Cliff Stamp wrote:hunterseeker5 wrote:So I'm a bit baffled by this.
It is very easy to judge someone at fault for being what we would conclude is obvious ignorance because we, the enlightened few, have the knowledge. However it is rare that the same individuals would feel that it is ok to reverse the situation upon them if they failed to be aware of what was "obvious" to others......
No no no, pardon me. What was baffling me wasn't that someone couldn't figure out lint was caught in their lock mechanism, what baffled me was how the OP was so certain it was NOT that. While your argument holds to an extent, that is to say someone with less knowledge wouldn't recognize something which would be obvious to someone with more knowledge/experience, I would think that would put you in a position of struggling to refute the assertions of the person in the stronger position. I would liken it to people who go out and spot UFOs and then claim to have seen aliens; what they are seeing is right in the title: UNIDENTIFIED. Hence if I had an unidentified flying lock failure, and someone who was experienced with locks told me that it was a broken lock bar, I wouldn't be very likely to claim that was untrue and in fact it was aliens interfering with my knife.
This is why I didn't come out to attack the OP, or call him names, or tell him he was a douche for whining on the spyder forums, or anything else like that. I simply wanted to give him a chance to rationally address how/why he thought his lock might have failed as he clearly rejected the explanation given by the person who fixed it. I'm perfectly willing/happy to hear a technical argument from his perspective. In lieu of that however, there is little else to do than simply accept the technical explanation given by the only other person who assessed the problem.
And yes, I have been in the reverse position where I've done something to a Spyder which produced shall we say sub-optimal performance, and been accosted for it on the forums. I did however have at least some sort of reason for why I took the actions I did, and why I expected the outcome to be different. From there, the debate becomes (IMO) much more productive because you and whoever you're debating with (ideally) get to assess the basis of the assumptions and hopefully reach greater understanding if not consensus. A perfect example would be the corrosion of the stop pin on one of my Para2s. I had assumed, mistakenly, that a simple soap and water cleaning would not cause corrosion of a tight-tolerance critical part, because A) it was recommended by Spyderco as the preferred cleaning method, B) such corrosion would negatively affect the function of the knife, cutting short its useful life and, C) I assumed it would be irrational to produce a knife with a premium stainless steel blade but have the rest of the knife be highly susceptible to corrosion. A number of members on the Spyderco forum disagreed with this assessment, making a variety of arguments, including things like it is irrational to clean your knife with soap and water as that promotes corrosion and that some other PM2 stop pins have prematurely corroded so it is the expected performance of the knife. As it turns out, Charlynn thought somewhat more along my lines, and indicated to me this was not the expected performance of the knife and the stop pin is being replaced as we speak. (she is a superstar BTW, just a little sidenote) This sort of exchange however I think may have gone very differently had I simply said that the stop pin rusted and this is bullsh*t or Sal is an asshat or something else like that. So this is why I think that the mechanism/reasoning is important, as it sort of cuts through some aspects of personal feeling/gut reaction and can get you down to the meat of the problem.
An I being unreasonable? Are my expectations off? Or was the intent of my previous post simply not as obvious as I had thought and would have liked?