In article .com, "Tom Watson" wrote:
Whap!

(sound of miller being klownhammered into...i was going to say
'insensibility' but that would be redundant, wouldn't it)

You need to clear your head.

Maybe you should take up a hobby.

I hear that woodworking is very relaxing.

Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, "Tom Watson" wrote:

Whap!

(sound of miller being klownhammered into...i was going to say
'insensibility' but that would be redundant, wouldn't it)

You need to clear your head.

Maybe you should take up a hobby.

I hear that woodworking is very relaxing.


Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.

Do we need a time out?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.

Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's raised
cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.

---
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06

In article , "Swingman" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.

Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's raised
cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.

Pot... kettle... black...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
In article "Swingman" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.

Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's
raised cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.

Pot... kettle... black...

Weak, but proves my point. Thanks!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06

In article , "Swingman" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
In article "Swingman" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.

Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's
raised cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.

Pot... kettle... black...

Weak, but proves my point. Thanks!

I think the real point that's proven here is that you can't handle it when
anybody disagrees with you -- and I think *that* particular horse has been
beaten enough.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
In article "Swingman" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
In article "Swingman" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.

Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's
raised cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.

Pot... kettle... black...

Weak, but proves my point. Thanks!

I think the real point that's proven here is that you can't handle it when
anybody disagrees with you -- and I think *that* particular horse has been
beaten enough.

Verb inoperative, or you would get it by now. Go ahead, Doug ... you can
have the last word. LOL

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:36:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

I agree more or less with your statements about removing cup... but I see you
have done nothing at all about bow...

If you think you're selecting stock that's already completely free of bow,
next time you head for the lumberyard you should visit the optometrist on the
way.

Douglas: There is an important point to be made here.

In fact, there are several important wooddorking points to be made.

A cabinet door represents perhaps the greatest challenge that most
dorkers will encounter, at least in the doing of casework - in the
regard of stock selection.

To my way of thinking it is hands above the difficulty of a dovetailed
drawer because that can actually be made out of twisted stock and
still work because the dovetails can boss around the twist.

A door attempts to be a plane. In a theoretical sense it is treated
as a plane. In point of fact, none of them are.

I have built and hung upwards of a thousand doors over the last
thirty- eight years and not one of them was truly planar to the
theoretical reference of same.

A door is an attempt at a plane that has one edge fixed via hinges to
the opening that it hopes to be planar to.

The hope of the joiner is that the allegedly planar door will
interface with the allegedly planar opening in a pleasing manner that
will allow the closing and catching hardware to work properly, the
hinges to run smoothly, and have the face of the door parallel
throughout to the face of the opening that it is intended to fit into.

He would also insist that the reveal be even and of the appropriate
width on all four edges.

That is an awful lot to ask out of an organic material that changes
its critical dimensions in response to heat, humidity, inherent
internal stresses, variations in coating chemistry and application,
heat gain and loss related to its position in the environment, the
mechanical value of the hinging, the mechanical value of the adhesive,
the geometry of the joinery, the mechanics of the installation
process, etc., etc, etc.

It is, in fact, an impossibility.

There isn't one door in your whole house, be it cabinet, entry or
interior that is planar to its opening at all times throughout a
seasonal cycle; yes, even if you live in a conditioned space.

Krenov can't do it. Frid can't do it. Marks can't do it. Norm - well,
Norm knows exactly what I'm talking about.

What is a poor dorker to do?

The dorker must apply wisdom.

Wisdom is different from knowledge in that it understands reality
rather than attempting to define or defy it. There are certain areas
of post-Newtonian physics that embrace this but I'm not going to bring
quarks into a discussion of quirks. I wouldn't want to bring a chisel
to a laser fight.

The dorker of course will seek to make his opening as planar as
possible and he will endeavor to make his door as planar as possible.

In order for a frame and panel door to be as nearly planar to the
theoretical reference as possible, there are a number of variables
that must be addressed.

The stock must be as free from the trinity of ugly as possible - that
is, it must not be crooked, it must not be cupped and it must not be
bowed.

