In article , "Swingman" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

BTW, I think I just figured out why you've been so confused by this
discussion: you've been reading the word "jointed" and assuming that
everyone
who uses it is talking about *edge* jointing only, without realizing that the
context makes it quite plain that we've been talking about *face* jointing.

See if you like this restatement of my first paragraph here better:

.. which is why, if you want wood that's straight and flat, you don't buy
wood that's been planed but *not* jointed one face and one edge.

Not necessarily ... But I think I've figured out where _we_ have BOTH been
confused about the other's contentions.

I'm certainly confused by your repeated insistence that it's not necessary to
specify jointing when ordering S2S lumber. This does not make *any* sense,
because:
a) the standard for S2S does not specify jointing, therefore S2S lumber can be
assumed to not have been jointed;
b) boards which have not been jointed, and yet have at least one face that is
perfectly straight and flat, with an edge that is also perfectly straight
and perpendicular to that face, are so rare as to be for all practical
purposes nonexistent;
c) S2S lumber therefore cannot be assumed to be straight and fa;
d) therefore it should be jointed before use; and finally
e) if the purchaser does not have the means to joint it himself, he'd better
order it that way or he won't get it that way.

Kindly hear me out before snapping back ... thanks.

Looking back over the thread this afternoon trying to figure out where it
went out of whack, and I believe the below is the pivotal point at which we
started down a diverging semantics path ... and it is entirely my fault:

Thank you.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message:

Well, no, not quite -- if he orders wood S2S1E without *also* specifying
that it is to be jointed *too*, what he's going to get from most
lumberyards is
wood that's been planed two sides and straight-line ripped one edge, but
not jointed anywhere.

While I am in _complete_ agreement with the latter half of the above,
unfortunately my response quoted the entire, while my intent was to take
some exception to ONLY the following:

Well, no, not quite -- if he orders wood S2S1E without *also* specifying
that it is to be jointed *too*,

I can see where injudiciously, in haste to reply, my including the latter
half caused the mistaken notion that I somehow assumed jointing was a
necessary requirement for SxSxE lumber, which is far from the truth, and
something I thought I had made quite plain in a definition of surfaced
lumber in a prior post.

I apologize for the sloppiness.

I never stated, or thought, that you assumed that jointing was a necessary
requirement for the production of SxSxE lumber.

However, I continue to disagree with the blanket assertion that the
following statement, which started the whole shooting match, is wrong:

What the OP REALLY wants, being without a jointer, is S2S1E ... that way
he
can rip the opposite edge to the desired width and use his planer to plane
for the desired thickness.

On this we shall have to continue to disagree.

Indeed we do disagree on that point. I will continue to maintain that for the
OP, or anyone else who does not own a jointer, to stop ordering jointed lumber
and instead deliberately purchase lumber that still needs to processed with a
tool he does not own, is not a reasonable thing to do. Certainly there are
other ways of preparing straight flat stock without using a jointer (jointer
planes and planer sleds being the most obvious), but about the only way
that's more convenient than using your own jointer is paying someone else to
joint it for you -- which is essentially what the OP was doing by ordering his
lumber jointed.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.