On 2007-07-02 22:54:54 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...

So the criteria are time, performance and accuracy.

In your tiny head you think only expensive stuff gives that.

It was you who bleats about cost being all important to the virtual
exclusion of all else.

I've taken a broader view.

I think that selecting products according to those criteria is
important. That may mean a higher price, it may not. In general it
does. That realisation may not suit you, but that's the way things are.

On 2007-07-02 23:06:04 +0100, ":Jerry:" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
snip

This was partly my point. If you are going to go to the trouble
of laying a floor requiring significant labour input, you might as
well do so with good materials. Otherwise it's the same false
economy as cheap wallpaper.


Not if it gives a couple of years (or more, laminate looks crap but is
hard wearing) and it would have meant living in a '**** hole' for even
longer

What nutty logic. There is something very wrong with a scale of values
that suggests that putting down crappy flooring just for a couple of
years. Better to wait and buy something better. The problem is
really that people expect instant results and aren't willing to wait.

, sorry Andy but you are obviously completely out of touch with
the reality that many live

Oh, I'm very in touch with it. I began with very little indeed. The
difference is that I did what was required to change it - tough
decisions, taking calculated risks, sheer hard work and with socially
inconvenient arrangements and waiting to obtain the right things. Some
people feel that a 40 hour working week, going to the pub and to
football on Saturdays is where things are. For them it may be. I
don't recall ever having a 40 hr a week job.

You were saying?



- just as you fail to understand that (IMO)
most people are doing DIY not as a hobby but as a necessity to get an
affordable, half decent home.

Of course. However, that does not mean that the standard of the
results has to be compromised by poor purchasing decisions.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-07-02 23:06:04 +0100, ":Jerry:"
said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
snip

This was partly my point. If you are going to go to the trouble
of laying a floor requiring significant labour input, you might as
well do so with good materials. Otherwise it's the same false
economy as cheap wallpaper.


Not if it gives a couple of years (or more, laminate looks crap but
is hard wearing) and it would have meant living in a '**** hole' for
even longer

What nutty logic. There is something very wrong with a scale of
values that suggests that putting down crappy flooring just for a
couple of years. Better to wait and buy something better. The
problem is really that people expect instant results and aren't
willing to wait.
, sorry Andy but you are obviously completely out of touch with
the reality that many live

Oh, I'm very in touch with it. I began with very little indeed. The
difference is that I did what was required to change it - tough
decisions, taking calculated risks, sheer hard work and with socially
inconvenient arrangements and waiting to obtain the right things. Some
people feel that a 40 hour working week, going to the pub and to
football on Saturdays is where things are. For them it may be. I
don't recall ever having a 40 hr a week job.

You were saying?



- just as you fail to understand that (IMO)
most people are doing DIY not as a hobby but as a necessity to get an
affordable, half decent home.

Of course. However, that does not mean that the standard of the
results has to be compromised by poor purchasing decisions.

I see both sides of this discussion. Putting something in that's "cheap"
for a limited period can be a waste of money, but when the money is
tight, short horizons can seem reasonable - I've been there! However,
until just over a year ago, I spent cira 80 to 100hrs a week working and
now have a financial security at the cost of missing out on my kids
growing up and potentially of having been of more benefit to them in
their adult life, if I'd had more time at home; having said that, I'm in
a position to provide both with a 50% deposit for a house. What is the
right course - does anyone ever know - circumstances change whilst you
live!

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-02 23:06:04 +0100, ":Jerry:"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
snip

This was partly my point. If you are going to go to the trouble
of laying a floor requiring significant labour input, you might as
well do so with good materials. Otherwise it's the same false
economy as cheap wallpaper.


Not if it gives a couple of years (or more, laminate looks crap but
is
hard wearing) and it would have meant living in a '**** hole' for
even
longer

What nutty logic. There is something very wrong with a scale of
values that suggests that putting down crappy flooring just for a
couple of years. Better to wait and buy something better. The
problem is really that people expect instant results and aren't
willing to wait.

So they should have bare concrete or bare (possibly splintered)
boards, probably with young kids around? Sorry yours is the nutty
logic.


, sorry Andy but you are obviously completely out of touch with
the reality that many live

Oh, I'm very in touch with it. I began with very little indeed. The
difference is that I did what was required to change it - tough
decisions, taking calculated risks, sheer hard work and with
socially inconvenient arrangements and waiting to obtain the right
things. Some people feel that a 40 hour working week, going to the
pub and to football on Saturdays is where things are. For them it
may be. I don't recall ever having a 40 hr a week job.

You were saying?


You've lost touch with reality. It doesn't matter a toss were you (or
anyone else) has came from, it's were you are and what you think now
that matters.



- just as you fail to understand that (IMO)
most people are doing DIY not as a hobby but as a necessity to get
an
affordable, half decent home.

