On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:49:00 GMT, Jim Wilson
posted:
Sandy wrote...
Jim Wilson posted:
Hyperbole, perhaps?
Nope, comparative. Cf dropping a rock on your foot 
Ok, perhaps more complex than dropping a rock on your foot, but that
doesn't say a whole lot, does it? (G)
No, but then I didn't introduce that comparison
My conclusion so far is that using vinegar to clean off rust is a
waste of bloody time
It certainly is if you watch it. (G)
Well it's approaching 24 hours and I've just had 9 hours' sleep and
the situation has not changed. Very pale yellow in the non-salt
vinegar, and if you have a really good imagination, a very,very pale
yellow in the salt vinegar. The nails have suffered NO observable
change.
In the context of whining that our discussion was OT for this forum.
Otherwise, what was the aim of his message?
That wasn't the context. He started by disagreeing with your assertion
that "What we need explaining is why the presence of sodium chloride in
the vinegar is advantageous." He noted that "we" non-chemist woodworkers
do not need that explained at all. We need only know whether it works,
not why.
So why did he go on to assert that our discussion was irrelevant?
Your explanation does not account for that.
Seems he should have kept his mouth shut if he was no longer
interested. There are many threads that I'm not interested in, and I
just ignore them. When our discussion/experiments are done, we should
have a clear conclusion as to whether it is at all efficaceous. With
or without salt. WTF is off topic about that? Sheeesh!
Indeed, even a correct, lucid, and perfectly presented explanation would
be of limited utility to the majority, although it might well be
interesting to many of us.
So it is decidedly NOT off topic as Charlie was asserting?
Look at the subject line. Many woodworkers are interested in deructing
old valuable tools, or so I've read here.
An inconclusive, jargon-filled technical
debate would have to have considerably less utility, wouldn't you agree?
No jargon in our discussion, sorry. Yes a few technical terms that are
easy to find out about if you don't already know, and all technical
subjects must have these terms and must deal with technicalities to
understand them. Understanding brings ability to adjust for different
circumstances, or so I find.
Someone suggested that salt was excellent in vinegar solution for
removing rust.
I queried this as my basic understanding of chemistry didn't tell me
why this would be so.
I've now done an experiment that shows that vinegar with and without
salt is virtually useless in derusting rusty ferrous metal.
I always followed this in practice (never having had any successs with
vinegar in the past few times I've tried it.)
Adding salt makes no difference if you are generous. In my experiment,
it was less effective than just the plain vinegar.
Only afterward did he observe that the thread had wandered into OT
territory, and even then he did not suggest aborting the thread, but
rather that the subject line should have been altered.
On what ground?
It was NOT Off Topic. More than one of us was interested in it.
And it was to do with derusting woodworking tools as per the subject
header.
And then what was the overall aim of his message?
To have a whinge, No?
Don't get me wrong -- personally, I am quite interested in the
discussion, and have been following the thread closely, but obviously I
do have a penchant for useless academic debate :-).
Interesting that you think it is useless.
I've found through my life, that one of the handiest bits of knowledge
I carry around with me, is my basic chemistry.
It helps in just about everything I do.
I interjected because
I felt your take on Charlie's post was wrong, and that the points he was
really trying to make were valid, to wit: 1) most readers of this NG
neither need nor want to understand this stuff,
And his point? Can't they just ignore it?
I take it as read, that not every reader here is interested in every
topic. I ignore most of them. I don't interject that the topic is OT.
and 2) the thread has
drifted off topic for this NG.
Which it patently hasn't. The subject header says it all.
I still want to hear it.
Then, by definition, it is ON topic.
I read Charlies message as someone being selfish and wanting no
discussions that either he couldn't follow, or that he was not
interested in. He should have ignored it, like most other rational
posters obviously did. Does he often play "NetCop"?