YOU CAN NOT MAKE GOOD DOORS OUT OF STOCK THAT IS INHERENTLY CROOKED,
CUPPED OR BOWED.

The above is an absolute and is, therefore, a lie - to a point.

Jointing off the crook and jointing off the bow and cup will go a ways
towards a straight enough piece of stock to use for stiles and rails -
but it will not go as far as careful stock selection.

These modifications to the three uglies are temporary and are not to
be trusted.

A stick that suffers from any of the three uglies does so internally
and a modification of the exterior does not usually go to the heart of
the matter, if I may be a trifle arch.

Essentially and historically the traditional temporary modification of
the triune uglies has been done to prepare the stock for joinery.

Do you think that a rectilinear frame structure can achieve planarity
if the elements that comprise it are full of inherent internal
stresses?

Me neither.

YOU MUST BUY YOUR DOOR MATERIAL ALREADY PERFECT.

Well, you already know that this is at least an exaggeration and that
it probably borders on bull**** - but there is an interesting kernel
of truth to it.

You see, the surface treatment of the three uglies is like treating
the symptoms of a disease. You may experience temporary relief but,
if there is a serious underlying problem, you are only delaying the
inevitable.

The real solution is to have stock that is as disease free as
possible.

A thirty inch long door stile that is three inches wide can have a bit
of cup and it can have maybe a thirty-seconds worth of crook, and it
would still be acceptable. It can have a thirty-seconds worth of bow
and still be acceptable.

If it had any twist at all, it would not be acceptable.

THE REVELATION OF THE FOURTH UGLIE.

Twist is the fourth and most significant uglie. In a sense it is the
only uglie that is not able to be compensated for.

Look at your stock first for twist. Jointing will only make the twist
go away temporarily.

If you introduce it into your frame, it will add stress that is
unwanted and extremely detrimental.

You must use winder sticks on your stiles and rails once they have
been cut to rough width and length. Any that are markedly out need to
be used for something else.

ALL OF THE UGLIES CAN BE SEEN IN THE ROUGH.

Another exaggeration verging on a lie but still useful.

Your stile and rail stock should be selected from sticks that
demonstrate the virtues of lack of twist, lack of bow, lack of crook
and lack of cup - in that order.

I find that the best time to do this is when the sticks have been
moderately surfaced. To me this means that I have one flat face and
at least a skip planed second face - having one edge SLR1E lets me run
it through the saw and see what kind of springback I get - so that I
can judge crook.

Think of your stile and rail stock as you would your usual politician.
He can be a little crooked, a bit off plane, bowed a bit by unseen
forces - and he may still do your bidding adequately - but if he is
truly twisted - he must be rejected.


You know, I think that the above might make a good primer for newbies
and perhaps even the general run of dorkers. Unfortunately it is
buried in a thread that everyone has stopped reading long since.


Pity.



Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Swingman wrote:
: "Doug Miller" wrote in message

: Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
: contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.

: Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's raised
: cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.

Nonsense. The objections he's raised to your posts, and to
Watson's, are the opposite of
cavilling. They're to the point, objective, and factual.


You, on the other hand, suffer from the same problem
Doug Miller noted for Tom Watson, except
you've been doing it for a longer time, apparently.

-- Andy Barss

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:51:10 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Swingman wrote:
: "Doug Miller" wrote in message

: Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
: contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.

: Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's raised
: cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.

Nonsense. The objections he's raised to your posts, and to
Watson's, are the opposite of
cavilling. They're to the point, objective, and factual.


You, on the other hand, suffer from the same problem
Doug Miller noted for Tom Watson, except
you've been doing it for a longer time, apparently.

-- Andy Barss


Andy:

I know that you inhabit a world superior to his but I would recommend
that you look again at an old book by A.J. Ayer called Language, Truth
and Logic. If your Linguistics are not circumscribed to an analysis
of 0 and 1, it might be enjoyable for you to compare his notion of
facticity to yours.

Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:51:10 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Swingman wrote:
: "Doug Miller" wrote in message

: Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
: contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.

: Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's
raised
: cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.

Nonsense. The objections he's raised to your posts, and to
Watson's, are the opposite of
cavilling. They're to the point, objective, and factual.


You, on the other hand, suffer from the same problem
Doug Miller noted for Tom Watson, except
you've been doing it for a longer time, apparently.

-- Andy Barss


Andy:

I know that you inhabit a world superior to his but I would recommend
that you look again at an old book by A.J. Ayer called Language, Truth
and Logic. If your Linguistics are not circumscribed to an analysis
of 0 and 1, it might be enjoyable for you to compare his notion of
facticity to yours.


In Andrew's case it is doubtful whether Ayer would have much effect. The
prognosis for advance cases of anal rigor mortis, AKA "tightass", whereby
the convulsing sphincter further increases the detrimental effect of the
rarified air of academia on a brain embedded that far up, is devastating ...
as we've just observed.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06

In article , Tom Watson wrote:
[snip]

I have built and hung upwards of a thousand doors over the last
thirty- eight years and not one of them was truly planar to the
theoretical reference of same.

I've been trying to tell you that your stock isn't as flat as you think it
is...

[snip]

YOU CAN NOT MAKE GOOD DOORS OUT OF STOCK THAT IS INHERENTLY CROOKED,
CUPPED OR BOWED.

The above is an absolute and is, therefore, a lie - to a point.

Jointing off the crook and jointing off the bow and cup will go a ways
towards a straight enough piece of stock to use for stiles and rails -
but it will not go as far as careful stock selection.

And careful stock selection by itself doesn't go as far as careful stock
selection followed by careful stock preparation.

YOU MUST BUY YOUR DOOR MATERIAL ALREADY PERFECT.

Well, you already know that this is at least an exaggeration and that
it probably borders on bull**** - but there is an interesting kernel
of truth to it.

Agree on all counts. :-)

You see, the surface treatment of the three uglies is like treating
the symptoms of a disease. You may experience temporary relief but,
if there is a serious underlying problem, you are only delaying the
inevitable.

The real solution is to have stock that is as disease free as
possible.

Disagree -- that's a starting point, but it's not the solution. The solution
consists of starting there, and continuing by proper truing of the stock
because it is not in fact perfect.

A thirty inch long door stile that is three inches wide can have a bit
of cup and it can have maybe a thirty-seconds worth of crook, and it
would still be acceptable. It can have a thirty-seconds worth of bow
and still be acceptable.

True -- but a sixty-fourth, or zero, is better still, and not difficult to
achieve.

If it had any twist at all, it would not be acceptable.

[snip description of the evils of twist, with which I entirely agree]

ALL OF THE UGLIES CAN BE SEEN IN THE ROUGH.

Another exaggeration verging on a lie but still useful.

Your stile and rail stock should be selected from sticks that
demonstrate the virtues of lack of twist, lack of bow, lack of crook
and lack of cup - in that order.

Disagree again, but this time with your choice of words. Replace "lack of"
(which implies zero) with "minimal" and I won't argue, but (again) if you
think that your un-prepped stock truly *lacks* bow, crook, or cup, you need to
stop off at the optometrist's office first on your way to the lumberyard.

I find that the best time to do this is when the sticks have been
moderately surfaced. To me this means that I have one flat face

If you haven't jointed it, you DON'T have one flat face. It may be close to
flat, it may even be close *enough* to flat to satisfy you, or your customer,
or whomever... but it isn't flat. And yes, I know that even a jointed board
isn't perfectly flat.

and
at least a skip planed second face - having one edge SLR1E lets me run
it through the saw and see what kind of springback I get - so that I
can judge crook.

I submit that if you get enough springback that you can actually see it... you
should've left that board at the lumberyard.

Think of your stile and rail stock as you would your usual politician.
He can be a little crooked, a bit off plane, bowed a bit by unseen
forces - and he may still do your bidding adequately - but if he is
truly twisted - he must be rejected.

