I bought a one inch Sorbey Mortise Chisel. It came with two chipped
corners because they do not protect the cutting edge. The back was not
even close to flat and had a convex belly that took a long time to
flatten. The width is 1-1/64" which seems like it is off a lot since
this is a tool of relatively small size, made of metal and ground when
manufactured. I will try another brand next time.

-Peter

I have had similar problems with the Sorby chisels. My solution is a
simple one but has allowed me to find some great chisels, with Sorby on
the handle.

While I'm at the store looking at the chisels I grab a high quality
square, and check the flatness, the grind and the edges. Usually in any
given size they have one that I can't find a problem with, otherwise I
find a different size. I have never thought to check the actual
dimensions of the chisels, as it doesn't matter to me very often, I
make the chisel choice based on what "looks right" not what the ruler
says.

Sure maybe next time I will spend more money on a chisel, but for now I
think this system is working alright for me.

Andrew

1 1/64" is probably some metric size . Personally selling metric sized tools
under the guise of normal American sizes really ****es me off ,similarly
Books sold here with all the dimensions in metric also does . Seems to me if
they are selling in the US market then they should cater to the US
consumer....mjh
wrote in message
oups.com...
I bought a one inch Sorbey Mortise Chisel. It came with two chipped
corners because they do not protect the cutting edge. The back was not
even close to flat and had a convex belly that took a long time to
flatten. The width is 1-1/64" which seems like it is off a lot since
this is a tool of relatively small size, made of metal and ground when
manufactured. I will try another brand next time.

-Peter

On the other hand the metric system makes sense, and is really easy to
figure out. Why bother making two sizes of every tool when 90% of the
people that will be using them won't notice or care about 1/64th off?

Tattooed and Dusty wrote:
On the other hand the metric system makes sense, and is really easy
to
figure out. Why bother making two sizes of every tool when 90% of the
people that will be using them won't notice or care about 1/64th off?

Thank Jimma Carter for that. What a gutless jerk he was.

I bought a one inch Sorbey Mortise Chisel. It came with two chipped
corners because they do not protect the cutting edge. The back was not
even close to flat and had a convex belly that took a long time to
flatten. The width is 1-1/64" which seems like it is off a lot since
this is a tool of relatively small size, made of metal and ground when
manufactured. I will try another brand next time.

-Peter


Get a refund. I think R. Sorby is a major marketing company. Not supremely
out to make a quality product so much as to make as much money as possible.
I did recently read a user's webpage that he was impressed with how long the
Sorby mortiser held an edge, never thought I'd read that.

When I get my 1st mortise set they will be Henry Taylor or Japanese ones.
Maybe the older "pig stickers". I would like to hear someone's sinopsys of the
Henry Taylor steel from experience, if anyone has it to say... ?

I bought a new Marples chisel with the boxwood handle on eBay, they have
thicker blades so I thought to try it out on the drilled mortises of my bench
legs. They are Douglas Fir which is not an impressive wood, not impressed
with the steel, as it easily picks up curling to chipping pretty quickly. This did
not happen using Stubai bench chisels, unless it was extremely minor, even
with hitting them harder. And the blades are thinner than the Marples. But I do
not know how these aspects apply with mortise chisels, the structure dynamics
could be quite different.

Anyone experienced with Henry Taylor mortise chisels? Does the edge last
long without curl_to_chip?

--
Alex - newbie_neander in woodworking
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

"mike hide" wrote in message
...
1 1/64" is probably some metric size . Personally selling metric sized
tools
under the guise of normal American sizes really ****es me off ,similarly
Books sold here with all the dimensions in metric also does . Seems to me
if
they are selling in the US market then they should cater to the US
consumer....mjh

Yes, it seems the metric system of measuring has never caught on in America,
except of course for the 9mm.

Oldun

On 21 Apr 2005 20:01:26 -0700, Tattooed and Dusty wrote:
On the other hand the metric system makes sense, and is really easy to
figure out. Why bother making two sizes of every tool when 90% of the
people that will be using them won't notice or care about 1/64th off?

