"Robin S." wrote in message
. ..

"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

Sadly, It's not a contest.

There's no reason to be sad - we're all friends here.

But seriously, I was just getting cheeky with you. It's a symptom of being
young (more cheekiness)

It's not too late in the game for me to remember being young. No one was
any cockier than I was. No one. However, one thing I've learned as I've
grown old is it's easier to catch flies with honey than it is with vinegar,
although I have no idea why in hell you'd want to catch flies. g


Harold, did you even read my first post within this thread?

Yes, I did, and it is for that reason that I am confused that you'd even
suggest that no one had suggested a proper method. Using your newly
acquired slang, I recognize that you, too, offered the same suggestion.
I
did so in clear, concise English. Your response (to Dave) was
abrasive
and evasive enough to give me cause to discount it, which I did.

You're right. It was abrasive, and that was intentional. I have never
appreciated his tone so I get a bit moody when responding to him.

While I don't recall the details now, I, too, have had a go-round with Dave.
I'm sure he means well, but it's often difficult for all of us to not see
ourselves as the sole authority on processes. Dave, I'm sure, has
accomplished some outstanding things in his chosen field, but may have lost
site, just as most of us do, that those of us that have worked in a given
trade for a life time also know a few things. It's not unusual for me to
speak out against given processes. It's not because I think I'm smarter
than the other guy, it's because my years of experience have taught me that
certain processes present certain risks, and I don't prefer to take them.
It often isn't a matter of what's right, or wrong, but one of making a
choice that may have a slight edge, providing a higher degree of success, or
perhaps a lower incidence of injury---and you can't, and won't---get that
without paying dues---which you do by putting in years of service.

I'm not
keen on ****ing contests. I'm also not keen on cute catch words for
particular operations. There are readers here that may not be up to
speed
on
slang terminology. I try to be clear, so anyone reading can properly
interpret good and useful information. I am not trying to impress
anyone
with my knowledge or my ability to be clever. YMMV.

I was certainly not trying to be cute or impress anyone. I find that it is
easier to use "clock" as opposed to "indicate". Unfortunately (although
not
surprisingly), Robert S. has confirmed your position. As such, I am
compelled to use proper terminology in the future, within this forum.

It doesn't hurt to keep in mind that we are a wide and varied group, posting
form many countries. By keeping to the basic terminology, we don't exclude
people. Some of these folks may have no other avenue to pursue, so we
should do our best to try to help them, not further confuse them. Even
with my long years in the shop, I still hear strange terms to describe
things machine shop related----which I attribute to being a regional kind of
thing.

It's been an interesting experience for me to follow a news group that is
comprised of a wide cross section of people. Terminology in particular has
been amusing to me. Two words have been used to death, and are not used in
keeping with their intended meaning. One of them is "tram", which has been
*******ized from the days of steam engines when a tramming tool was used to
set timing. It had nothing to do with the use of an indicator.

The other is swarf. The true definition is not the same as chips. When
you buy a CNC, it may include a chip removal system, but I have yet to read
of a swarf removing system, although you may find that a grinding machine
may offer swarf control.

And so it goes-

Harold