"Roy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:35:46 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

===Harold sez:
===
==="I guess you might say it's a personal judgment call."
===
===Yeah, Harold and a good call it is. The original designers had good
reason
===to include the pin and it should be left in. IMO, those that rant
about the
===pin not being really necessary are just looking for an excuse to
justify
===their sloppy procedures.
===
===Bob Swinney
snip

I think that is a pretty unfair statement. A persons desire to have or
not have the index pin is certainly not a reflection of the quality
of their work proceedures by any means. Its akin to saying those that
use a China made tool to make an item will produce an item that is
inferior to an item made with an American made machine. Simply not
true as to an index pin in or out reflects on work proceedures or
quality of work produced.
snip----

When you've spent as much time working in commercial shops as I have, you'll
come to understand exactly what he mean. To the man, those that cut
corners, be it in processes or how they approach machine tools, tend to be
not great machinists. The problem is that when they're surrounded by people
like themselves, there's no one to make them look as bad as they are.
Those with the greatest skills and ability deal with the field of machining
in a totally different way. If you've ever worked with someone that has
that level of skill, you'd know and understand it quite well. They stand
out. I've yet to see it any different, and I've been on machines since the
late 50's commercially. The very idea that a feature of a machine is
eliminated because a worker is incompetent (what else would you call it?)
and screws up a machine because they're either in too much of a hurry to do
it right, or don't know enough to do so, is a perfect example of sloppy
procedure, regardless of the reason. Sorry, I agree with Bob. It does
reflect on the work that is produced.

Harold