Interesting way of putting it. I'm afraid I'm not as tolerant of crooked or
bowed politicians -- or lumber -- as you seem to be, but it's an apt simile
just the same, particularly with respect to the twisted ones.

You know, I think that the above might make a good primer for newbies
and perhaps even the general run of dorkers. Unfortunately it is
buried in a thread that everyone has stopped reading long since.

Pity.

So post it in a separate thread...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:32:02 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

In Andrew's case it is doubtful whether Ayer would have much effect. The
prognosis for advance cases of anal rigor mortis, AKA "tightass", whereby
the convulsing sphincter further increases the detrimental effect of the
rarified air of academia on a brain embedded that far up, is devastating ...
as we've just observed.


Dunno about that, Swing.

Andy's a Semanticist and is thus tasked with the study of meaning.

Of course, there are different concepts of meaning.

He does seem to be lacking in the area of semiotics.

He prolly embraces the math end of symbology without hearkening back
to the roots of the term.

I'm guessing that Heidegger's concept of meaning as revelation is not
one of his usual haunts.

Wittgenstein might get close to his game in the Tractatus but much of
that is negated in the Blue and Brown.

One of my favorite dudes from my graduate school days, Maurice
Merleau- Ponty wrote in Le Structure du Comportement about how meaning
is so much a part of perception as to be indistinguishable from it.

I'm pretty sure Andy doesn't jive with that.





Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:54:22 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

some good stuff. some not so good stuff.

Hey you old bugger what you doing up so late!

If you would only eliminate the concept of "perfect" from your
mentality, I would be happier, and so would you.

"...it's only rock and roll but I like it, like it, yes I do..."



Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

In article , Tom Watson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:54:22 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

some good stuff. some not so good stuff.

Same as you...

Hey you old bugger what you doing up so late!

Same as you... and I'm pretty sure you're even older than I am.

If you would only eliminate the concept of "perfect" from your
mentality, I would be happier,

I doubt it...

and so would you.

...but you might be right there.

"...it's only rock and roll but I like it, like it, yes I do..."

Naaaahhh. With rare exceptions, Rachmaninoff and Barber among them, music
written much beyond the end of the nineteenth century is mostly crap.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:44:40 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


Naaaahhh. With rare exceptions, Rachmaninoff and Barber among them, music
written much beyond the end of the nineteenth century is mostly crap.


Did you know that Sam was born in my hometown of West Chester, Pa.

I went to school with his nieces and nephews.

I like the Adagio as much as anyone but there are some interesting
minor works that get overlooked. He lived in a house about a block
from Claude Rains, who didn't come from WC but everybody liked having
him around anyway.

Since you are such a perfectionist you must love brother Bach.

I have this perfectly awesome Bach recording that I listen to almost
every day that is by Christopher Hogwood doing the Goldberg
Variations.

If you don't have it, I want to send it to you.

I want to send it to everyone.


The seventh cut is a killer.


Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Gee, what a great thread! Us poor, ignorant, uneducated, unread
blue-collar working stiff types are cowering in shock and
awe before the searing wit, profound reason, and grand erudition
displayed by the protagonists in this enlightening discussion.


--
A man who throws dirt loses ground.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland -

In article ,
wrote:

Gee, what a great thread! Us poor, ignorant, uneducated, unread
blue-collar working stiff types are cowering in shock and
awe before the searing wit, profound reason, and grand erudition
displayed by the protagonists in this enlightening discussion.

Did you actually *read* any of it and *think* about it?

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:06:29 -0600, ()
wrote:


Gee, what a great thread! Us poor, ignorant, uneducated, unread
blue-collar working stiff types are cowering in shock and
awe before the searing wit, profound reason, and grand erudition
displayed by the protagonists in this enlightening discussion.


Careful with that axe, Eugene.

I made my living as a carpenter and a cabinetmaker.

Swingman builds and sells houses.

I'm pretty sure that Doug Miller is a pimp.

So, you see, you have no more blue in your collar than we.

So, do we pass the Wasserman test?



Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

In article 151120062319466166%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone. ca,
Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Gee, what a great thread! Us poor, ignorant, uneducated, unread
blue-collar working stiff types are cowering in shock and
awe before the searing wit, profound reason, and grand erudition
displayed by the protagonists in this enlightening discussion.

Did you actually *read* any of it and *think* about it?

That's not required on usenet.
--
A man who throws dirt loses ground.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland -

In article ,
Tom Watson wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:06:29 -0600, ()
wrote:


Gee, what a great thread! Us poor, ignorant, uneducated, unread
blue-collar working stiff types are cowering in shock and
awe before the searing wit, profound reason, and grand erudition
displayed by the protagonists in this enlightening discussion.


Careful with that axe, Eugene.

I made my living as a carpenter and a cabinetmaker.

Swingman builds and sells houses.

I'm pretty sure that Doug Miller is a pimp.

So, you see, you have no more blue in your collar than we.

we? We? WE? I'm glad to see that the 3 of you do have something in
common after all! I've no claim to more blue in my collar; In fact,
it could be argued that when it comes to certain other substances, you
guys possess _more_ of it than me.

So, do we pass the Wasserman test?

I hope there's never any reason for me to know that... I would just
advise that if one of you tests positive, the other 2 should probably
get tested as well.

(Just for the record, that Wassermann spelled his name with double
'n' at the end. No relation.)

[Please note profusion of s indicates humor rather than malice!]


--
A man who throws dirt loses ground.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland -

"Tom Watson" wrote in message

He does seem to be lacking in the area of semiotics.

Hell, BTDT ... helped an old lady cross the freeway yesterday and we had to
dodge a bunch of 'em.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06

In article , Tom Watson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:44:40 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


Naaaahhh. With rare exceptions, Rachmaninoff and Barber among them, music
written much beyond the end of the nineteenth century is mostly crap.


Did you know that Sam was born in my hometown of West Chester, Pa.

I went to school with his nieces and nephews.

Cool!

I like the Adagio as much as anyone but there are some interesting
minor works that get overlooked. He lived in a house about a block
from Claude Rains, who didn't come from WC but everybody liked having
him around anyway.

Since you are such a perfectionist you must love brother Bach.

Which one? :-)

Last spring, I read a book on Christian apologetics that contained a chapter
entitled "Twenty arguments for the existence of God." As I'm sure you suspect
from some of the things I've written in the past, I'm quite sympathetic with
the author's viewpoint, but to be quite honest I found most of his arguments
unconvincing at best, and many of them contained elementary logical fallacies
which rendered them utterly invalid. The one which seemed to me to have the
most merit was Number 17, reproduced here in its entirety: "There is the music
of Johann Sebastian Bach. You either see this or you don't."

Yes, I'm very fond of the music of J.S. Bach, and that of another composer who
wrote similarly complex music but is much less widely known: Henry Purcell.

However... in my mind, nothing surpasses the nine symphonies of Ludwig van
Beethoven.


I have this perfectly awesome Bach recording that I listen to almost
every day that is by Christopher Hogwood doing the Goldberg
Variations.

I'm familiar with the piece, of course, but not with that particular recording
of it, I don't believe.

If you don't have it, I want to send it to you.

I think you know where I live. :-)

I want to send it to everyone.


The seventh cut is a killer.

I'll see if I can lay my hands on a copy. Thanks.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Tom Watson wrote:

A cabinet door represents perhaps the greatest challenge that most
dorkers will encounter, at least in the doing of casework - in the
regard of stock selection.

To my way of thinking it is hands above the difficulty of a dovetailed
drawer because that can actually be made out of twisted stock and
still work because the dovetails can boss around the twist.

A door attempts to be a plane. In a theoretical sense it is treated
as a plane. In point of fact, none of them are.

I have built and hung upwards of a thousand doors over the last
thirty- eight years and not one of them was truly planar to the
theoretical reference of same.

A door is an attempt at a plane that has one edge fixed via hinges to
the opening that it hopes to be planar to.

