My first Spydercos

Status
Not open for further replies.
ferider said:
BTW, regarding the hump: the reduction of material due to Spydie hole, and the reduction of effort when using the knife: both decrease the knife's carbon foot-print. At least that's the consensus of the scientific community; numerous models and available scientific data have shown that the hump has positive impact on Climate Change. Ugly or not, you should try one - you'll help save our planet !
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the anthropogenic global warming catastrophe "theory" is pseudoscience.
 
Cursum Perficio said:
I remember being unsure before my first one, but once I'd tried a good hump - wow! - I was sold.

To me, it's not a hump, it's a thumb ramp. Para 2, sabre grip, push thumb into jimped ramp, feel it lock so securely into the hand, that's a real benefit, and more about using it than looking at it.

If you prefer the not-so-much hump on the Manix 2, cool, it's an extremely solid folder with awesome ergonomics, slightly under 3.5", though be aware, it's far more substantial than the Li'l Native and Chaparrel.

But, how do you feel about a good stiff ball-lock?

QP8jmjo.jpg

N2qj1X1.jpg
Click to expand...

I was waiting for someone to say the hump makes for a good thumb ramp, but I find jimping on an unelevated blade spine (relevant to the tang spine) to provide just as good of a grip. If one was stabbing I could perhaps see an advantage to a thumb ramp, but I don't stab with my knives.

You guys need to quit telling me the Manix and Chaparral have humps!! I regard them as humpless. For example, in your two photos, I regard the top two blades (Manixes?) as humpless, while the third is obviously (and grotesquely) humped.

I've never used a ball lock, but am game. Someone mentions they loosen up with use, and I've come to expect a break-in period.

I see the Manix 2 is rather hefty, but I think I saw some lighter versions.
 
934F3F0E-E8C2-49E9-B6F8-F49A12FD4388.jpeg
sharp_edge said:
Many of the Spyderco models are still ugly in looking but after one experiences how great their function is, that ugliness can turn into kind of beauty.
Click to expand...
Modern folders in my inventory are 50/50 Benchmade and Spyderco. When my hands are full of mud and I need to open my knife, my Spyderco is easier to open than the Benchmade.
 
Last edited:
Closed while I sort this out and issue warnings with points.
 
Two warnings issued for insults.

State your opinion on the topic. Do not state your opinion of another poster.

Reopened.
 
I had to pick up a couple of Spydercos and get past the form, and then, the function was so good, the form was also appealing once I bought and enjoyed my first paramilitary
 
Pteronarcyd said:
I was waiting for someone to say the hump makes for a good thumb ramp, but I find jimping on an unelevated blade spine (relevant to the tang spine) to provide just as good of a grip. If one was stabbing I could perhaps see an advantage to a thumb ramp, but I don't stab with my knives.

You guys need to quit telling me the Manix and Chaparral have humps!! I regard them as humpless. For example, in your two photos, I regard the top two blades (Manixes?) as humpless, while the third is obviously (and grotesquely) humped.

I've never used a ball lock, but am game. Someone mentions they loosen up with use, and I've come to expect a break-in period.

I see the Manix 2 is rather hefty, but I think I saw some lighter versions.
Click to expand...

We need to quit telling you...? If you're only interested in your own opinions on things then why come here and prattle on?

I haven't even been able to discern a point to your posts. Are you trying to convince us that humps are bad? You went out of your way to point out that everyone seems to love Spydercos and you tested them to see whether the hype was valid. So since they have YOUR approval do we have permission to carry on enjoying our Spydies? Only the humpless ones of course. God forbid MY knife not conform to your aesthetic standard.

You certainly seem to think highly of yourself. I'm glad you enjoy your knives, but I think I'll carry on with my humps. :confused::rolleyes:
 
T.L.E. Sharp said:
We need to quit telling you...? If you're only interested in your own opinions on things then why come here and prattle on?

I haven't even been able to discern a point to your posts. Are you trying to convince us that humps are bad? You went out of your way to point out that everyone seems to love Spydercos and you tested them to see whether the hype was valid. So since they have YOUR approval do we have permission to carry on enjoying our Spydies? Only the humpless ones of course. God forbid MY knife not conform to your aesthetic standard.

You certainly seem to think highly of yourself. I'm glad you enjoy your knives, but I think I'll carry on with my humps. :confused::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Those who never hump are often highly judgmental of those of us who enjoy a good hump. But I generally don't let the limitations other folks impose upon themselves for whatever reason, no matter how arbitrary, affect my enjoyment.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
Those who never hump are often highly judgmental of those of us who enjoy a good hump. But I generally don't let the limitations other folks impose upon themselves for whatever reason, no matter how arbitrary, affect my enjoyment.
Click to expand...

Agreed! I don't do that fancy scientificating, but I think my hump enjoyment is plenty valid. Sometimes I even enjoy humps that belong to others... when they're not using them.
 
That's funny 5X5.

Strange thread. I like girls. But I only like brunettes shorter than 5'.5' tall. I will now judge all women by my standards, so blondes, redheads and black hair is not included in my scientific test of girls. Right!