That's fine, so then advertise it as a 26mm, not a 1".

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:32:50 +0100, Oldun wrote:

"mike hide" wrote in message
...
1 1/64" is probably some metric size . Personally selling metric sized
tools
under the guise of normal American sizes really ****es me off ,similarly
Books sold here with all the dimensions in metric also does . Seems to me
if
they are selling in the US market then they should cater to the US
consumer....mjh

Yes, it seems the metric system of measuring has never caught on in America,
except of course for the 9mm.

In the engineering and science world more than at the consumer side.
As sourcing of foreign subassemblies continues to get worse, we'll be
seeing some manufacturers switch entirely just to keep from having
mixed metric and SAE on the same piece of equipment. It's not a good
reason to switch, but switching will make things easier in the long run.

Dave Hinz wrote:
....
... manufacturers switch entirely just to keep from having
mixed metric and SAE on the same piece of equipment. It's not a good
reason to switch, ...

Actually, it is one very good reason to switch...mixed is far worse than
not, whichever system it is.

If a manufacturer wishes to export to almost anywhere outside the US,
metric will almost certainly be required (or, in most cases, already
is).

Tattooed and Dusty wrote:
On the other hand the metric system makes sense, and is really easy
to
figure out. Why bother making two sizes of every tool when 90% of the
people that will be using them won't notice or care about 1/64th off?

1 1/64" = 25.8 mm. I doubt that's a standard size in Europe. If his
measuement was off by 1/128" then it might actually be 26mm which also
seems to be a rather odd choice for a standard size.

If that's what they want to do, fine. That does not justify
misrepresenting the dimensions of their product. If someone sells
a 6mm plywood, they should call it 6mm plywood (which a lot of vendors
of Marine and aircraft plywood do.)

--

FF

wrote:
Tattooed and Dusty wrote:
On the other hand the metric system makes sense, and is really easy
to
figure out. Why bother making two sizes of every tool when 90% of
the
people that will be using them won't notice or care about 1/64th
off?

Thank Jimma Carter for that. What a gutless jerk he was.

Splorf! Especially compared to the pucilinious wimp currently in
office!

Historically, Alexander Hamilton was a champion of the metric
system in America. As Secretary of the Treasury he was able
to convince the Congress to adopt metric currency. He then
proceeded to work toward the establishment of a metric system
of weights and measures. And that so infuriated Aaron Burr that
he took Hamilton out and shot him.

--

FF

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:37:39 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
...
... manufacturers switch entirely just to keep from having
mixed metric and SAE on the same piece of equipment. It's not a good
reason to switch, ...

Actually, it is one very good reason to switch...mixed is far worse than
not, whichever system it is.

I agree "not mixed" is a good reason to switch. "because products are
being made in low cost countries" as a driver for that, is the part I
consider not to be the good reason.

If a manufacturer wishes to export to almost anywhere outside the US,
metric will almost certainly be required (or, in most cases, already
is).

That wasn't true 5 years ago for medical diagnostic machinery, based on
personal experience working for a very large company whose name rhymes
with, er, let's say "G.E.".

Dave "A good place to be from..." Hinz

In article ,
says...
On 21 Apr 2005 20:01:26 -0700, Tattooed and Dusty wrote:
On the other hand the metric system makes sense, and is really easy to
figure out. Why bother making two sizes of every tool when 90% of the
people that will be using them won't notice or care about 1/64th off?

That's fine, so then advertise it as a 26mm, not a 1".

What bothers me is when the chisels are labelled with both. as mine are.
A chisel cannot be both 19mm and 3/4"!

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

lgb wrote:
....
A chisel cannot be both 19mm and 3/4"!

To a marketer, what's the problem?????

wrote:


Tattooed and Dusty wrote:
On the other hand the metric system makes sense, and is really easy
to
figure out. Why bother making two sizes of every tool when 90% of the
people that will be using them won't notice or care about 1/64th off?

Thank Jimma Carter for that. What a gutless jerk he was.