Of course. However, that does not mean that the standard of the
results has to be compromised by poor purchasing decisions.


But that is all governed by the budget available, now you might be
able to blow, what for some is the entire budget, on power tools or a
(relatively) expencive flooring but many can't and it's ****ing
patronising for you to suggest that because they won't wait with bare
floors they are making poor purchasing decisions - next you'll be
suggesting people live in tents until they can afford their own
Mansion, talk about mutterings of "Well can't they eat cake?"...

On 2007-07-02 23:49:23 +0100, "clot" said:

I see both sides of this discussion. Putting something in that's
"cheap" for a limited period can be a waste of money, but when the
money is tight, short horizons can seem reasonable - I've been there!
However, until just over a year ago, I spent cira 80 to 100hrs a week
working and now have a financial security at the cost of missing out on
my kids growing up and potentially of having been of more benefit to
them in their adult life, if I'd had more time at home;

Quite. I haven't quite done that to that degree continuously but it
certainly was at times.

I'm not sure that the kids actually ever do grow up. I haven't
noticed it happening yet.
Therefore I don't look at it on the basis of missing out on them
growing up, it's just different phases.


having said that, I'm in a position to provide both with a 50% deposit
for a house.

That will make an enormous difference, but they probably don't realise it yet.

What is the right course - does anyone ever know - circumstances change
whilst you live!

There is nothing better than hindsight. However, I deliberately
stopped doing historical 'what-ifs' many years ago and now concentrate
on future ones.

:Jerry: wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-02 23:06:04 +0100, ":Jerry:"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
snip

This was partly my point. If you are going to go to the trouble
of laying a floor requiring significant labour input, you might as
well do so with good materials. Otherwise it's the same false
economy as cheap wallpaper.


Not if it gives a couple of years (or more, laminate looks crap but
is
hard wearing) and it would have meant living in a '**** hole' for
even
longer

What nutty logic. There is something very wrong with a scale of
values that suggests that putting down crappy flooring just for a
couple of years. Better to wait and buy something better. The
problem is really that people expect instant results and aren't
willing to wait.

So they should have bare concrete or bare (possibly splintered)
boards, probably with young kids around? Sorry yours is the nutty
logic.


, sorry Andy but you are obviously completely out of touch with
the reality that many live

Oh, I'm very in touch with it. I began with very little indeed. The
difference is that I did what was required to change it - tough
decisions, taking calculated risks, sheer hard work and with
socially inconvenient arrangements and waiting to obtain the right
things. Some people feel that a 40 hour working week, going to the
pub and to football on Saturdays is where things are. For them it
may be. I don't recall ever having a 40 hr a week job.

You were saying?


You've lost touch with reality. It doesn't matter a toss were you (or
anyone else) has came from, it's were you are and what you think now
that matters.



- just as you fail to understand that (IMO)
most people are doing DIY not as a hobby but as a necessity to get
an
affordable, half decent home.

Of course. However, that does not mean that the standard of the
results has to be compromised by poor purchasing decisions.


But that is all governed by the budget available, now you might be
able to blow, what for some is the entire budget, on power tools or a
(relatively) expencive flooring but many can't and it's ****ing
patronising for you to suggest that because they won't wait with bare
floors they are making poor purchasing decisions - next you'll be
suggesting people live in tents until they can afford their own
Mansion, talk about mutterings of "Well can't they eat cake?"...

In a less adversarial manner, I was hoping that I might make Andy see
that there are circumstances other than his own which might make them
make decisions that seem quite absurd to another person.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-07-02 23:49:23 +0100, "clot" said:

I see both sides of this discussion. Putting something in that's
"cheap" for a limited period can be a waste of money, but when the
money is tight, short horizons can seem reasonable - I've been there!
However, until just over a year ago, I spent cira 80 to 100hrs a week
working and now have a financial security at the cost of missing out
on my kids growing up and potentially of having been of more benefit
to them in their adult life, if I'd had more time at home;

Quite. I haven't quite done that to that degree continuously but it
certainly was at times.

I'm not sure that the kids actually ever do grow up. I haven't
noticed it happening yet.
Therefore I don't look at it on the basis of missing out on them
growing up, it's just different phases.


having said that, I'm in a position to provide both with a 50%
deposit for a house.

That will make an enormous difference, but they probably don't
realise it yet.
What is the right course - does anyone ever know - circumstances
change whilst you live!

There is nothing better than hindsight. However, I deliberately
stopped doing historical 'what-ifs' many years ago and now concentrate
on future ones.


I so agree. There's no point looking back apart from using it as a
learning experience. Look to the future and make the best of it! Good
luck!

C

"clot" wrote in message
...

In a less adversarial manner, I was hoping that I might make Andy see that
there are circumstances other than his own which might make them make
decisions that seem quite absurd to another person.

A waste of time as this one is too far gone.