I only like what I like and I'm not going to let you talk me out of what I like or into what I don't like.

Sometimes I feel like a hump (Delica).
Sometimes I don't (Native)
Sometimes I'm not sure (Sage)

Sorry man, you're really hard to track. What is it that you are here to say? It's a Spyderco forum. Many here are trying to have this conversation. I am the President of Spyderco and I know more about our designs than anyone, and I can't figure out what you are trying to learn?

sal
 
The hump might be ugly, but the hump works, embrace the the Hump. Spyderco makes good knives with lots of different designs, I avoided them for a while, when I was being cheap. Dipped my toe in with a couple Byrds, then started spending more and got a Para 2, Manix 2, the collection is still growing. I plan on getting a Delica next for a light weight option.

Sal, is seriously one of the most patient, tolerant people I've ever seen on a company board. Either that or he goes home and kicks the dog after reading some of this stuff. He gets points for his handling of the more interesting characters.
 
Having a well designed working tool is more beneficial than being bothered by what it looks like. Of course, you have to be outside in the elements to understand that aspect of the hump.
Come to think of it, no one has ever said “that’s an ugly knife” when I’ve shown them one of my Spyderco’s, imagine that. And those folks aren’t even knife people. I’ve sold more Delica’s to co workers than any other knife brand that I have.
 
Blues Bender said:
Can you expand on this?
Click to expand...

How about letting a Nobel laureate in physics do so?:


Per Wikipedia:

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited.

Wikipedia goes on to list indicators of pseudoscience:
  • Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
  • Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
  • Lack of openness to testing by other experts
  • Absence of progress
  • Personalization of issues
  • Use of misleading language.
Climate alarmism fits every characteristic and indicator above. To top it off, the social justice warriors at Wikipedia use "climate change denial" as an example of a pseudoscience (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience).

Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist and mathematician of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, has on more rational, science-based perspective on global warming. Here is an interview of him on the topic (it starts about 3:00):


His lengthy Wikipedia entry summarizes his view on global warming:

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists and that one of its main causes is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. He has said that in many ways increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is beneficial, and that it is increasing biological growth, agricultural yields and forests. He believes that existing simulation models of climate change fail to account for some important factors, and that the results thus contain too great a margin of error to reliably predict future trends.

Dyson's views on global warming have been criticized. Climate scientist James Hansen said that Dyson "doesn't know what he's talking about.... If he's going to wander into something with major consequences for humanity and other life on the planet, then he should first do his homework—which he obviously has not done on global warming." Dyson replied that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

In 2008 Dyson endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, but argued that political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority.

Since originally taking interest in climate studies in the 1970s, Dyson has suggested that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could be controlled by planting fast-growing trees. He calculates that it would take a trillion trees to remove all carbon from the atmosphere. In a 2014 interview he said, "What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate ... It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled."

Dyson is a member of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think tank chaired by Nigel Lawson.
 
Pteronarcyd said:
How about letting a Nobel laureate in physics do so?:


Per Wikipedia:

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited.

Wikipedia goes on to list indicators of pseudoscience:
  • Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
  • Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
  • Lack of openness to testing by other experts
  • Absence of progress
  • Personalization of issues
  • Use of misleading language.
Climate alarmism fits every characteristic and indicator above. To top it off, the social justice warriors at Wikipedia use "climate change denial" as an example of a pseudoscience (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience).

Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist and mathematician of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, has on more rational, science-based perspective on global warming. Here is an interview of him on the topic (it starts about 3:00):


His lengthy Wikipedia entry summarizes his view on global warming:

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists and that one of its main causes is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. He has said that in many ways increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is beneficial, and that it is increasing biological growth, agricultural yields and forests. He believes that existing simulation models of climate change fail to account for some important factors, and that the results thus contain too great a margin of error to reliably predict future trends.

Dyson's views on global warming have been criticized. Climate scientist James Hansen said that Dyson "doesn't know what he's talking about.... If he's going to wander into something with major consequences for humanity and other life on the planet, then he should first do his homework—which he obviously has not done on global warming." Dyson replied that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

In 2008 Dyson endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, but argued that political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority.

Since originally taking interest in climate studies in the 1970s, Dyson has suggested that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could be controlled by planting fast-growing trees. He calculates that it would take a trillion trees to remove all carbon from the atmosphere. In a 2014 interview he said, "What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate ... It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled."

Dyson is a member of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think tank chaired by Nigel Lawson.
Click to expand...

Please refer to post #47 this thread, that's a Mod saying stay on topic.
There are sub forums for going OT. This not one of them.
 
Cursum Perficio said:
Please refer to post #47 this thread, that's a Mod saying stay on topic.
There are sub forums for going OT. This not one of them.
Click to expand...
I was asked to elaborate. I did. I'm not aware that is against any rule, but then neither am I aware of your vigilantism being against any rule.

By the way, reread post #47. Please don't put words in the moderator's mouth.

I advise you to stay on topic. Straying doesn't work well for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top