Cycles of tastes in Vaping.

[cheltenham cat]

squonking is proper cack mind

 

[zouzounaki]

this should have it’s own thread in “the great debate” sub forum.

 

[TheLiqidator]

Squonk life innit yo!

 

[memzey]

A good whiskey can only be enjoyed! A nice Macallan it was last night if you're interested

Anyway, to squonk or not to squonk; that is the question!

You're clinging desperately to the presupposition argument for no reason other than your personal preference on vape outcome.

I didn't think I was clinging, desperately or otherwise, to anything (other than my topside dual)! If you read my post above again, I think you'll find I even suggest another term to you. You seem have skipped that though and fixated on the word "presupposition" itself . Almost like you're clinging to it. Desperately In my professional life I might have called that a "straw man". I can't know why you responded in that way, without referencing my comment that actually is about the use of that word. I only mention this as it's what comes to mind when the direction taken seems to deflect from the topic at hand.

For me, it's yet another case in vaping where idiosyncrasies trump utility, where flaws are accepted in niche vape activity and products and, more often than not, eulogised as part of their charm.

Yes, with specific regard to squonking, that is clearly your opinion and you are entitled to it. I do see the romanticising of mediocrity, particularly tedium inducing mediocrity, quite often and it is in no way peculiar to vaping. I have hobbies where the same occurs frequently on online forums. At times I think it might be a ruse to give those using it an air of superiority over the mere mortals that just don't get it. I am not seeking to do any such thing however, and have barely mentioned the one-sided (borderline misleading) descriptions of squonking that you gave, let alone sought to eulogise on any of them. Why would I? Ultimately it's just your opinion. If that remark is directed at me specifically, perhaps you could clarify what gave rise to it?

To analyse two different juice flow systems I had deliberately set personal preference aside because of the consequent impossibility of any conclusion, but for you it's the only possible defence.

Really? I actually quite liked your redactive little summary about juice flows and power sources. That's my kind of thing. As I may have mentioned before, I do however, think that the leap you take from "the juice flow systems are different" to "squonking is a gimmick and nothing more" is unsound. If you want to test the hypothesis that squonking is a gimmick, surely you need to elaborate on whether it offers the user any real utility, above and beyond the existing options. If I try that test, I get the outcome "squonking lets me enjoy the benefits of a dripper without the need to drip". That's not bad. Certainly enough to knock it out of gimmick territory and nudge it into the realms of the viable option. It only does so however, on the presupposition (there's that word again) that RDAs and RTAs offer users different experiences of vaping and that the user in question prefers the experience given by an RDA. If you think that they are much of a muchness and can't really tell the difference on the vape between them, then it's not for you and it will, of course, look like a gimmick. If that were the case why wouldn't that vaper use a tank? Well, that's another question I suppose, I'm not going to leap into that one.

Really, it's fine if you wish to squonk, your reasons for doing it are completely legitimate, no one should take it from you. Me, no, I don't see the Emperor's new clothes.

I don't really have anything to say on this other than it comes across a little superior. I don't think that's how you intended it but perhaps you could clarify.

No surprise that you wouldn't wish to make the argument that tanks are gimmicks. Any claim that the 99% of vaping activity outside of your prefered niche is the real gimmick would be extremely difficult to justify though entertaining to read. Probably, as you say, childish to even attempt it.

As I said, I thought it would be childish to make such a claim so I didn't. I think you missed my actual point here however, which was about the fragment of the definition you gave from dictionary.com. The rest of it is copied below for completeness:
noun
1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.
2. a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or deal:An offer that good must have a gimmick in it somewhere.
3. a hidden mechanical device by which a magician works a trick or a gambler controls a game of chance.
4. Electronics Informal. a capacitor formed by intertwining two insulated wires.
verb (used with object)
to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, especially in order to increase salability, acceptance, etc. (often followed by up):to gimmick up a sports car with chrome and racing stripes.
verb (used without object)
to resort to gimmickry, especially habitually.

If you just take noun 1 as your definition, I think most innovation is at risk of falling into it, unless it goes out of its way not to attract attention or increase its appeal (hence the reference to RTAs). Happy to have cleared that up for you.

I'm calling bullshit on your assertion that RDAs predate RTAs

OK.

since the e-cigarette, with its holistic design which includes a juice supply predates both.

So does the RDA still predate the RTA then? Or are you claiming that the "e-cigarette, with its holistic design which includes a juice supply" qualifies as a Rebuildable Tank Atomiser?