On 2007-07-03 00:04:20 +0100, ":Jerry:" said:


Not if it gives a couple of years (or more, laminate looks crap but
is
hard wearing) and it would have meant living in a '**** hole' for
even
longer

What nutty logic. There is something very wrong with a scale of
values that suggests that putting down crappy flooring just for a
couple of years. Better to wait and buy something better. The
problem is really that people expect instant results and aren't
willing to wait.

So they should have bare concrete or bare (possibly splintered)
boards, probably with young kids around? Sorry yours is the nutty
logic.

Nope. There are plenty of alternatives - floor tiles, rugs,.....




, sorry Andy but you are obviously completely out of touch with
the reality that many live

Oh, I'm very in touch with it. I began with very little indeed. The
difference is that I did what was required to change it - tough
decisions, taking calculated risks, sheer hard work and with
socially inconvenient arrangements and waiting to obtain the right
things. Some people feel that a 40 hour working week, going to the
pub and to football on Saturdays is where things are. For them it
may be. I don't recall ever having a 40 hr a week job.

You were saying?


You've lost touch with reality.

Nope. In my particular place of life I've made a difference to reality.
That's a different matter entirely.

It doesn't matter a toss were you (or
anyone else) has came from, it's were you are and what you think now
that matters.

Actually both matter.








- just as you fail to understand that (IMO)
most people are doing DIY not as a hobby but as a necessity to get
an
affordable, half decent home.

Of course. However, that does not mean that the standard of the
results has to be compromised by poor purchasing decisions.


But that is all governed by the budget available,

As always.

Budgets can be prioritised and spending can be over different periods of time.



now you might be
able to blow, what for some is the entire budget, on power tools or a
(relatively) expencive flooring but many can't

Of course, which is why it is important to buy on the basis of value
and not just price.



and it's ****ing
patronising for you to suggest that because they won't wait with bare
floors they are making poor purchasing decisions

Why? I began with tantamount to zero and I certainly didn't think
that anybody suggesting different and better ways to do things was
being patronising. I always followed the principle of buying good
quality materials and tools and waited if I had to in order to do so.
I think that it's better than accepting mediocrity

The point is that it is possible to do something about one's lot
if one so chooses. Most people would prefer the opportunities to come
to them rather than going out and looking for and making them.

This is the jamjar principle. Give somebody a 500g jamjar and
tell them to fill it and most people will do that and no more. A
very few will ask for a 2kg jamjar because they see no reason to limit
themselves to the 500g one. Those with the 500g jamjars will then
say that those with the 2kg ones have ripped them off and life isn't
fair. The fact that the 2kg people took all the risks and worked
three times as hard seems to escape them.


- next you'll be
suggesting people live in tents until they can afford their own
Mansion, talk about mutterings of "Well can't they eat cake?"...

Unfortunately for many that is metaphorically true. The question is
are they going to wait in the queue, get the 500g jamjar, fill it and
be satisfied with their lot in life or go out and ask for the 2kg one
and fill it using their initiative and efforts?

On 2007-07-03 00:15:52 +0100, "clot" said:


In a less adversarial manner, I was hoping that I might make Andy see
that there are circumstances other than his own which might make them
make decisions that seem quite absurd to another person.

Oh don't misunderstand, I do.

I have simply sought to point out that in the purchasing of products
such as tools there are many potential factors, certainly not just
price or the rate of use.

In all, there are probably at least 10.

The marketing people would have consumers believe that price and
gimmicky features are important and not a lot more. Some customers
seem to be taken in by that.

I can quite appreciate that some people may not be in a financial
position to make choices based on all of the desirable criteria.
However, this does not mean that they can't or shouldn't look at *all*
of the factors.
It is that that the silly suggestions of "it's only for a bit of DIY"
(therefore any old crap will do as long as it's cheap) seek to suggest
that people limit their choices because they don't "need" something
better. The jigsaw is the classic eample of that.

So I think that it's perfectly possible, even for somebody on limited
means, to look beyond what others would seek to apply as limitations
and to make up their own minds. It's also entirely reasonable to say
that if one buys product X it will produce result A, but with product
X+50% the outcome is twice as good as result A. Some people might like
to choose 2A at a cost of X+50%. At least the opportunity will have
been pointed out.

In the end, somebody may be totally constrained by budget and genuinely
only able to buy the lowest cost item. Then the question should be one
of does it make sense at all or is the result going to be so bad that
it's not worth spending even that.

Either way, there is never anything wrong with looking at all of the
issues and options and the results obtainable.

Having said all of that, it is clear to me from hundreds of questions
and decisions concerning power tools that have been discussed in this
NG over many years that the majority of people end up going for the
better mid range to entry level branded professional tools. Not so
many buy the high end products and not so many the bottom end either.
This suggests that people do look at multiple factors when buying.
Which ones varies, but I am quite sure that it's not just about price.