Huh? What does Carter have to do with anything? The President does not
have the power to decide such matters.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Duane Bozarth wrote:

lgb wrote:
...
A chisel cannot be both 19mm and 3/4"!

To a marketer, what's the problem?????

To what tolerances are chisels made? It's possible to make one that is
within .001" of being both. If your specification tolerance is, say, .005,
then making two different sizes you'd end up with some 19mms that were
wider than some 3/4, and some 3/4 that were wider than some 19mm. All
you'd have to do is make your target midway between is cut your working
tolerance to .004 and your one-size would be within spec for of both sizes,
so why not just make the one and give it both measurements?

That particular size is a bad example because the English and Metric sizes
are really close.

3mm and 3/8 inch is a much better example--a chisel made midway between the
two sizes would be .0094" or a little over a 128th off.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Over 1/4" difference.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
3mm and 3/8 inch is a much better example--a chisel made midway between
the
two sizes would be .0094" or a little over a 128th off.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

CW wrote:

Over 1/4" difference.

That's 10mm, have no idea why I typed 3. Well, actually I do, having
calculated all this crap I read the wrong column of the spreadsheet.

Assuming that the chisel is made with a width midway between the English and
Metric sizes we end up with

English Metric Difference
Inch mm Inch

1/8 3 .0034
1/4 6 .0069
3/8 10 .0094
1/2 13 .0059
3/4 19 .0010
1 25 .0079
1-1/4 32 .0049
1-1/2 38 .0020
2 50 .0157



"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
3mm and 3/8 inch is a much better example--a chisel made midway between
the
two sizes would be .0094" or a little over a 128th off.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I don't have other chisels to compare to but I've been using my Sorbey
mortise chisel on hard maple. I've been squaring up drilled mortise
holes for my work bench base. When chopping vertically down the end
grain at the end of the mortise I can only go about 1" before there is
quite a bit of edge failure. This is at the bevel angle that the chisel
came to me. I've just been honing the whole bevel. Probably 30 degrees?
Maple is hard but I'm thinking a mortise chisel should do a little
better than that before edge failure. True?

On 24 Apr 2005 21:45:11 -0700, the inscrutable
spake:

I don't have other chisels to compare to but I've been using my Sorbey

Hey, Petey, when will you stop misspelling "Sorby"? Or is it a palate
cleansing chisel? (Oops, sorry. That's "sorbet", isn't it?)


mortise chisel on hard maple. I've been squaring up drilled mortise
holes for my work bench base. When chopping vertically down the end
grain at the end of the mortise I can only go about 1" before there is
quite a bit of edge failure. This is at the bevel angle that the chisel
came to me. I've just been honing the whole bevel.

I gring the whole bevel, too, and am not a fan of using a hollow-grind
on chisels, either. To test the chisel hardness, give it a mild whack
on a known hard surface. If it bends over or chips badly, you know it
isn't proper. You'll have to regrind after that (hopefully on a wet
grinder or belt sander to avoid overheating the tip), but it will tell
you temper so you can adjust it if necessary. I have a lone Henry
Taylor gouge which is waaaay too hard. It chips when you look at it
funny. Some day I'll pull the handle and take care of it, but I don't
use the little 1/8" veiner that much.


Probably 30 degrees?
Maple is hard but I'm thinking a mortise chisel should do a little
better than that before edge failure. True?

Yes, but grind it to a greater angle. Mortise chisels usually need a
bit more meat at the end from what I've seen and owned. While my
Stanley is about 30°, my Knight is more like 37°. The edge on my 3/8"
Knight lasts a lot longer than the old 3/8" Stanley. And while they
were fun to use, I now adore my Shop Fox mortiser.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Do. Or do not. * Stylin' Web Design Services
There is no try. --Yoda * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

lgb wrote:
...
A chisel cannot be both 19mm and 3/4"!

To a marketer, what's the problem?????

To what tolerances are chisels made? ...

I was being sarcastic (and somewhat cynical)...

