Yet another Emerson thread in General....

Originally posted by Aphthartos
Click to expand...
BTW I would really appreciate it you would explain why it is silly to prefer the torx. At least I haven't found the source which would state clearly that torx is inferior to philips. Strider, REKAT, Kershaw Microtech, and Benchmade, all of them use torx.
From other sources my understanding is that it [the torx] offers a better performance, harder to strip, etc.

One does exclude the other under certain circumstances. As I tried to explain, slimming the knife down would create larger problems, like a weaker handle.
Wide meant Y dimention, not Z. I didn't mean its thickness.
 
It's not silly to prefer them. It's silly to think that it's any kind of a mark of a high quality production knife. Torx screws have many advantages, like you can tighten them tighter than normal screws, they also have disadvantages, like it's sometimes hard to find a set of torx drivers, and you HAVE to have them. The advantages of phillips and flathead screws are that you can take the knife apart easily. One of the great things about Emerson knives is that you can take them apart without voiding the warranty. They were built to be taken apart and cleaned by the knife owner IN THE FIELD, not the factory. So they were designed with convenient screws.
 
Gentlemen, it's time I too step in with the calming gestures and ask that everyone calm down.

Gator97 freely admits that English isn't his primary language and I for one am happy to concede that point.

Let's try and keep this forum civil. Again, as has been pointed out, Gator97 didn't bring his review here "Rouge Spear" did.

Zviad, if you've indeed taught yourself English, my hat is off too you. Having lived in other countries, I know how difficult that can be.

That having been said (and you dragged me back into this), I still think it's one of the poorest excuses of a "review", grammar aside, that I have ever seen. A little more research and fact based "facts" would go a long way.

Respectfully,

John
 
""You've still confused the two. What is logic? A system of thought. What are brain functions? That's pretty obvious, they're brain functions. The two are NOT the same thing, although they are related. Most people who've seriously studied anything in philosophy of mind learn these things rather quickly. Logic doesn't "come from" anywhere, that's a nice phenomenological fairy tale, but it's irrational. I also hate to burst your bubble, but mathematics and logic are abstract.""

Logic, my man, is a type of brain function. If this is confusing, let's thro out the term "logic" and replace it with "logic skill", to specify degrees of logical ability. It is a brain function. Not a physical brain function like synapses jolting each other, but a cerabral function, like reasoning, memory, and creativity.
To say mathematics and logic are abstract is absurd in the least. Mathematics is the science of structures and numbers and their relationships to each other. It is as empirical as a discipline gets. Logic is not absract either. It is based on deduction of simple truths, also emperical. The Big Blue computer that almost beat the world's greatest chess player did so because chess is a highly mathematical game, and requires no abstract thinking.

""You keep saying I'm wrong, but it's becoming obvious you know very little about philosophy of mind. You've certainly got yourself twisted around in a mess of fallacies though.""

Philosophy of mind is your baby, not mine. And I'm not sure why it was ever involved in this thread. As far as a mess of fallacies goes, try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top