The Medway Handyman wrote:

If you want a nice straight line in thick timber John, you should be using a
circular saw and a guide rail :-) Even the Makita won't cut a perfect
straight line in thick timber. Not far off granted, but the blade isn't
wide enough to do it.

Try cutting a ******* mitre on the end of a 8x2" joist or a birdsmouth
joint on the 6x2" rafter. Your jigsaw (Makita B12 blade and pendulum on
II) will do it with no trouble at all and give a square cut - far more
manageable than a circular saw in that context.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

clot wrote:

In a less adversarial manner, I was hoping that I might make Andy see
that there are circumstances other than his own which might make them
make decisions that seem quite absurd to another person.

I notice that Jerry has got less confrontational over time - it seems
proportional to the number of colons...



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-03 00:15:52 +0100, "clot" said:


In a less adversarial manner, I was hoping that I might make Andy
see that there are circumstances other than his own which might
make them make decisions that seem quite absurd to another person.

Oh don't misunderstand, I do.

I have simply sought to point out that in the purchasing of products
such as tools there are many potential factors, certainly not just
price or the rate of use.

In all, there are probably at least 10.

The marketing people would have consumers believe that price and
gimmicky features are important and not a lot more. Some
customers seem to be taken in by that.

I can quite appreciate that some people may not be in a financial
position to make choices based on all of the desirable criteria.
However, this does not mean that they can't or shouldn't look at
*all* of the factors.
It is that that the silly suggestions of "it's only for a bit of
DIY" (therefore any old crap will do as long as it's cheap) seek to
suggest that people limit their choices because they don't "need"
something better. The jigsaw is the classic eample of that.

But even there it's not as clear as you make out, it all depends on
what they will be doing, yes sure if they are budding (hobby)
furniture makers they are going to need at least a half decent tool
but if their DIY use of the jigsaw is going to be cutting out a hole
for the new sink the need for very precise control of the cut is some
what irrelevant.

snip

In the end, somebody may be totally constrained by budget and
genuinely only able to buy the lowest cost item. Then the question
should be one of does it make sense at all or is the result going to
be so bad that it's not worth spending even that.
snip

Again, it depends on what they will be doing, I really do think that
you are sometimes mistaking your hobby for another's necessity of
'doing it themselves' - what should they do in your idea of utopia,
spend even more and get a man in, simply because they can't afford a
half decent tool? Next you will be suggesting that people should walk
or spend even more money on using PT rather than own a car made by Kia
because they can't afford a Audi (or what ever)!

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
snip
I notice that Jerry has got less confrontational over time - it
seems proportional to the number of colons...



Nothing equals to your sig' line John...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

So I think that it's perfectly possible, even for somebody on limited
means, to look beyond what others would seek to apply as limitations and
to make up their own minds. It's also entirely reasonable to say that if
one buys product X it will produce result A, but with product X+50% the
outcome is twice as good as result A. Some people might like to choose 2A
at a cost of X+50%. At least the opportunity will have been pointed out.

There is nothing you can't do with cheap hand held power tools that you can
do with expensive ones of similar type.
Last week I was making doors and windows using a £5 circular saw (argos:
challenge IIRC) and a £6 drill (sainsburys: draper) and they were not a
problem (saw is a bit noisy but the vac is even louder).
You just work differently like using a cutting jig on the saw and not the
rip fence (you would use the jig anyway as it is far better than any rip
fence and easier to use).
The drill was a bit underpowered for drilling the holes on the mortice locks
but it did it.

On 2007-07-03 08:27:43 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

So I think that it's perfectly possible, even for somebody on limited
means, to look beyond what others would seek to apply as limitations and
to make up their own minds. It's also entirely reasonable to say that if
one buys product X it will produce result A, but with product X+50% the
outcome is twice as good as result A. Some people might like to choose 2A
at a cost of X+50%. At least the opportunity will have been pointed out.

There is nothing you can't do with cheap hand held power tools that you can
do with expensive ones of similar type.

That depends on the finish, degree of accuracy you want, the amount of
time you are willing to take and the amount of frustration you are
willing to tolerate.

There are cases of impossibility such as with the jig saw.

There are many cases of repeatability where the equipment has to be
rechecked after each cut to avoid substantial errors. There are some
where the lack of sturdiness of the machine prevents an accurate result
being achieved with any degree of certainty. Sliding compound mitre
saws are an example of this.





Last week I was making doors and windows using a £5 circular saw (argos:
challenge IIRC) and a £6 drill (sainsburys: draper) and they were not a
problem (saw is a bit noisy but the vac is even louder).
You just work differently like using a cutting jig on the saw and not the
rip fence (you would use the jig anyway as it is far better than any rip
fence and easier to use).

I agree with you that the use of jigs is helpful, but then you have to
spend time making them. I do that for cases where a jig will be used
a lot ( your circular saw one would be a good example) or for cases
where I can't think of a better or alternative approach.