Indeed the omission of juice supply in the use of RDAs is the only reason why squonking exists - the recognition of flawed utility, necessity is the mother of invention.

No argument from me on that. At certain times RDAs can be a real pain. If I didn't like the vape off of them so much I wouldn't use them. I suspect that's the same for most users of drippers, although there will be some that appreciate the associated ritual I'm sure. If only there were some other way of introducing e-liquid to an RDA without the need to actually drip. I wish they would just hurry up and think of something.....

Squonkers come and squonkers go, as a solution to the juice supply problem it's completely overshadowed by the superiority of the tank. It was, remains and will always be just a gimmick.

Well, maybe a tank is superior in some ways. It certainly has its pros. They are a bit rubbish at supplying juice to drippers though. That's a pretty big con to some. You are also presenting your opinion on a subjective matter here as an absolute. Is that what you intended or did you mean to frame it as your opinion?

That's not to say that you shouldn't enjoy it for what it is though. Instead you should embrace your gimmick knowing that preference is no defence.

Yeah, there's that superior overtone again, this time with sprinkles of gritted teeth. Unnecessary really. Perhaps this should be my last post on the matter as I'm not here to wind anyone up.

Look, if you really can't see the utility in a squonk mod then the whole endeavour will seem like a gimmick. Of course it will. I'm not trying to change your mind or to get you to agree with me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have sought to make points about utility and the subjective nature of the topic but they may also not be for you. To be clear; I wouldn't have enjoyed this tet-a-tet at all if you'd just agreed with me and enjoyed it I have. In fact, I may be engaging you as a means of challenging my own thinking on the matter. If that's the case I should thank you really as I'm even clearer on why squonks are worthwhile than I was a day ago. That's the benefit of the free exchange of ideas and why free speech is among our most precious privileges. Along with squonking of course

 

[scrumpox]

The Macallan ... whiskey or whisky?

No, to squonk or not to squonk was never the question in my mind. Rather it was pondering the nature of squonking in the context of the OP's cycling through his previous set ups. As it's such a niche activity with a unique behavioural quirk it doesn't surprise me that it's something vapers might explore, drop, revisit, drop again. Naturally a gimmick will always claim some utility, how else would the minority fall for it? If the discussion has made you more determined not to drop squonking just yet, no need to thank me, It's probably only a matter of time ... and tissues.

I'm glad that you took time, however childish it might make you appear, to post the definitions in full ... as your need for completeness brought in a tonne of irrelevance which I wanted to avoid. Or was the magic trick, the gambler and intertwining of wires just too much to resist? To be succinct, a tank and mod is a complete vapouriser, comprising all three elements of power source, atomiser and juice supply. An RDA and mod is incomplete - hence the need for the manual user intervention - AKA the gimmick.

It is all just opinion and a superior tone was not intended. Touche with the very patronising "If you read my post above again" ... as if comprehension is a skill belonging only to a limited few, eh?

 

[memzey]

Someone mentioned a debate section; I think that's an excellent idea! How about you squonkpox?

The Macallan ... whiskey or whisky?

You tell me!

I hope that you enjoyed your whiskey.

That's what too much single malt will do to you! I know, it's done the same to me as well!

No, to squonk or not to squonk was never the question in my mind. Rather it was pondering the nature of squonking in the context of the OP's cycling through his previous set ups. As it's such a niche activity with a unique behavioural quirk it doesn't surprise me that it's something vapers might explore, drop, revisit, drop again.

You are quite right to bring us back to the OP! Unfortunately we appear to have lamentably and irrecoverably derailed his thread - apologies @Rob for my part in doing so.

That excellent opening post espouses the benefits of a number of squonk mods and atomisers, which fell out of favour but were rediscovered and are now being enjoyed again (as did the post from @TheLiqidator which you misleadingly edited and quoted). You take this as evidence of a gimmick. I don't think this is necessarily the case. Even if there was a trend it wouldn't make a difference to the question of whether the squonk mods themselves have a meaningful utility (or are just gimmicks). The thing to be clear on is whether the squonk mods had always offered a solution to a problem; in this case of needing to drip when it is inconvenient to do so. Any number of factors could obviate the need for that utility over a period of time however, if the utility was present to begin with then it would have remained. For one reason or another, that utility is now being deployed once more.