The hope of the joiner is that the allegedly planar door will
interface with the allegedly planar opening in a pleasing manner that
will allow the closing and catching hardware to work properly, the
hinges to run smoothly, and have the face of the door parallel
throughout to the face of the opening that it is intended to fit into.

He would also insist that the reveal be even and of the appropriate
width on all four edges.

That is an awful lot to ask out of an organic material that changes
its critical dimensions in response to heat, humidity, inherent
internal stresses, variations in coating chemistry and application,
heat gain and loss related to its position in the environment, the
mechanical value of the hinging, the mechanical value of the adhesive,
the geometry of the joinery, the mechanics of the installation
process, etc., etc, etc.

It is, in fact, an impossibility.

There isn't one door in your whole house, be it cabinet, entry or
interior that is planar to its opening at all times throughout a
seasonal cycle; yes, even if you live in a conditioned space.

Krenov can't do it. Frid can't do it. Marks can't do it. Norm - well,
Norm knows exactly what I'm talking about.

What is a poor dorker to do?

The dorker must apply wisdom.

Wisdom is different from knowledge in that it understands reality
rather than attempting to define or defy it. There are certain areas
of post-Newtonian physics that embrace this but I'm not going to bring
quarks into a discussion of quirks. I wouldn't want to bring a chisel
to a laser fight.

The dorker of course will seek to make his opening as planar as
possible and he will endeavor to make his door as planar as possible.

In order for a frame and panel door to be as nearly planar to the
theoretical reference as possible, there are a number of variables
that must be addressed.

The stock must be as free from the trinity of ugly as possible - that
is, it must not be crooked, it must not be cupped and it must not be
bowed.

YOU CAN NOT MAKE GOOD DOORS OUT OF STOCK THAT IS INHERENTLY CROOKED,
CUPPED OR BOWED.

The above is an absolute and is, therefore, a lie - to a point.

Jointing off the crook and jointing off the bow and cup will go a ways
towards a straight enough piece of stock to use for stiles and rails -
but it will not go as far as careful stock selection.

These modifications to the three uglies are temporary and are not to
be trusted.

A stick that suffers from any of the three uglies does so internally
and a modification of the exterior does not usually go to the heart of
the matter, if I may be a trifle arch.

Essentially and historically the traditional temporary modification of
the triune uglies has been done to prepare the stock for joinery.

Do you think that a rectilinear frame structure can achieve planarity
if the elements that comprise it are full of inherent internal
stresses?

Me neither.

YOU MUST BUY YOUR DOOR MATERIAL ALREADY PERFECT.

Well, you already know that this is at least an exaggeration and that
it probably borders on bull**** - but there is an interesting kernel
of truth to it.

You see, the surface treatment of the three uglies is like treating
the symptoms of a disease. You may experience temporary relief but,
if there is a serious underlying problem, you are only delaying the
inevitable.

The real solution is to have stock that is as disease free as
possible.

A thirty inch long door stile that is three inches wide can have a bit
of cup and it can have maybe a thirty-seconds worth of crook, and it
would still be acceptable. It can have a thirty-seconds worth of bow
and still be acceptable.

If it had any twist at all, it would not be acceptable.

THE REVELATION OF THE FOURTH UGLIE.

Twist is the fourth and most significant uglie. In a sense it is the
only uglie that is not able to be compensated for.

Look at your stock first for twist. Jointing will only make the twist
go away temporarily.

If you introduce it into your frame, it will add stress that is
unwanted and extremely detrimental.

You must use winder sticks on your stiles and rails once they have
been cut to rough width and length. Any that are markedly out need to
be used for something else.

ALL OF THE UGLIES CAN BE SEEN IN THE ROUGH.

Another exaggeration verging on a lie but still useful.

Your stile and rail stock should be selected from sticks that
demonstrate the virtues of lack of twist, lack of bow, lack of crook
and lack of cup - in that order.

I find that the best time to do this is when the sticks have been
moderately surfaced. To me this means that I have one flat face and
at least a skip planed second face - having one edge SLR1E lets me run
it through the saw and see what kind of springback I get - so that I
can judge crook.