Actually for a circular saw I would never use the rip fence anyway -
there are too few cases where they are useful. The better solution is
to use a guide rail. I occasionally do that if cutting a very large
sheet, but then cut it over size and do the precision cuts on the table
saw.

One example of that was where I was making a ramp for a wheelchair.
This was using decking boards and there had to be a smooth transition
from the lower level onto the ramp. To do this involved thicknessing
the first board at an angle and so I made a jig designed to hold the
board but raising one side. The whole lot would then pass through the
thicknesser. This worked very well and I suppose took me about 30
mins to make the jig. Realistically, it's a one use jig, or maybe
again if I need to replace/repair the ramp.

I don't mind spending time making jigs to do very specific things, but
not a whole load of them just to do the basics that can be achieved by
using more sturdy equipment.

I also don't mind doing the setups. For example, setting up the
spindle moulder or dado cutter, doing test cuts, measuring with digital
caliper, adding shims to the tooling and repeat can be time consuming.
However, once done, they remain solid until the next set of cuts is
done. It would be incredibly frustrating if the whole exercise had
to be repeated for each cut because the tooling moved around.

In article , Andy Hall wrote:

Not if it gives a couple of years (or more, laminate looks crap but is
hard wearing) and it would have meant living in a '**** hole' for even
longer

What nutty logic. There is something very wrong with a scale of values
that suggests that putting down crappy flooring just for a couple of
years. Better to wait and buy something better. The problem is
really that people expect instant results and aren't willing to wait.

No. There is something less than ideal, yes. Wrong, no.

We moved into the house and had a choice of

a) old manky stained carpets that smelt of dogs and fags

b) bare floor boards with a small gale blowing up through the gaps,

c) get some cheap crap carpet

d) whack down some laminate

a was a non starter, c wasn't that appealing either as cost wise we were
looking crappy contract cord stuff and once you add in some underlay it's
not actually that cheap. Also, I'm crap at fitting carpet.

Given the choice of b or d we decided to blow 150 quid on flooring to
sort out the living room - that was some end of line laminate and two packs
of damaged underlay boards that we got cheap with some negotiating. For the
money it was well worth it IMHO. Of course, over 6 years later it's still
there (and wearing amazingly well).

Of course. However, that does not mean that the standard of the
results has to be compromised by poor purchasing decisions.


I think the results of my purchasing decisions were well worth the minimal
outlay. Certainly, if money wasn't an issue I would have chosen differently.
Now I've got the cash to replace it I probably will but it's not high up
the agenda at the moment as it's not *that* bad (and with the kids toys,
furniture and a large rug almost all hidden anyway).

Darren

:Jerry: wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-03 00:15:52 +0100, "clot" said:
In a less adversarial manner, I was hoping that I might make Andy
see that there are circumstances other than his own which might
make them make decisions that seem quite absurd to another person.
Oh don't misunderstand, I do.

I have simply sought to point out that in the purchasing of products
such as tools there are many potential factors, certainly not just
price or the rate of use.

In all, there are probably at least 10.

The marketing people would have consumers believe that price and
gimmicky features are important and not a lot more. Some
customers seem to be taken in by that.

I can quite appreciate that some people may not be in a financial
position to make choices based on all of the desirable criteria.
However, this does not mean that they can't or shouldn't look at
*all* of the factors.
It is that that the silly suggestions of "it's only for a bit of
DIY" (therefore any old crap will do as long as it's cheap) seek to
suggest that people limit their choices because they don't "need"
something better. The jigsaw is the classic eample of that.

But even there it's not as clear as you make out, it all depends on
what they will be doing, yes sure if they are budding (hobby)
furniture makers they are going to need at least a half decent tool
but if their DIY use of the jigsaw is going to be cutting out a hole
for the new sink the need for very precise control of the cut is some
what irrelevant.

snip
In the end, somebody may be totally constrained by budget and
genuinely only able to buy the lowest cost item. Then the question
should be one of does it make sense at all or is the result going to
be so bad that it's not worth spending even that.
snip

Again, it depends on what they will be doing, I really do think that
you are sometimes mistaking your hobby for another's necessity of
'doing it themselves' - what should they do in your idea of utopia,
spend even more and get a man in, simply because they can't afford a
half decent tool? Next you will be suggesting that people should walk
or spend even more money on using PT rather than own a car made by Kia
because they can't afford a Audi (or what ever)!


I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if one
only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away with a sub
£500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the time was at all,
but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best

On 2007-07-03 08:06:37 +0100, ":Jerry:" said:


But even there it's not as clear as you make out, it all depends on
what they will be doing, yes sure if they are budding (hobby)
furniture makers they are going to need at least a half decent tool
but if their DIY use of the jigsaw is going to be cutting out a hole
for the new sink the need for very precise control of the cut is some
what irrelevant.

