Hi Mike,

I clearly understand that usenet is like talking with a bunch of
friends. It's in no way scientific or the truth but I believe it's a
very interesting way to come up with unexpected aspects of a subject I
may not have think about in the first place alone. It just opens up my
horizons and gives more depth to my articles.

All my articles are built in the same way. I gather every aspect I
want to cover on the subject and organize them in categories or topics
and then I write the article.

I never rely on newsgroup as per say to write articles but once and a
while, when I'm looking for a source of inspiration I find it tempting
to ask around here.

Unfortunately, each time I do it, I end up clarifying my initial post
because people don't read it (or don't make the effort to understand)
or they try to make me say something I never said.

In other words, 9.9 times out of 10, it's a complete waste of time
because it won't turn out anything useful aside from a great amount of
sarcams and false assumptions when it's not just plain insults.

Since I'm a very optimistic person, I always believe (I'm certainly
still too naive) that a few persons can discuss on a subject and bring
some interesting arguments and explanations. This discussion this
morning just prove the opposite again and it's certainly why, among
other things, a lot of very interesting people with something to say
and share eventually shut up and quit rec.woodworking. When one have
nothing to say, share or have no opinion on a subject, it would just
be logical they don't post especially if their answers are intented to
turn the initial poster into an idiot.

On the other hand, I would like to thank all those of you who did make
an effort to share some information like Han who provided a link to
useful information.

Thanks,


Greg D.




On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:13:55 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Greg D." wrote in message
.. .


The reason why I posted this request was to get some feedback about
potential risks of fire in a typical workshop based on your
experiences or what you may have heard on the subject. Obviously, you
didn't understand that at all from my initial post.


Hey Greg - I have to confess, when I first read your original post I was a
bit put off. I thought that the last thing I really wanted to see was
another uninformed "reality/experience" article. There are so many of those
kinds of articles out there that although perhaps well intended, do nothing
more than perpetuate myths and misunderstandings. Experiences such as would
be found in a group like this more often reflect anecdotal data and/or
assumptions based on an incomplete investigative process. The net is a
preponderance of poor conclusions. No point in propgating this type of
thing.

Just my thoughts - sorry that they don't support your efforts. I'd really
rather see a more scientific approach to workshop hazards than is likely to
come from what we could give you. Most of us are comfortable with a close
to accurate understanding of what might have happened in a particular
incident and chose not to do that again. It works, but for the sake of an
article I think your readers would deserve more accurate information.