With respect to the explore, drop, revisit pattern; I think it could be said that is the same for many other things. I've been the same with RTAs in the past and have completely stopped using stock coil tanks for some time now. I wouldn't call either of those gimmicks rather, the balance between utility and other factors they encompass doesn't meet my needs as frequently as before. To me and other users who share my view, squonk mods aren't a gimmick because the balance of utility and other factors they encompass does meet our needs. This is very clear and equally clear is that not everyone else will share that view. That doesn't mean that anyone who holds a view different to my own has somehow been hoodwinked into accepting a gimmick or lacks my capacity to see through "the Emperor's new clothes". Nope. It might just mean that the tipping point in their "utility and other factors" equation is different to mine. This, it seems to me, is the nub of where we are. Your tipping point informs statements including terms like "superiority of the tank" and such like. Perhaps a reason for this is because you don't enjoy RDAs as much as those that view this differently to you, I don't really know as you have not shared this.

From my perspective I came to squonking relatively recently and can't quite get my head around why there would be trends in vaping at all (beyond aesthetics I suppose) as it seems a very functional pursuit; a reliably satisfying nicotine delivery system in my case. That doesn't mean I don't recognise gimmicks being present in the industry, rather I simply focus on the utility. A utility which in this case you do not recognise. That's fair enough but I have invited you to acknowledge that all those that view the matter differently to you aren't doing so because they are gullible enough to have fallen for a gimmick. This seems beyond you for now.

Naturally a gimmick will always claim some utility, how else would the minority fall for it? If the discussion has made you more determined not to drop squonking just yet, no need to thank me, It's probably only a matter of time ... and tissues.

Tissues? I'm fond of a squonk but steady on.
In all seriousness you have described squonk mods as being a "faff to refill" and requiring tissues (I assume for cleaning up spilt eliquid). I've only been squonking for less than a year but I must say my experiences couldn't be more different. My topside dual is a doddle to fill, doesn't leak, holds 10ml of liquid (meaning it requires less frequent top ups than any of my tanks) and is genuinely a well thought out and innovative device. Perhaps squonk mods of a few years ago weren't as slick but my experience at least doesn't resemble your description. Perhaps your experiences of squonking have been different? Care to share?

I'm glad that you took time, however childish it might make you appear, to post the definitions in full ... as your need for completeness brought in a tonne of irrelevance which I wanted to avoid. Or was the magic trick, the gambler and intertwining of wires just too much to resist?

I didn't think I was being childish, sorry dad. Actually it wasn't the magic trick, the gambler or the intertwining of wires that I thought was relevant. It was the use of gimmick as a verb (dictionary.com is a crap site) which is the only entry in the definition that you haven't mentioned at least once and is the only one that is actually relevant. Copied below again:

verb (used with object)
to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, especially in order to increase salability, acceptance, etc. (often followed by up):to gimmick up a sports car with chrome and racing stripes.

Actually Cambridge's definition is more concise and uses UK English but that site is a pig to copy from. The pertinent point being unnecessary features designed to lure the gullible are gimmicks. What is necessary for me in this case is something to obviate the need to drip when dripping is inconvenient. Squonk mods do that. Tanks do not, or rather, do not without other undesirable consequences.

To be succinct, a tank and mod is a complete vapouriser, comprising all three elements of power source, atomiser and juice supply. An RDA and mod is incomplete - hence the need for the manual user intervention - AKA the gimmick.

I don't mean to be picky but aren't they both incomplete without some juice to vaporise? In which case the real difference is the interval for recharging their juice supply (tank for the RTA, wicks and juice well for the dripper). This interval is far more frequent with an RDA. Unless you use a squonk. Which is exactly the central point. I think you are making my argument for me here

It is all just opinion and a superior tone was not intended. Touche with the very patronising "If you read my post above again" ... as if comprehension is a skill belonging only to a limited few, eh?

I did not mean to patronise. I have read it again and it still doesn't seem patronising to me. What selection of words would you suggest I used to point the same thing out without appearing so? Genuine question. I don't think you lack comprehension skills by the way. I do think you are deflecting though and I don't really understand why. Perhaps the fault lies with me and I have been unclear with my points so far. Let me boil it down and ask you a simple question if I may; If you preferred the vape from an RDA over any other type of atomiser, would you consider a feature that obviated the need to drip or carry a bottle useful?

 

[Deleted member 54254]

 

[Rickster]

A good whiskey can only be enjoyed! A nice Macallan it was last night if you're interested

Anyway, to squonk or not to squonk; that is the question!

I didn't think I was clinging, desperately or otherwise, to anything (other than my topside dual)! If you read my post above again, I think you'll find I even suggest another term to you. You seem have skipped that though and fixated on the word "presupposition" itself . Almost like you're clinging to it. Desperately In my professional life I might have called that a "straw man". I can't know why you responded in that way, without referencing my comment that actually is about the use of that word. I only mention this as it's what comes to mind when the direction taken seems to deflect from the topic at hand.