If that were the case then I would agree with you.

Like quite a few other people, I thought, based on experience with a
rather average B&D jigsaw, that they were generically very limited,
mainly because the blade wandered.

It got used very little because of this and in the end was thrown out,
never to be replaced.

I then had the opportunity to try out a Bosch GST at a tool exhibition.
Like chalk and cheese. So I bought one. A lot can be done with this
and accurate results for the used purposes obtained. Nowadays it gets
quite a bit of use. I also have a bandsaw, which is in some respects
able to do some work that a jigsaw might otherwise do, plus it can cut
definitely perpendicular with very thick material. Of course it has
one basic limitation - can't cut in the middle of something.

However, coming back to the jigsaw, what decision would I make? There
are three:

- Don't buy one at all

- Buy a £40 one and find that it is limited to a very small range of
jobs like cutting holes where the results don't show

- Buy a £100 one and do a fair range of jobs with it including those
where the results do show.

If I had relatively little money, I wouldn't buy the £40 one - it's pointless.




snip

In the end, somebody may be totally constrained by budget and
genuinely only able to buy the lowest cost item. Then the question
should be one of does it make sense at all or is the result going to
be so bad that it's not worth spending even that.
snip

Again, it depends on what they will be doing, I really do think that
you are sometimes mistaking your hobby for another's necessity of
'doing it themselves' - what should they do in your idea of utopia,
spend even more and get a man in, simply because they can't afford a
half decent tool?

I think that you are missing the point about necessity.

I could certainly afford to use professionals for anything required.
In some cases, I do because it is work that I don't want to do.
Examples of that are roof work and heavy ground work. One other is
where there are some expensive materials involved, I haven't done the
exercise before and I want the supplier to take responsibility for the
entire project. An example of that was some slate floor.

Pretty much everything else, I do because I am not satisfied with the
standard of work of most professionals. The assumption made is that
the work is being done to a price and therefore in the shortest
possible time. Inevitably, this results in corner cutting, lack of
attention to detail and sometimes poor finish.

I'll give you an example. Some years ago, I needed a new Aga to be
connected to the gas supply. Normally I would have done that, but
decided that I wanted the supplier to do it since commissioning was
included in the price anyway. The result was shoddy. It passed the
gas soundness tests but the pipework wasn't straight, had splashes of
solder over it and there were extra unnecessary elbows. A pig's
breakfast. The supplier complained bitterly when I withheld payment
until the work was redone by a different fitter and properly.

In another instance, I was having some oak joinery such as a staircase,
doors etc., hardwood flooring supplied and laid. Nowadays I would do
that myself, but hadn't done a floor before. The supplier found a
carpenter who had done a lot of this and other joinery work and was in
semi retirement. There were quite a few unknowns to the project.
The best solution to this was to agree a daily rate and have daily
reviews and discussions of what was happening. He knew that I would
not accept corner cutting. The alternative would have been a
sandbagged fixed price. The outcome was an excellent job at a good
price which we were both happy with. I certainly wouldn't use this
arrangement with most professionals.

Other work I do myself, because, as I said, I am not satisfied with the
standards of professional work. There would be no point in getting
into a discussion about payment because the work done wasn't up to that
required.

For me, good quality and accurate work is a necessity. I tend to take
quite a bit more time over projects than a professional would be
willing to spend in order to obtain the required result. This may not
be the same type of necessity as somebody else might define -

For example - some people may accept any old bathroom rework because
it's a choice between that and having nothing. I will put in the
care and attention to very precisely line up the plumbing, the
fittings, the tiles and so on. To me that's a necessity and not utopia.

To that end, I have been making bathroom cabinets including the doors.
To achieve the correct visual effect required working to fine
tolerances on the joinery for it and attention to detail. For example,
the room door has stop chamfers on the frame which are of a certain cut
and stop at specific distances from the corners. The cabinet doors
have the same thing, but accurately scaled to the door size. The
result looks correctly coordinated, and in the design used was
necessary to avoid bittiness.

You can't buy doors of this design, so that was a necessity.

In one area, I do indulge myself in the hobby sense and that is with
woodworking hand tools. For example, I spend quite a bit of time as a
relaxation honing and tuning my collection of Lie Nielsen planes.
These are used for specific types of project where I want to achieve
something with the appearance of hand rather than machine finish. It
is quite different doing this as opposed to milling material on the
power machinery. I could probably achieve the same results with much
less expensive planes, but I enjoy caring for and using these.




Next you will be suggesting that people should walk
or spend even more money on using PT rather than own a car made by Kia
because they can't afford a Audi (or what ever)!

I would never suggest that anybody uses public transport. I think that
much of it should be shut down to make room for car access.