In reality I suspect an specific manufacturer builds to a given spec and
simply marks the other units as nearest rather than specifically trying
to meet an arbitrary tolerance to allow a legal "out" for accuracy of
both English and metric sizes...it would probably not be cost-effective
to try to maintain both inventories.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:40:38 -0700, lgb wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 21 Apr 2005 20:01:26 -0700, Tattooed and Dusty wrote:
On the other hand the metric system makes sense, and is really easy to
figure out. Why bother making two sizes of every tool when 90% of the
people that will be using them won't notice or care about 1/64th off?

That's fine, so then advertise it as a 26mm, not a 1".

What bothers me is when the chisels are labelled with both. as mine are.
A chisel cannot be both 19mm and 3/4"!

google the string:
3/4 inch in mm

tells you it's 19.05mm - That's pretty darn close, for something where
the width isn't the primary feature. Under two thousandths of an inch?
Close enough, for a chisel. Hell, close enough for a socket.

In article ,
lid says...
Metric sizes we end up with

English Metric Difference
Inch mm Inch

1 25 .0079

One of us needs to do some remedial math classes. Two references give
1" as 25.4mm. 1/25.4 = 0.0393. Therefore .4mm = .0393 * .4 = 0.0157"

There's a considerable difference between .0079 and .0157 :-).

I once tried threading a 1" dowel (and it measured 1") with a threading
tool that claimed to be 1" but was 25mm. I had to turn down the dowel
on a lathe :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

lgb wrote:

In article ,
says...
Metric sizes we end up with

English Metric Difference
Inch mm Inch

1 25 .0079

One of us needs to do some remedial math classes. Two references give
1" as 25.4mm. 1/25.4 = 0.0393. Therefore .4mm = .0393 * .4 = 0.0157"

There's a considerable difference between .0079 and .0157 :-).
In fact, it is different by a factor of 2. (That was a hint!)

The approach being discussed was to make one half-way between, and
sell it as a .0079" oversized 25mm chisel or a .0079" undersized 1"
chisel.

I once tried threading a 1" dowel (and it measured 1") with a threading
tool that claimed to be 1" but was 25mm. I had to turn down the dowel
on a lathe :-).

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Thanks Larry. My Sorby mortise chisel (I'm stopping now!) will have a
new grind angle in about an hour.

Peter

On 25 Apr 2005 10:04:23 -0700, the inscrutable
spake:

Thanks Larry. My Sorby mortise chisel (I'm stopping now!) will have a
new grind angle in about an hour.

Great!

P.S: What did you find when you tested the temper?


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Do. Or do not. * Stylin' Web Design Services
There is no try. --Yoda * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------

lgb wrote:

In article ,
lid says...
Metric sizes we end up with

English Metric Difference
Inch mm Inch

1 25 .0079

One of us needs to do some remedial math classes. Two references give
1" as 25.4mm. 1/25.4 = 0.0393. Therefore .4mm = .0393 * .4 = 0.0157"

By international standard 1" = 25.4 mm, _exactly_.

Now, that being the case, we can make our chisel nominally 1" or we can make
it nominally 25mm. But how about if instead of doing either, we target
25._2_ mm, which is halfway between. Then we're only .2mm off on either
size, and .2mm = .2/25.4 = .0079.

There's a considerable difference between .0079 and .0157 :-).

I once tried threading a 1" dowel (and it measured 1") with a threading
tool that claimed to be 1" but was 25mm. I had to turn down the dowel
on a lathe :-).


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
says...
There's a considerable difference between .0079 and .0157 :-).
In fact, it is different by a factor of 2. (That was a hint!)

The approach being discussed was to make one half-way between, and
sell it as a .0079" oversized 25mm chisel or a .0079" undersized 1"
chisel.

Ah, so. I guess I looked at the table headings and the halfway wasn't
apparent from that. I guess it's me that needs remedial reading :-).

But IIRC, my Sorby chisels are right on for one measurement - inches I
think, but it's been several years since I bought them and checked.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Tested the temper?

I reground the chisel on my 6" grinder with very light passes and some
soaking in water along the way. It was slow but the blade only got a
little bit warm to touch. I changed the angle to between 35 and 40
degrees and now it works much better. I can chop straight down 4 inches
of maple end grain many times and the blade edge does not crumple like
it did before.