Yes, with specific regard to squonking, that is clearly your opinion and you are entitled to it. I do see the romanticising of mediocrity, particularly tedium inducing mediocrity, quite often and it is in no way peculiar to vaping. I have hobbies where the same occurs frequently on online forums. At times I think it might be a ruse to give those using it an air of superiority over the mere mortals that just don't get it. I am not seeking to do any such thing however, and have barely mentioned the one-sided (borderline misleading) descriptions of squonking that you gave, let alone sought to eulogise on any of them. Why would I? Ultimately it's just your opinion. If that remark is directed at me specifically, perhaps you could clarify what gave rise to it?

Really? I actually quite liked your redactive little summary about juice flows and power sources. That's my kind of thing. As I may have mentioned before, I do however, think that the leap you take from "the juice flow systems are different" to "squonking is a gimmick and nothing more" is unsound. If you want to test the hypothesis that squonking is a gimmick, surely you need to elaborate on whether it offers the user any real utility, above and beyond the existing options. If I try that test, I get the outcome "squonking lets me enjoy the benefits of a dripper without the need to drip". That's not bad. Certainly enough to knock it out of gimmick territory and nudge it into the realms of the viable option. It only does so however, on the presupposition (there's that word again) that RDAs and RTAs offer users different experiences of vaping and that the user in question prefers the experience given by an RDA. If you think that they are much of a muchness and can't really tell the difference on the vape between them, then it's not for you and it will, of course, look like a gimmick. If that were the case why wouldn't that vaper use a tank? Well, that's another question I suppose, I'm not going to leap into that one.

I don't really have anything to say on this other than it comes across a little superior. I don't think that's how you intended it but perhaps you could clarify.

As I said, I thought it would be childish to make such a claim so I didn't. I think you missed my actual point here however, which was about the fragment of the definition you gave from dictionary.com. The rest of it is copied below for completeness:
noun
1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.
2. a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or deal:An offer that good must have a gimmick in it somewhere.
3. a hidden mechanical device by which a magician works a trick or a gambler controls a game of chance.
4. Electronics Informal. a capacitor formed by intertwining two insulated wires.
verb (used with object)
to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, especially in order to increase salability, acceptance, etc. (often followed by up):to gimmick up a sports car with chrome and racing stripes.
verb (used without object)
to resort to gimmickry, especially habitually.

If you just take noun 1 as your definition, I think most innovation is at risk of falling into it, unless it goes out of its way not to attract attention or increase its appeal (hence the reference to RTAs). Happy to have cleared that up for you.


OK.

So does the RDA still predate the RTA then? Or are you claiming that the "e-cigarette, with its holistic design which includes a juice supply" qualifies as a Rebuildable Tank Atomiser?

No argument from me on that. At certain times RDAs can be a real pain. If I didn't like the vape off of them so much I wouldn't use them. I suspect that's the same for most users of drippers, although there will be some that appreciate the associated ritual I'm sure. If only there were some other way of introducing e-liquid to an RDA without the need to actually drip. I wish they would just hurry up and think of something.....

Well, maybe a tank is superior in some ways. It certainly has its pros. They are a bit rubbish at supplying juice to drippers though. That's a pretty big con to some. You are also presenting your opinion on a subjective matter here as an absolute. Is that what you intended or did you mean to frame it as your opinion?

Yeah, there's that superior overtone again, this time with sprinkles of gritted teeth. Unnecessary really. Perhaps this should be my last post on the matter as I'm not here to wind anyone up.

Look, if you really can't see the utility in a squonk mod then the whole endeavour will seem like a gimmick. Of course it will. I'm not trying to change your mind or to get you to agree with me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have sought to make points about utility and the subjective nature of the topic but they may also not be for you. To be clear; I wouldn't have enjoyed this tet-a-tet at all if you'd just agreed with me and enjoyed it I have. In fact, I may be engaging you as a means of challenging my own thinking on the matter. If that's the case I should thank you really as I'm even clearer on why squonks are worthwhile than I was a day ago. That's the benefit of the free exchange of ideas and why free speech is among our most precious privileges. Along with squonking of course

In the name of the wee man....do you expect any cunt to read all that shit

 

[Rickster]

Someone mentioned a debate section; I think that's an excellent idea! How about you squonkpox?


You tell me!


That's what too much single malt will do to you! I know, it's done the same to me as well!


You are quite right to bring us back to the OP! Unfortunately we appear to have lamentably and irrecoverably derailed his thread - apologies @Rob for my part in doing so.