On 2007-07-03 10:12:58 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if one
only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away with a
sub £500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the time was at
all, but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best

You could have bought the Japanese one with lifetime guarantee.
Mainspring goes and it slashes your wrist.

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-03 00:15:52 +0100, "clot" said:
In a less adversarial manner, I was hoping that I might make Andy see
that there are circumstances other than his own which might make them
make decisions that seem quite absurd to another person.
Oh don't misunderstand, I do.

I have simply sought to point out that in the purchasing of products
such as tools there are many potential factors, certainly not just price
or the rate of use.

In all, there are probably at least 10.

The marketing people would have consumers believe that price and
gimmicky features are important and not a lot more. Some customers
seem to be taken in by that.

I can quite appreciate that some people may not be in a financial
position to make choices based on all of the desirable criteria.
However, this does not mean that they can't or shouldn't look at *all*
of the factors.
It is that that the silly suggestions of "it's only for a bit of DIY"
(therefore any old crap will do as long as it's cheap) seek to suggest
that people limit their choices because they don't "need" something
better. The jigsaw is the classic eample of that.

But even there it's not as clear as you make out, it all depends on what
they will be doing, yes sure if they are budding (hobby) furniture makers
they are going to need at least a half decent tool but if their DIY use
of the jigsaw is going to be cutting out a hole for the new sink the need
for very precise control of the cut is some what irrelevant.

snip
In the end, somebody may be totally constrained by budget and genuinely
only able to buy the lowest cost item. Then the question should be one
of does it make sense at all or is the result going to be so bad that
it's not worth spending even that.
snip

Again, it depends on what they will be doing, I really do think that you
are sometimes mistaking your hobby for another's necessity of 'doing it
themselves' - what should they do in your idea of utopia, spend even more
and get a man in, simply because they can't afford a half decent tool?
Next you will be suggesting that people should walk or spend even more
money on using PT rather than own a car made by Kia because they can't
afford a Audi (or what ever)!
I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well.

If clockwork it does not.

Of course, if one only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get
away with a sub £500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the time
was at all, but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best

Rolex is not the best and are you from Essex? Get an elegant make - a
Longines.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-03 00:15:52 +0100, "clot" said:
In a less adversarial manner, I was hoping that I might make Andy
see that there are circumstances other than his own which might
make them make decisions that seem quite absurd to another person.
Oh don't misunderstand, I do.

I have simply sought to point out that in the purchasing of products
such as tools there are many potential factors, certainly not just
price or the rate of use.

In all, there are probably at least 10.

The marketing people would have consumers believe that price and
gimmicky features are important and not a lot more. Some
customers seem to be taken in by that.

I can quite appreciate that some people may not be in a financial
position to make choices based on all of the desirable criteria.
However, this does not mean that they can't or shouldn't look at
*all* of the factors.
It is that that the silly suggestions of "it's only for a bit of
DIY" (therefore any old crap will do as long as it's cheap) seek to
suggest that people limit their choices because they don't "need"
something better. The jigsaw is the classic eample of that.

But even there it's not as clear as you make out, it all depends on
what they will be doing, yes sure if they are budding (hobby)
furniture makers they are going to need at least a half decent tool
but if their DIY use of the jigsaw is going to be cutting out a hole
for the new sink the need for very precise control of the cut is some
what irrelevant.

snip
In the end, somebody may be totally constrained by budget and
genuinely only able to buy the lowest cost item. Then the question
should be one of does it make sense at all or is the result going to
be so bad that it's not worth spending even that.
snip

Again, it depends on what they will be doing, I really do think that
you are sometimes mistaking your hobby for another's necessity of
'doing it themselves' - what should they do in your idea of utopia,
spend even more and get a man in, simply because they can't afford a
half decent tool? Next you will be suggesting that people should walk
or spend even more money on using PT rather than own a car made by
Kia because they can't afford a Audi (or what ever)!
I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well.

If clockwork it does not.

Of course, if one only needs to know when it's opening time, one might
get away with a sub £500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what
the time was at all, but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best

Rolex is not the best and are you from Essex? Get an elegant make - a
Longines.

I've got a few of those as well but the Rolex is champagne proof, an
important feature because that's what we fill our swimming pools with.

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-03 00:15:52 +0100, "clot" said:
In a less adversarial manner, I was hoping that I might make Andy see
that there are circumstances other than his own which might make them
make decisions that seem quite absurd to another person.
Oh don't misunderstand, I do.

I have simply sought to point out that in the purchasing of products
such as tools there are many potential factors, certainly not just
price or the rate of use.

In all, there are probably at least 10.

The marketing people would have consumers believe that price and
gimmicky features are important and not a lot more. Some customers
seem to be taken in by that.

I can quite appreciate that some people may not be in a financial
position to make choices based on all of the desirable criteria.
However, this does not mean that they can't or shouldn't look at *all*
of the factors.
It is that that the silly suggestions of "it's only for a bit of DIY"
(therefore any old crap will do as long as it's cheap) seek to suggest
that people limit their choices because they don't "need" something
better. The jigsaw is the classic eample of that.