Now I realize that when I flattened the back I probably was resposible
for making the back and front of the chisel out of parallel. When the
bevel is at right angles it is wider at one side. I measured the
thickness of the blade and it is about 0.01" thicker on one side. Maybe
the chisel came out of parallel but I think that is unlikely.

Is there a company out there that is set up to efficiently grind
chisels, plane blades? I'm sure any machine shop with a grinder could
do it but probably they would require quite a bit of set up time.

Peter

On 25 Apr 2005 17:07:42 -0700, the inscrutable
spake:

Tested the temper?

I reground the chisel on my 6" grinder with very light passes and some
soaking in water along the way. It was slow but the blade only got a
little bit warm to touch. I changed the angle to between 35 and 40
degrees and now it works much better. I can chop straight down 4 inches
of maple end grain many times and the blade edge does not crumple like
it did before.

Great!


Now I realize that when I flattened the back I probably was resposible
for making the back and front of the chisel out of parallel. When the
bevel is at right angles it is wider at one side. I measured the
thickness of the blade and it is about 0.01" thicker on one side. Maybe
the chisel came out of parallel but I think that is unlikely.

Oops! But front-to-back doesn't matter. It's that the cutting side is
perpendicular to the 2 sides and the sides are parallel to each other.


Is there a company out there that is set up to efficiently grind
chisels, plane blades? I'm sure any machine shop with a grinder could
do it but probably they would require quite a bit of set up time.

Check with your local sawblade sharpener. The sharpening guys usually
have a shop full of various tools do to most anything. One who does
plane blades might be the one to talk to.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Do. Or do not. * Stylin' Web Design Services
There is no try. --Yoda * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Larry,

BTW, Funny T-shirts.

Peter

On 25 Apr 2005 19:37:29 -0700, the inscrutable
spake:

Thanks Larry,

BTW, Funny T-shirts.

Thanks. Now buy some, or buy a NoteSHADE(tm) glare guard, eh?

I'll have the Possum(tm) and ToolRoo(tm) Handy Pouches up for
sale by the end of the week if all goes well. (My last sewing
company strung me out for 2 weeks, then gave all my materials
back to me saying she was too busy to make them. sigh)

The story on these tool pouches is that a metalworker posted his
wish list of things he wanted manufacturers to build. I found
it doable and interesting, then manufactured 3 for him. He loves
'em, so I'm going into production on the things. They're padded
tool pouches which fit onto any corded tool's cord (or can ring
onto a cordless), and they're large enough to hold all of the little
wrenches/bits/adapters which go with each tool to keep you from
searching all over the shop for them each time you use the tool. I'm
padding them for long life, and making them out of the same heavy-duty
materials the glare guards are made from. Polyester twill or
waterproofed 420 Denier ripstop nylon sheeting, closed cell foam, and
naugahyde or cotton binding. /sales pitch vbg


Oh, I forgot the last tip for you: Learn how to do all that
sharpening on your own. It is a skill you'll need and use for
the rest of your life. A good book to get you started or bring
your skill up a notch is Leonard Lee's "Complete Guide to Sharpening".
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...=1,43072,43091
There's one copy on Ebay for $3.99 with 5 days to go.
www.half.com has one for $10.59

Here are a dozen mo http://isbn.nu/1561581259


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Do. Or do not. * Stylin' Web Design Services
There is no try. --Yoda * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------

wrote in message
.com on Monday 25 April
2005 08:07 pm:


Is there a company out there that is set up to efficiently grind
chisels, plane blades? I'm sure any machine shop with a grinder could
do it but probably they would require quite a bit of set up time.

Peter

Nope, a good surface grinder hand is likely to have the finished product
back (front & back flat & parrallel in two directions, both bevels ground
to just short of a polish) in your hand in 5-10 minutes per chisel / blade.
A hand plane is just a chisel minus the tang for the handle. Due to their
size, a planer or shaper blade might take a bit more setup, but not much.

