ, you're a windy one, Inoxophile.

At the risk of overstating the obvious, the particulars of this situation are inconsequential inasmuch as the photographs you present, whether accurate depictions or not, do not convey to the viewer the concept of responsible behavior.

Are you serious? Can you really say with a straight face that all photos involving hatchets and trees must be clearly marked so that the viewer knows that no live trees were harmed in the making of this picture? Is the picture-taker's later explanation really not good enough?

Garbage. Absolute hogwash. There's no sensation value in a picture of a chopped tree and a hatchet. Nobody is going to write their Congresscritter to ban hatchets because of such a picture. Maybe a photo of an entire old growth forest reduced to stumps, with a hatchet and a sweating man in the center, would provoke that...but I doubt it.

As is the case with the written and spoken word, photographs have great power to convey ideas and concepts.

Ideas and concepts! Ooh! You're not nearly the wordsmith you think you are, boy. I've written rings around sesquipedalians like you before and never broken a sweat. The trick is to spot the central assertion behind the persiflage and give it a good thump. It's generally weak and rotten at the core; why else weave walls of words around it?

The written word may be good at conveying ideas, not to mention concepts, but one wouldn't know it by reading what you write.

To reiterate from a previous post, it is likely that the knife community is damaged more by public perception than reality.

Maybe that's so, but in the words of the famous athlete to the famous dictator, there's nothing wrong with us that you can fix.

Consequently, I think it is incumbent upon each of us to do what we can to promote as positive and responsible an image as possible. I do not believe that presenting the photos as you did accomplishes this goal.

In other words, you made a big bagful of stupid assumptions when you saw the photos, and are now blaming the photographer even after he has explained your error to you. If anything is going to make our community less popular than rattlesnakes and spirochetes, it's pompous blatherers agonizing over a harmless photo. Let it go!

 

[Inoxophile]

Christ, you're a windy one, Inoxophile.



Are you serious? Can you really say with a straight face that all photos involving hatchets and trees must be clearly marked so that the viewer knows that no live trees were harmed in the making of this picture? Is the picture-taker's later explanation really not good enough?

Garbage. Absolute hogwash. There's no sensation value in a picture of a chopped tree and a hatchet. Nobody is going to write their Congresscritter to ban hatchets because of such a picture. Maybe a photo of an entire old growth forest reduced to stumps, with a hatchet and a sweating man in the center, would provoke that...but I doubt it.



Ideas and concepts! Ooh! You're not nearly the wordsmith you think you are, boy. I've written rings around sesquipedalians like you before and never broken a sweat. The trick is to spot the central assertion behind the persiflage and give it a good thump. It's generally weak and rotten at the core; why else weave walls of words around it?

The written word may be good at conveying ideas, not to mention concepts, but one wouldn't know it by reading what you write.



Maybe that's so, but in the words of the famous athlete to the famous dictator, there's nothing wrong with us that you can fix.



In other words, you made a big bagful of stupid assumptions when you saw the photos, and are now blaming the photographer even after he has explained your error to you. If anything is going to make our community less popular than rattlesnakes and spirochetes, it's pompous blatherers agonizing over a harmless photo. Let it go!

And I can cipher too! Beyond that, though, my only agony is in waiting for a reasonable arguement to my propositions. After reading your post, I'm still waiting.

 

[ml100]

Inoxophile:

Did I mention I like the knife? What are you keeping in the pouch on the sheath- a stone or a multi-tool or something of the like?

A magnesium block with an integrated firesteel and a since recently a pencil sharpener.

 

[rdelliott]

Correct. What happens when thousands of people do it to one tree? How about hundreds of thousands? How do you think that Bison were almost extinct? Your attitude on this idea is why animals go extinct. "I'm only gonna kill one." Then 60,000 other guys like you just "kill one".

Actually, I've heard that it wasn't hunting pressure that did the bison in.
Apparently cattle disease brought in by ranchers is thought to be the most important factor in the disappearance of the bison these days.

Although I have all this second hand from the guy who taught my Ontario hunting license course last year, and haven't looked at the original sources myself, it does sound convincing. When you look at the bison populations versus the number of hunters at the time and factor in the bison's natural replacement rate, hunting pressure alone would not have done it, unless they were hunting with Ma Deuces instead of single shot buffalo rifles.

 

[David Schott]

Never seen so much outrage over a few pictures of what COULD be a live tree being cut down. I get the whole idea of not cutting down live trees, but man oh man. Id put money on the fact that everyone complaining probably does more damamge to the environment on a daily basis and doesnt event think about it (Smog, throwing out plastic, not recycling, etc etc) than this guy did even if he had cut a live tree down. Do you run next door and yell at the guy clearing trees for his new pool? Did he "need" that pool? What an earth-destroyer. I think there are bigger fish to fry than a guy posting pictures of his knife that happen to include one chopped up tree.

 

[Sulaco]

Wow, I thought all of the idiots were over at the democRATic underground. Apparently a few got loose! Ack!

