"LRod" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:23:38 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I'd like to see how long it would take Norm to do a complete project.
Y'know ONE live, uncut camera session.

Why? Is that the way you work?

In any event, although Roy does a complete 24 minute show in one take,
he doesn't build a project in that time. He shows the steps in the
project, but he may have as many as five or more of the same part in
various stages of preparation.

I'd like to know how much _he_bleeds, too.

I fail to see what the point of this is.


You see it. Most all of us see it. Envy. Any gain is ill-gotten, any
praise undeserved, unless it devolves on me or "my" guy. Same old story.

The difference, as I see it, is that the hand is part of the tool for Roy.
The reason they began building machines to work wood was to diminish the
importance of skill in the hand that fed it. Along the way they reduced
the number of operations which required handling, reducing the opportunity
for the knuckle-scratching, finger stubbing (stabbing) piece pinching types
of injury. Of course, there's a new, and more horrible set possible now!

I've done a bit of lesson-planning, and initially it's often tough to
distill what you want into the time alloted. By rev two you've got a more
refined piece that leaves a quarter of the time unused, some visual aids,
etc. If you continue to polish, you either have to include more material,
or learn to tap-dance.

As I see it, Roy begins with a sketchy lesson plan, assumes no knowledge on
the part of his viewers, makes poor use of his visual aids, and ends up
crammed for time because he never made a run-through - or should I say
"prototype?" Norm is maybe too smooth, as the Norm thread also running
shows. He may assume too much knowledge on the viewer. Does anyone really
_not_ know why you plow a centered groove with two passes on the saw?
Apparently that presumes too much from the viewer, as does a prototype,
rather than staged interim work.