But even there it's not as clear as you make out, it all depends on
what they will be doing, yes sure if they are budding (hobby) furniture
makers they are going to need at least a half decent tool but if their
DIY use of the jigsaw is going to be cutting out a hole for the new
sink the need for very precise control of the cut is some what
irrelevant.

snip
In the end, somebody may be totally constrained by budget and
genuinely only able to buy the lowest cost item. Then the question
should be one of does it make sense at all or is the result going to
be so bad that it's not worth spending even that.
snip

Again, it depends on what they will be doing, I really do think that
you are sometimes mistaking your hobby for another's necessity of
'doing it themselves' - what should they do in your idea of utopia,
spend even more and get a man in, simply because they can't afford a
half decent tool? Next you will be suggesting that people should walk
or spend even more money on using PT rather than own a car made by Kia
because they can't afford a Audi (or what ever)!
I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well.

If clockwork it does not.

Of course, if one only needs to know when it's opening time, one might
get away with a sub £500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what
the time was at all, but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best

Rolex is not the best and are you from Essex? Get an elegant make - a
Longines.

I've got a few of those as well but the Rolex is champagne proof, an
important feature because that's what we fill our swimming pools with.

You are from Essex.

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...


I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if one
only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away with a sub
£500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the time was at all, but
I preferred to wait until I could buy the best

What are Rolex the best at?
Not time keeping as there are better.
Nor are they the most reliable.



Medallion man?
BMW man?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...


I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if one
only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away with a sub
£500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the time was at all,
but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best

What are Rolex the best at?
Not time keeping as there are better.
Nor are they the most reliable.

The MD of Rolex said they were in the luxury goods market, not the watch
market.

Medallion man?
BMW man?

You got it. Please with style do not buy such things.

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
snip
I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if
one only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away
with a sub £500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the
time was at all, but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best


The best at what, looking 'smug' or keeping the correct time....

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-03 10:12:58 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if
one only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away
with a sub £500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the
time was at all, but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best

You could have bought the Japanese one with lifetime guarantee.
Mainspring goes and it slashes your wrist.


Only if you're stupid enough to use it without the back on, more straw
Andy?...

dennis@home wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...

I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if one
only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away with a sub
£500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the time was at all, but
I preferred to wait until I could buy the best

What are Rolex the best at?
Not time keeping as there are better.
Nor are they the most reliable.



Medallion man?
BMW man?



If you got it, flaunt it

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...

I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if one
only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away with a sub
£500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the time was at all,
but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best

What are Rolex the best at?
Not time keeping as there are better.
Nor are they the most reliable.

Medallion man?
BMW man?

If you got it, flaunt it

A medallion? Wow!!! Do you have a white suite with flared pants as well?

:Jerry: wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-03 10:12:58 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:
I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if
one only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away
with a sub £500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the
time was at all, but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best
You could have bought the Japanese one with lifetime guarantee.
Mainspring goes and it slashes your wrist.


Only if you're stupid enough to use it without the back on, more straw
Andy?...

I think you may have been missing the alternative interpretation of
"life time guarantee". ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2007-07-03 18:07:36 +0100, ":Jerry:" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-03 10:12:58 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if
one only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away
with a sub £500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the
time was at all, but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best

You could have bought the Japanese one with lifetime guarantee.
Mainspring goes and it slashes your wrist.


Only if you're stupid enough to use it without the back on, more straw
Andy?...

Who said anything about it having a back?

":Jerry:" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
snip
I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if one
only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away with a sub
£500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the time was at all,
but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best

The best at what, looking 'smug' or keeping the correct time....

Looking naff

:Jerry: wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
snip
I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if
one only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away
with a sub £500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the
time was at all, but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best


The best at what, looking 'smug' or keeping the correct time....



Looking cool, and stuff

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
snip
I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if one
only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away with a sub
£500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the time was at all,
but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best


The best at what, looking 'smug' or keeping the correct time....

Looking cool, and stuff

In your medallion and flared pants white suit? Wow!!!

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
snip
I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if
one only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away
with a sub £500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the
time was at all, but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best


The best at what, looking 'smug' or keeping the correct time....

Looking cool, and stuff

In your medallion and flared pants white suit? Wow!!!

I thought you'd be impressed. I know I am

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
snip
I have a Rolex watch which tells the time very well. Of course, if one
only needs to know when it's opening time, one might get away with a
sub £500 make. For most of my life I didn't know what the time was at
all, but I preferred to wait until I could buy the best


The best at what, looking 'smug' or keeping the correct time....

Looking cool, and stuff

In your medallion and flared pants white suit? Wow!!!

I thought you'd be impressed. I know I am

Bad taste costs.