Think of your stile and rail stock as you would your usual politician.
He can be a little crooked, a bit off plane, bowed a bit by unseen
forces - and he may still do your bidding adequately - but if he is
truly twisted - he must be rejected.


You know, I think that the above might make a good primer for newbies
and perhaps even the general run of dorkers.

Thanks for the lesson.

Barry

Tom Watson wrote:

There isn't one door in your whole house, be it cabinet, entry or
interior that is planar to its opening at all times throughout a
seasonal cycle; yes, even if you live in a conditioned space.

Krenov can't do it.

Aha! So all those coopered doors were to find some use for the poorer
sticks in his collection.

What is a poor dorker to do?

The dorker must apply wisdom.

[Snip wisdom; it's all in Tom's post for anyone who missed it]

You know, I think that the above might make a good primer for newbies
and perhaps even the general run of dorkers. Unfortunately it is
buried in a thread that everyone has stopped reading long since.

Not hardly. Thanks, Tom. That's a keeper for sure.

Ken Muldrew

(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)

Swingman wrote:


: In Andrew's case it is doubtful whether Ayer would have much effect. The
: prognosis for advance cases of anal rigor mortis, AKA "tightass"

I'm a tightass because I corrected you when you were wrong, and
remarked on how coarse your language is? Hmmmm. Well, if that's
your definition of a tightass, then I guess I am one. Better than being
pigheaded and childishly crude?


, whereby
: the convulsing sphincter further increases the detrimental effect of the
: rarified air of academia on a brain embedded that far up, is devastating ...
: as we've just observed.


Where does all this antagonism come from? Do you think you're
being cool or something by making posts like this? Sheesh.


-- Andy Barss

Tom Watson wrote:

: He does seem to be lacking in the area of semiotics.

And thank goodness. Semiotics is vague twaddle.

: He prolly embraces the math end of symbology without hearkening back
: to the roots of the term.

"Symbology"? I think you think you know what you're talking about, but I
don't think you do.


: I'm guessing that Heidegger's concept of meaning as revelation is not
: one of his usual haunts.

: Wittgenstein might get close to his game in the Tractatus but much of
: that is negated in the Blue and Brown.

Been reading Wikipedia, have you? What a learned gent you must be!


-- Andy Barss

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:48:25 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Tom Watson wrote:


: Wittgenstein might get close to his game in the Tractatus but much of
: that is negated in the Blue and Brown.

Been reading Wikipedia, have you? What a learned gent you must be!


-- Andy Barss

My copy of The Blue and Brown Books is a Harper Torchbooks paperback
that is so old that the price (yes, I bought it new from the campus
book store) was only $1.95.

I was reading it (along with the Ayer book that I already recommended
to you) for an undergrad Logic course before you were born.

Wikipedia, my ass.


Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:22:47 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Tom Watson wrote:


Since you are such a perfectionist you must love brother Bach.

Which one? :-)


Big Daddy - and he really was a big daddy, wasn't he.


I ripped that cut from the CD and put it on my site so you could
check it out:

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/o...orage/bach.mp3



I said Goldberg but meant Brandenburg, and it's from Christopher
Hogwood and The Academy of Ancient Music's recording of Concertos (or
Concerti, as some of us old farts would still have it) 1 - 6.


Enjoy!


BTW - play that sucker as loud as you can stand it.




Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

In article , Tom Watson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:22:47 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Tom Watson
wrote:


Since you are such a perfectionist you must love brother Bach.

Which one? :-)


Big Daddy - and he really was a big daddy, wasn't he.

Twenty-one kids, if memory serves.


I ripped that cut from the CD and put it on my site so you could
check it out:

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/o...orage/bach.mp3

I'll have a listen to it as soon as I get the right-channel speaker working on
the computer again... thanks.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message

I'm a tightass because I corrected you when you were wrong,

Nope ... because you self-appointed yourself to make the unsuccessful
attempt.

And now, your talk, as with most talkers, is far forward of the deed.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06