Anyway, after reading this thread, I now have the motivation needed to go home this afternoon and hack down one or two living trees in my yard! Hell, if I get lucky, I might hit the jackpot, maybe one of them has a birdnest in it!!

 

[ocelot777]

Regarding bison, the current view seems to be that the US government of the day encouraged hunting almost to extinction to deny native Americans their primary source of food and other useful raw materials, for obvious and shameful reasons.

By the way, I'm an editor by trade and Inoxiphile's use of big words just makes him/her sound pompous (spelling could do with some work too -- "arguement", etc.).

Finally, "WSK" -- in full please?

 

[Inoxophile]

Regarding bison, the current view seems to be that the US government of the day encouraged hunting almost to extinction to deny native Americans their primary source of food and other useful raw materials, for obvious and shameful reasons.

By the way, I'm an editor by trade and Inoxiphile's use of big words just makes him/her sound pompous (spelling could do with some work too -- "arguement", etc.).

Finally, "WSK" -- in full please?

I appreciate your pointing out my spelling errors as I am obviously very weak in that area and would benefit from any help you might provide.

Whether or not I sound pompous is inconsequential to me in that my goal in writing is to express ideas as clearly as I am able, and nothing more. If I fail in that regard, mea culpa. If you believe I use "big words" as an affectation, fine, but perhaps the perception of "big words" resides more within the reader than the writer. At the same time, however, I must acknowledge the possibility that I have failed to follow the admonition to "know your audience".

As an "editor by trade", I understand that your skills primarily involve correcting the spelling and grammer (damn; grammAr. See; where are you when I need you Ocelot777??) for people who actually generate new ideas. This is obviously an important job, and I am sure you excel at it (as evidenced by your post). Still, it would have been refreshing if, in addition to your spelling corrections, you actually had some insightful or original thoughts or ideas to contribute to the present discussion.

 

[t1mpani]

Finally, "WSK" -- in full please?

Wilderness Survival Knife. Its name changed from the "Tracker" when Dave Beck began making it again for a time, since Tom Brown had sold the Tracker name to TOPS Knives.

Whether or not I sound pompous is inconsequential to me in that my goal in writing is to express ideas as clearly as I am able, and nothing more. If I fail in that regard, mea culpa. If you believe I use "big words" as an affectation, fine, but perhaps the perception of "big words" resides more within the reader than the writer. At the same time, however, I must acknowledge the possibility that I have failed to follow the admonition to "know your audience".

*My goal is to express my ideas clearly, and your opinions of my writing do not concern me.*

That paraphrase communicates everything that the first half of your post did, in one-fifth the space. If your goal is to express ideas clearly and "nothing more" you are falling short.

I have to say it, originally I felt you had a point; not that you were absolutely right in all you said, but that there was some merit to your thinking. However, seeing as how the entire basis of your argument--the damaging public perceptions that could be created by the wanton destruction of a healthy tree--has been made moot by the fact that the tree was, in fact, already destroyed, your continuing (and increasing) abrasiveness and sarcasm do nothing but weaken the perceptions that your fellow members have of you. As one so conscious of perception, I'm sure you don't have to be told that if the messenger is not taken seriously, the message hardly matters.

If your entire purpose here is to argue for the sake of arguing, then you should certainly stay true to your present course. If not, then I can't see what you'll gain from continuing on in this thread.

 

[Inoxophile]

Christ, you're a windy one, Inoxophile.



Are you serious? Can you really say with a straight face that all photos involving hatchets and trees must be clearly marked so that the viewer knows that no live trees were harmed in the making of this picture? Is the picture-taker's later explanation really not good enough?

Garbage. Absolute hogwash. There's no sensation value in a picture of a chopped tree and a hatchet. Nobody is going to write their Congresscritter to ban hatchets because of such a picture. Maybe a photo of an entire old growth forest reduced to stumps, with a hatchet and a sweating man in the center, would provoke that...but I doubt it.



Ideas and concepts! Ooh! You're not nearly the wordsmith you think you are, boy. I've written rings around sesquipedalians like you before and never broken a sweat. The trick is to spot the central assertion behind the persiflage and give it a good thump. It's generally weak and rotten at the core; why else weave walls of words around it?

The written word may be good at conveying ideas, not to mention concepts, but one wouldn't know it by reading what you write.



Maybe that's so, but in the words of the famous athlete to the famous dictator, there's nothing wrong with us that you can fix.



In other words, you made a big bagful of stupid assumptions when you saw the photos, and are now blaming the photographer even after he has explained your error to you. If anything is going to make our community less popular than rattlesnakes and spirochetes, it's pompous blatherers agonizing over a harmless photo. Let it go!

To address some of the points you raise:

My objections to the photos as they were posted have been explained ad nauseam, and no, the photographer's later explanations really are not good enough. The rationale for my opinion has been explained previously.

If you doubt that there would be any "sensation value" in a photo depicting the destruction of an entire old growth forest, then I can understand why the current discussion (apparently) seems so absurd to you.