That excellent opening post espouses the benefits of a number of squonk mods and atomisers, which fell out of favour but were rediscovered and are now being enjoyed again (as did the post from @TheLiqidator which you misleadingly edited and quoted). You take this as evidence of a gimmick. I don't think this is necessarily the case. Even if there was a trend it wouldn't make a difference to the question of whether the squonk mods themselves have a meaningful utility (or are just gimmicks). The thing to be clear on is whether the squonk mods had always offered a solution to a problem; in this case of needing to drip when it is inconvenient to do so. Any number of factors could obviate the need for that utility over a period of time however, if the utility was present to begin with then it would have remained. For one reason or another, that utility is now being deployed once more.

With respect to the explore, drop, revisit pattern; I think it could be said that is the same for many other things. I've been the same with RTAs in the past and have completely stopped using stock coil tanks for some time now. I wouldn't call either of those gimmicks rather, the balance between utility and other factors they encompass doesn't meet my needs as frequently as before. To me and other users who share my view, squonk mods aren't a gimmick because the balance of utility and other factors they encompass does meet our needs. This is very clear and equally clear is that not everyone else will share that view. That doesn't mean that anyone who holds a view different to my own has somehow been hoodwinked into accepting a gimmick or lacks my capacity to see through "the Emperor's new clothes". Nope. It might just mean that the tipping point in their "utility and other factors" equation is different to mine. This, it seems to me, is the nub of where we are. Your tipping point informs statements including terms like "superiority of the tank" and such like. Perhaps a reason for this is because you don't enjoy RDAs as much as those that view this differently to you, I don't really know as you have not shared this.

From my perspective I came to squonking relatively recently and can't quite get my head around why there would be trends in vaping at all (beyond aesthetics I suppose) as it seems a very functional pursuit; a reliably satisfying nicotine delivery system in my case. That doesn't mean I don't recognise gimmicks being present in the industry, rather I simply focus on the utility. A utility which in this case you do not recognise. That's fair enough but I have invited you to acknowledge that all those that view the matter differently to you aren't doing so because they are gullible enough to have fallen for a gimmick. This seems beyond you for now.

Tissues? I'm fond of a squonk but steady on.
In all seriousness you have described squonk mods as being a "faff to refill" and requiring tissues (I assume for cleaning up spilt eliquid). I've only been squonking for less than a year but I must say my experiences couldn't be more different. My topside dual is a doddle to fill, doesn't leak, holds 10ml of liquid (meaning it requires less frequent top ups than any of my tanks) and is genuinely a well thought out and innovative device. Perhaps squonk mods of a few years ago weren't as slick but my experience at least doesn't resemble your description. Perhaps your experiences of squonking have been different? Care to share?

I didn't think I was being childish, sorry dad. Actually it wasn't the magic trick, the gambler or the intertwining of wires that I thought was relevant. It was the use of gimmick as a verb (dictionary.com is a crap site) which is the only entry in the definition that you haven't mentioned at least once and is the only one that is actually relevant. Copied below again:

verb (used with object)
to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, especially in order to increase salability, acceptance, etc. (often followed by up):to gimmick up a sports car with chrome and racing stripes.

Actually Cambridge's definition is more concise and uses UK English but that site is a pig to copy from. The pertinent point being unnecessary features designed to lure the gullible are gimmicks. What is necessary for me in this case is something to obviate the need to drip when dripping is inconvenient. Squonk mods do that. Tanks do not, or rather, do not without other undesirable consequences.


I don't mean to be picky but aren't they both incomplete without some juice to vaporise? In which case the real difference is the interval for recharging their juice supply (tank for the RTA, wicks and juice well for the dripper). This interval is far more frequent with an RDA. Unless you use a squonk. Which is exactly the central point. I think you are making my argument for me here

I did not mean to patronise. I have read it again and it still doesn't seem patronising to me. What selection of words would you suggest I used to point the same thing out without appearing so? Genuine question. I don't think you lack comprehension skills by the way. I do think you are deflecting though and I don't really understand why. Perhaps the fault lies with me and I have been unclear with my points so far. Let me boil it down and ask you a simple question if I may; If you preferred the vape from an RDA over any other type of atomiser, would you consider a feature that obviated the need to drip or carry a bottle useful?

Holy shit... you on crack bro

 

[TheLiqidator]

Is this my fault?

I hate it when mummy and daddy fight.

Who's taking me to the Wimpy for a bender in a bum and a strawberry milkshake when this is all over?