That's what sine plates are for. And that's a lot simpler work than they are
set up to do. Lay the chisel flat on the magnet to dress the front and
back. Then, two seconds with a calculator to calculate the jo-block stack,
a moment or two to wring the jo-blocks together, clean the table and sine
plate, clamp the chisel, place the sine plate, flip the magnet switch, turn
the grinder on & dress the wheel and go. Change the jo blocks for the
second angle but leave the blade clamped up and touch it again. Unclamp and
lay it flat on its back to knock the burr off against a bench stone.

Done.

Find a grinder hand. Slip him a green piece of paper and a bag of chisels,
wait a day or two and take him a beer. Or slip him a more generous token of
your esteem and ask him to cross-grind it for you. It'll be near-mirror and
so flat they stick together when you squeeze the air out between them.
Definitely overkill with no excuse for being done at all ... but bragging
rights, my friend. Definite bragging rights.

If you want one face or two concave, tell him before he begins. He'll be
able to provide a nice cupping directly proportional to the width of the
blade with only slightly more thought. I know I could ... and I wasn't even
officially a grinder hand.

Chisels don't come from the factory looking this good. They don't even look
this good in the marketing photos.

It isn't likely that you can walk into the front door of a machine shop and
get those chisels re-worked for anything less than a kings ransom. But
walking up to the guys sitting around the picnic table in back might prove
productive.

Bill

Bill and Larry,

Thanks for the info. I called a machine shop who said they could grind
a 7 x 16 inch magnetic grinder table full of plane blades for about $35
(1/2 hour shop time). The table will hold eight 2" wide stanley type
blades. That's only $5 per blade and seems like a pretty good deal. If
it is so affordable then why don't plane blade makers offer this as an
upgrade. And the machine shop said I should talk to the sharpening shop
across the street because they are always cheeper. I think I'll pay
them a visit soon.

I do not want to avoid sharpening. Even though I have a poor selection
of sharpening tools I do enjoy putting an edge on a blade. But
flattening backs of blades seems like a real pain in the elbows,
literally. Also I think a surface grinder will produce a flatter back.
The geometry of the process is just better. Maybe I just need better
sharpening equipment...like my own surface grinder. haha.

Thank again. I've learned a lot.

Peter

On 26 Apr 2005 19:15:53 -0700, the inscrutable
spake:

Bill and Larry,

Thanks for the info. I called a machine shop who said they could grind
a 7 x 16 inch magnetic grinder table full of plane blades for about $35
(1/2 hour shop time). The table will hold eight 2" wide stanley type
blades. That's only $5 per blade and seems like a pretty good deal. If
it is so affordable then why don't plane blade makers offer this as an
upgrade. And the machine shop said I should talk to the sharpening shop
across the street because they are always cheeper. I think I'll pay
them a visit soon.

Good idea. Be sure to note precisely what *really*sharp* feels like,
then you'll know how to reproduce it when sharpening things yourself.
I -thought- I knew for years, then I received a Pfeil gouge which was
one-atom-sharp. My Scary Sharpening(tm) techniques improved that day.


I do not want to avoid sharpening. Even though I have a poor selection
of sharpening tools I do enjoy putting an edge on a blade. But
flattening backs of blades seems like a real pain in the elbows,
literally. Also I think a surface grinder will produce a flatter back.
The geometry of the process is just better. Maybe I just need better
sharpening equipment...like my own surface grinder. haha.

Nah, all you need are a few sheets of Scarypaper(tm) and a diamond
plate. I use a 1" belt sander with a 120 grit belt to take off lots
of metal (flat grind, not hollow) or change angles, then go to the
2x6" DMT red diamond plate (600 grit), then to 1200 grit sandpaper,
then to a chromium dioxide-charged leather strop for final polish.
Total time for a blade (say an old Stanley #5) is about 10 minutes.
I hone on the 1200 + strop in between sharpenings (about 3 minutes).
If I spent more time working in the shop, I'm sure I'd do it quicker.


Thank again. I've learned a lot.

You're very welcome.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Do. Or do not. * Stylin' Web Design Services
There is no try. --Yoda * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------