My central assertion is "...to do what we can to promote as positive and responsible an image as possible". Since you believe that this assertion is "weak and rotten at the core", I can only surmise that our value systems are diametrically opposed.

Insofar as "weaving walls of words", it's not difficult to see why you would come to that conclusion regarding my writing style. Personally, as I have no particular need for prevarication, I think I have been quite clear and straightforward.

I don't believe that I "made a big bagful of stupid assumptions" Perhaps you did not read one of my previous posts where I explicitly stated: "I do not know the context surrounding the photos posted to open this thread".

Finally, while in one sense I can appreciate the obvious passion this subject apparently engenders in you, I believe that your juvenile histrionics and vitriolic rantings are uncalled for. In addition, I don't appreciate being referred to as "boy".

 

[barrabas74]

sesquipedalians.......my word of the day!

 

[Inoxophile]

*My goal is to express my ideas clearly, and your opinions of my writing do not concern me.*

That paraphrase communicates everything that the first half of your post did, in one-fifth the space. If your goal is to express ideas clearly and "nothing more" you are falling short.

I have to say it, originally I felt you had a point; not that you were absolutely right in all you said, but that there was some merit to your thinking. However, seeing as how the entire basis of your argument--the damaging public perceptions that could be created by the wanton destruction of a healthy tree--has been made moot by the fact that the tree was, in fact, already destroyed, your continuing (and increasing) abrasiveness and sarcasm do nothing but weaken the perceptions that your fellow members have of you. As one so conscious of perception, I'm sure you don't have to be told that if the messenger is not taken seriously, the message hardly matters.

If your entire purpose here is to argue for the sake of arguing, then you should certainly stay true to your present course. If not, then I can't see what you'll gain from continuing on in this thread.

I appreciate your post and I think you make some good points. It is apparent that my attempts to get a simple idea across have, in fact, fallen short. My ineptitude I imagine. I also cannot argue the fact that I tend to become abrasive and sarcastic, a characteristic I actually attempt to hold in check. Finally, I agree that the messenger must be taken seriously.

I don't agree, however, with your statement that because the tree was already destroyed, we are then arguing over a moot point. As I've tried to explain previously, in my opinion, the reality of the situation is immaterial if the perception is one of irresponsibility. In the final analysis, I believe this would be the overriding factor. Lastly, I have no purpose in continuing this thread whatsoever. You'll notice that I primarily respond to the posts of others when and if it seems appropriate. Unfortunately, most posts I've read are dissimilar to yours; hence the abrasiveness and sarcasm.

 

[t1mpani]

I don't agree, however, with your statement that because the tree was already destroyed, we are then arguing over a moot point. As I've tried to explain previously, in my opinion, the reality of the situation is immaterial if the perception is one of irresponsibility. In the final analysis, I believe this would be the overriding factor.

And I'll say that "moot" was probably too simplistic--the principal argument being "weakened" would have been better phrasing. The majority of people can not easily assume viewpoints different from their own, so the fact that the tree was already in dire straits does, for most, provide a serious blow to this specific example as a support for your argument. Again, perception--if they're not coming at it from your point of view in the first place, then a perceived weakness in the argument is pretty much a deal breaker.

On the larger scope, you are right--there is a perception among some of the public at large that gun/knife/hunting/camping enthusiasts are irresponsible fools, and were this thread actually an article appearing in TIME or some other mainstream publication I would certainly be in favor of having a "No tree was killed or injured..." disclaimer right at the front where none could miss it. I think it's safe to say, however, that the majority of those who fear, disdain, or just plain don't understand knives, their uses, or the people who use them, will not likely be reading much of what we write here, or seeing these pictures. If such people were to accidentally stumble onto this site, I imagine their reaction would be to quickly navigate away lest they be tainted by our madness. So while I don't advocate going nuts and just assuming nobody but a member and fellow enthusiast will ever see what's on these boards, I don't think it's a worry that needs keep us up at night. In this case, if they do pop on to Bladeforums in search of evidence to corroborate their assumptions of our insanity, there are a lot juicier titles to choose from than "WSK Pics"

 

[demoteamone]

It's not my knife, but I love the the como :thumbup: Linger Knife and Hedgehog sheath. I think this photo is beautiful.

Ron

Nice nice nice
If I buy that knife, I will get the sheath too?

THank you
Mark

 

[t1mpani]

Nice nice nice
If I buy that knife, I will get the sheath too?

THank you
Mark

Roger's WSK does not come automatically with a sheath included. He has sheathmakers he deals with, and if you wish--when you place your order--you can request a sheath for an additional charge. If not, you can just get the knife and do whatever you want to do sheath-wise, but the advantage of ordering through him is the guys he deals with are used to this pattern.

 

[demoteamone]

Roger's WSK does not come automatically with a sheath included. He has sheathmakers he deals with, and if you wish--when you place your order--you can request a sheath for an additional charge. If not, you can just get the knife and do whatever you want to do sheath-wise, but the advantage of ordering through him is the guys he deals with are used to this pattern.

Thank you Warren...Like always :thumbup:


Mark